Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, September 8, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

1 2 25 Records/Page
The current report was generated with data entered by Enrollees on the previous day.

Back to Main Page | Back to Top of Page
© 2024 State of California.

California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS 100.0) - Build N... https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicRepo rtSSOServ... 2 of 2 1/30/2025, 11:49 AM

9.j
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 209

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 8, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving the Permanence of the Greater East San Carlos Slow Streets Project and Authorizing the Public Works Director or his Designee to Issue and Record a Notice of Completion.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the permanence of the Greater East San Carlos Slow Streets Project (“Project”).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications and no additional appropriations are needed at this time. The cost to maintain the improvements from the Greater East San Carlos Slow Streets Project is being borne by the operating budget of the Public Works Department.

BACKGROUND:

On November 15, 2021, the City received a street closure petition from the Greater East San Carlos (GESC) neighborhood citing concerns with cut-through traffic.

Between November 2021 and December 2022, staff and professional engineering consultant, W- Trans, performed studies to evaluate existing conditions and potential solutions while performing extensive public outreach. Pre-installation traffic counts were collected in September 2022.

As a result, in February 2023, the City Council approved the plans and specification for the GESC Slow Streets Pilot Project at eight intersections along Old County and Industrial Roads, at McCue Avenue, and Cherry, Montgomery, and Hall Streets. The Project included pylons and signage stating “local traffic only”. The goals of the project were to (1) limit cut-through traffic, (2) decrease speed, and (3) increase safety.

In June 2023, construction was completed. As part of the project, the City installed high visibility crosswalk markings and new “no parking” zones, and created partial street closures at the eight intersections along Old County and Industrial Roads.

ANALYSIS:

After construction, staff monitored the effectiveness of the measures and collected counts in April 2024. Staff also collected feedback from the neighborhood throughout the pilot period and released a post-construction survey in January 2025.

10.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 210
Feedback from residents generally varied. Residents living between the intersections thought that the improvements had a positive impact. However, residents and businesses at the intersections found the project to have a negative impact due to loss of parking and driver confusion at entry points.

The traffic data showed that the project slightly decreased the amount of cut-through in the neighborhood. However, staff anticipate a greater impact in lessening cut-through once the developments in the East Side Innovation District Vision Plan are fully implemented.

At this time, staff recommend maintaining the GESC Slow Streets Project improvements in place.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the permanence of the Greater East San Carlos Slow Streets Project and authorizing the Public Works Director or his designee to issue and record a notice of completion; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

10.a
Packet Pg. 211 September 08, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. 2025 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

APPROVING THE PERMANENCE OF THE GREATER EAST SAN CARLOS SLOW

STREETS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEEE TO ISSUE AND RECORD A NOTICE OF COMPLETION.

WHEREAS, on November 15, 2021, the City received a street closure petition from the Greater East San Carlos (GESC) neighborhood citing concerns with cut-through traffic; and WHEREAS, between November 2021 and December 2022, staff and professional engineering consultant, W-Trans, performed studies to evaluate existing conditions and potential solutions while performing extensive public outreach; and WHEREAS, in February 2023, City Council approved the plans and specifications for the GESC Slow Streets Pilot Project at the eight intersections along Old County and Industrial Roads, at McCue Avenue and Cherry, Montgomery, and Hall Streets; and WHEREAS, the goals of the GESC Slow Streets Pilot Project were to limit cut-through traffic, decrease speed, and increase safety; and
WHEREAS, in June 2023, the project constructed high visibility crosswalk markings and new “no parking” zones, and created partial street closures at the eight intersections along Old County and Industrial Roads; and
WHEREAS, staff monitored the pilot improvements and collected traffic counts and feedback in April 2024 and January 2025, respectively; and WHEREAS, feedback from residents generally varied; and
WHEREAS, traffic data showed that the project slightly decreased the amount of cut- through in the neighborhood.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the San Carlos City Council hereby approves the permanence of the Greater East San Carlos Slow Streets Project and authorizes the Public Works Director or his designee to issue and record a notice of completion. * * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 8th day of September 2025 by the following vote:

10.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 212
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

10.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 213

3 4
4 1

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 8, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Receive a Presentation and Provide Direction on the Draft Northeast Area Specific Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council receive a presentation and provide direction on policies related to residential density, building height, public open space, community benefits, and nonconforming uses for inclusion in the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Funds for the Northeast Area Specific Plan process were appropriated by the City Council as part of the Adopted Mid-Cycle Budget Adjustment for fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 under Capital Improvement Project C2211 (Northeast Area Specific Plan). Based on direction received at this study session, staff will return to the City Council with a request to amend the existing contract with Perkins & Will for additional services related to the finalization of the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The Northeast Area Specific Plan is intended to be a comprehensive planning and policy document that establishes a long-term vision and guides growth in the Northeast Area over a 20- year period for approximately 145 acres on the eastside of San Carlos as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Map of the Northeast Area Specific Plan Boundaries

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 214

3 4
4 1
Following robust civic engagement with various stakeholders, a milestone was reached on February 12, 2024, when the City Council endorsed a preferred land use scenario for the Northeast Area Specific Plan. This key decision set forth land uses, including new residential uses, and expectations for building height, residential densities, and intensities for commercial, office, and industrial development. With this information, the project team established the development projections for the Northeast Area Specific Plan to the year 2045. Thereafter, the project team began developing goals, policies, and development standards and started to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

A complete draft Northeast Area Specific Plan was published in May 2025 for public review following civic engagement and meetings with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the City Council. To receive input on the draft Specific Plan, staff held study sessions with the PTC on April 2, 2025, and with the City Council on May 27, 2025. See Attachment 1 for meeting minutes summarizing the Council’s input from the May 27, 2025 meeting (see item 11a.).

The purpose of this study session is to receive further direction from the Council on several key components of the Specific Plan. The direction provided at this study session will then inform the necessary costs and additional timeline to complete the Specific Plan and associated EIR.

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS FROM MAY 27, 2025, STUDY SESSION:

On May 27, 2025, the Council received a presentation on the draft Northeast Area Specific Plan.

The Council provided a range of input during the meeting, addressing several key aspects of the Specific Plan. Council input is organized according to the Specific Plan chapters in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 below and includes staff’s responses, with key decision points highlighted in yellow.

Table 1. Land Use and Urban Form
City Council Input Staff Response

1. Increase the maximum residential
density and building height at the MU-
NE-90 block (owned primarily by G.W.

Williams).

Staff requests further direction. Tradeoffs,
benefits, base density estimates, and density
bonus law are discussed further below.

2. Increase the maximum bonus height of
270 Industrial Road (owned by Delta
Star).

Staff requests further direction. Tradeoffs
and benefits are discussed further below.

3. Increase minimum required retail
depths.

An increased required retail depth will be
evaluated and will be incorporated into the
Northeast Area Specific Plan.

4. Increase minimum public open space
requirements to support the creation of a
larger neighborhood park.

Staff requests further direction. Tradeoffs/
benefits and paths for implementing public
open space are discussed further below.

5. Reevaluate locations for active retail
corners.

Locations for active retail corners will be re-
evaluated and will be incorporated into the
Northeast Area Specific Plan.

6. Incorporate more flexibility for future Staff requests further direction. Policy

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 215

3 4
4 1
nonconforming uses. options for relaxing nonconforming use standards are discussed further below.

Table 2. Mobility and Parking
City Council Input Staff Response

1. Remove Public Works Director’s
authority for designation of curb uses.

This will be removed from the Northeast Area
Specific Plan.

2. Do not pursue a paid parking strategy in
the Northeast Area at this time and
explore alternative parking management
strategies first.

Paid parking will be referenced as a potential
future measure (to be determined by the
Council) within the broader framework of
parking management strategies.

3. Update vanpool and carpool parking
requirements.

Vanpool and carpool parking requirements will
be updated to reference the minimum state
requirements.

Table 3. Environmental Resilience
City Council Input Staff Response

1. Require purple pipe systems for new
developments to allow use of non-
potable recycled water.

This will be incorporated into the Northeast
Area Specific Plan.

2. Add a value statement prioritizing the full
remediation of contaminated sites
during redevelopment, rather than
relying on capping.

This will be incorporated into the Northeast
Area Specific Plan.

Table 4. Implementation Chapter
City Council Input Staff Response

1. Remove community benefits fee option
to emphasize preference for tangible
community benefits delivered in the
Northeast Area.

Staff requests further direction. Tradeoffs
and benefits are discussed further below.

ANALYSIS:

As summarized above, staff requests further Council direction on certain policies and standards highlighted above to guide the project team in finalizing the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

Tradeoffs, benefits, and other key considerations are provided for each policy or standard to guide the Council’s input.

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 216

3 4
4 1
Density and Height of MU-NE-90 Block (Owned Primarily by G.W. Williams) In the draft Northeast Area Specific Plan, the maximum density for the MU-NE-90 block (bound by Glenn Way, Taylor Way, Old County Road, and Bragato Road) is 90 units per acre, with a maximum height of 90 feet as shown in Figure 2 below. These limits are consistent with the preferred land use scenario endorsed by the City Council at its February 12, 2024 meeting. These limits also informed the maximum development projections, which is a realistic assumption of maximum buildout that will occur over the course of the 20-year Specific Plan horizon. The development projections estimate 1,890 new residential units and over 4.5 million square feet of nonresidential uses. These development projections then served as the basis for the Specific Plan’s traffic model and EIR, which is currently in progress.

Figure 2. Density Map Based on the Endorsement by the City Council on February 12, 2024

Tradeoffs and Benefits
Council’s request to consider increasing the maximum density at the MU-NE-90 site would allow additional residential units, furthering the Council’s Strategic Goal of housing production.

However, even under the current MU-NE-90 (90 units/acre) designation, developers may still seek increased residential units through State Density Bonus Law, which permits such requests in

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 217

3 4
4 1
exchange for the provision of affordable housing.

To illustrate the density the MU-NE-90 block could yield, Table 5 below estimates the maximum number of units assuming full redevelopment of the approximate 10.9-acre block. This table estimates the maximum number of base units (i.e. prior to density bonus) at 90 units per acre, and at an assumed maximum of 120 units per acre, which is the highest density permitted citywide. This table also estimates the additional units yielded through State Density Bonus law assuming a maximum 50% density bonus.

Table 5. Base Density and Density Bonus Estimates (G.W. Williams site) 90 Units per Acre
(Currently Proposed)
120 Units per Acre
(Example Scenario)
Max Base Density 981 Units 1,308 Units
Max with 50% Density
Bonus
1,472 Units 1,962 Units
Increasing the maximum density from MU-NE-90 to a higher density will require additional time and budget for additional work to amend development projections. The current development projections, which were based on the land use scenario endorsed by the City Council on February 12, 2024, were used to estimate the project’s traffic model and other associated technical studies as part of the EIR currently in progress. Accordingly, if the maximum density and development projects are increased, a corresponding increase in both budget and timeline would be required to allow for the various professional consultants to update their respective technical studies based on the revised projections.

Recognizing that additional residential units are already allowed through State Density Bonus law, one potential approach could be to increase the maximum building height but keep the maximum density at 90 units per acre. This approach would allow development projections to remain the same since maximum density would remain the same. The additional building height could allow larger housing units and allow better use of the ground floor for open space, for example, given the additional height. This is because a taller building would result in less of the land area being covered by the building’s footprint. Following the May 27, 2025 study session, staff met with G.W.

Williams representatives in July of 2025 (summarized further in the report). G.W. Williams expressed an interest of a maximum 200-foot (or more) building height, which would exceed height limits set by the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the San Carlos Airport.

Increasing the maximum building height would result in additional height closer to the Greater East San Carlos neighborhood, but would preserve land for open space between the buildings.

For reference, the southernmost corner of the MU-NE-90 block is approximately 355 feet away from the northernmost corner of the Greater East San Carlos neighborhood.

Considering the provisions of State Density Bonus law, and the tradeoffs and benefits outlined above, staff requests guidance from the Council on the question below:
Council Policy Question: For the MU-NE-90 block, does the Council support increasing the maximum building height, maximum density, or both?
Bonus Height for 270 Industrial Road (Owned by Delta Star) The Delta Star site at 270 Industrial Road site (located along Industrial Road, Taylor Way, and Glenn Way), would be rezoned to Production and Innovation (P-I) and would allow a maximum

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 218

3 4
4 1
base height of 75 feet. As shown in Figure 3 below, this site would be eligible for an additional 25 feet in bonus height, or up to 100 feet. Other P-I sites are eligible for additional bonus height to a maximum of 155 feet, which is the maximum height allowable under ALCUP for the San Carlos Airport. The purpose of the reduced bonus height limit for the Delta Star site is to provide a transition to lower-scale development to the south, including the adjacent mixed-use zones and the Greater East San Carlos (GESC) neighborhood.

Figure 3. Bonus Height Map from Draft Northeast Area Specific Plan Tradeoffs and Benefits
The City Council’s input was to consider increasing the bonus height of the Delta Star site to a maximum of 155 feet. One benefit of this change is that the maximum bonus height would be applied uniformly districtwide. However, this could result in taller development closer to the mixed- use zones and the GESC neighborhood to the south. Additional standards could be incorporated into the Specific Plan or at a project level to encourage building stepbacks and height reductions toward the mixed-use and GESC neighborhood.

Considering the trade-offs and benefits outlined above, staff requests guidance from the Council on the question below:
Council Policy Question: For the 270 Industrial Road site (owned by Delta Star), does the

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 219

3 4
4 1
Council support increasing the maximum bonus height to 155 feet? Publicly Accessible Open Space and City-Owned Public Open Space In recognition of the lack of open space in the district, the Northeast Area Specific Plan would set policies and requirements for various and ample forms of private, but publicly accessible open space that would be implemented through new developments.

The open space standards in the draft Specific Plan require that new developments located on sites greater than 15,000 square feet, but less than one acre, would be required to dedicate at least 10% of the total site area to publicly accessible open space. If located on a site greater than one-acre, new developments must dedicate at least 15% of the total site area to publicly accessible open space.

In addition to the various forms of private, publicly accessible, open space, the MU-NE-90 block (G.W. Williams) in particular is identified in the draft Specific Plan as a preferred site for a public open space amenity based on community input and past study sessions with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council. While the ability to acquire a public open space amenity (i.e. city-owned public park) and its exact location and design will be determined as part of a future development project, the draft Specific Plan outlines minimum criteria; specifically, that it shall be located at the ground level with direct access from a public street, not be closed off by a fence or gate; and be open to the public without charge.

Tradeoffs and Benefits
The City Council’s input was to evaluate the feasibility of increasing the minimum publicly accessible open space requirement to obtain a larger and contiguous neighborhood park in the city’s east side. Staff received similar input from stakeholders at an outreach meeting held after the May 27, 2025 City Council meeting, which is discussed further in the report.

To achieve more open space overall, one approach would be to increase the minimum public open space ratio for all parcels in the Specific Plan area. Another approach would be to establish a higher ratio aimed at larger sites (20% public open space on sites five or more acres, for example). The latter approach may help achieve a proportionally larger publicly accessible open space amenity for larger developments if it occurred on the entire MU-NE-90 block (e.g. G.W.

Williams site), for example. In both approaches, a clear benefit is that they could yield larger public open spaces throughout the district. These approaches are not mutually exclusive.

Full buildout of the Specific Plan is expected to yield other forms of publicly accessible open spaces aimed at delivering network of open space. Although they may not result in one large, contiguous, and publicly accessible open space amenity, they fulfill other objectives in the Specific Plan, such as capturing stormwater for resiliency, a creek-side trail, plazas, streets with green infrastructure, and shared pedestrian and bike paths spread throughout the district.

However, implementation of a new City-owned public park (or large, contiguous neighborhood park) cannot be guaranteed by any established regulatory requirement for residentially-zoned properties. A key factor for this uncertainty is state density bonus law. Under state density bonus law, housing projects that provide affordable housing are eligible for concessions and waivers, which permit deviations from local codes and development standards. These may include the reduction, elimination, or deviation from required public open space standards. The City could only deny the concession or waiver under narrowly defined circumstances, such as specific

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 220

3 4
4 1
adverse impacts to public health or safety.

To guarantee creation of a new large public park, the City must acquire land and develop the park, or have a developer agree to a land dedication through a development agreement process.

Developers may also agree to provide a privately-owned, public open space that could have a recreational feel (through Specific Plan standards), but is owned and maintained privately.

Nonetheless, because state density bonus law affords residential developers the option to deviate from any standard, there is no guarantee that a developer will implement a large neighborhood park. A developer may choose to comply with such a standard, but this will only be determined if and when a developer proposes to develop a residential project on the G.W. Williams site.

Considering the tradeoffs and benefits outlined above and recognizing the uncertainty of housing projects delivering public open space, staff request guidance from the Council on the question below:
Council Policy Question: Does the Council support increasing the publicly accessible open space requirement districtwide or for large sites (i.e. 20% for sites five or more acres), and should the Specific Plan include policies and actions directing the City to pursue purchasing land for the creation of a City-owned public park? Community Benefits Strategy
The community benefits approach incorporated into the draft Northeast Area Specific Plan allows developers of nonresidential projects to pay a community benefits fee, negotiate an agreement to provide the community benefit, or a combination of both. The proposed community benefits fee estimated by the project’s economic consultant is $20 per square foot of all floor area that exceeds the base floor area or is above the maximum base building height (whichever yields a higher fee).

This fee could include an escalator in its adoption, recognizing inflation costs and that development will occur over time.

The intent of this fee option approach was to provide developers with a higher degree of certainty, while ensuring the City will receive funds that it can use at its own discretion for investment in critical infrastructure and community amenities (such as park land acquisition) to support the growth contemplated in the Specific Plan or elsewhere, as needed.

Tradeoffs and Benefits
At the May 27, 2025 City Council study session, the Council expressed that in lieu of a fee option, the Council’s preference is for future developers to construct or provide the community benefit.

Given the discussion above regarding the uncertainty of acquiring a large public open space, a key consideration is that a fee option (paid by nonresidential developments) would provide the City with another funding source to achieve community benefits, such as providing a large public open space. Such funds could be used within the district or elsewhere in the city. Lastly, removing a fee option would require City staff to negotiate with developers project by project, which extends the planning entitlement process and adds cost to developers.

Considering the trade-offs and benefits outlined above, and recognizing the uncertainty of housing projects ability to deliver a large public open space, staff requests guidance from the Council on the question below:
Council Policy Question: Should the community benefits approach reconsider a fee option

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 221

3 4
4 1
as a strategy to provide a more certain path to implementation of community benefits? Nonconforming Uses and Structures
Following the May 27, 2025 City Council study session, staff received public comments and questions regarding the applicability of the Nonconforming Uses, Structures, And Lots Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 18.19) to future nonconforming uses in the Northeast Area.

Commentors generally advocated for greater flexibility for future nonconforming or grandfathering of uses recognizing the land use changes in the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

Potential Nonconforming Code Policies
In reviewing the existing code, below are potential policies that could be incorporated into the Northeast Area Specific Plan. These policies would only apply to sites in the Northeast Area and not citywide.

1. Increase the length of time in which a nonconforming use can be replaced with a nonconforming use before it must be replaced with a permitted use (currently a period of six months).

2. Require a minor use permit, instead of a conditional use permit, to re-establish a prior nonconforming use. This would reduce the cost and review period by requiring Zoning Administrator approval rather than Planning and Transportation Commission approval.

3. For buildings with multiple commercial tenants, prohibit the re-establishment of a nonconforming use only when the entire building or site has been abandoned, rather than based on the vacancy of individual tenant spaces.

Tradeoffs and Benefits
One benefit of creating more flexible approaches for nonconforming uses is that it pursues Specific Plan’s vision of preserving the existing industrial legacy. A corresponding tradeoff that such policies may prolong the timeline for transitioning industrial uses to other uses, including residential, thereby deferring potential redevelopment. Considering this tradeoff and benefit, staff requests guidance from the Council on the question below:
Council Policy Question: Does the Council support staff‘s recommended policies described above (numbers 1-3) for future nonconforming uses in the district? Timeline And Project Budget Extension
The consultant’s contract will need to be modified to address the substantive changes described above. The project consultant has prepared a scope amendment, cost estimate, and schedule needed to finalize the Northeast Area Specific Plan. The scope amendment also assumes returning to the Planning and Transportation Commission or the City Council with a second draft Specific Plan prior to consideration for adoption. A second draft was not previously scoped.

The scope of work includes options for finalizing the Specific Plan to address the Council’s input.

Staff and the consultant team request that the Council consider the timeline and cost estimate necessary to carry out the potential modifications described above. Following this study session, staff will return to the City Council to request a contract amendment for additional services needed

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 222

3 4
4 1
to finalize the Specific Plan. Below is a summary of each option and the additional scope items:

1.Option 1: No changes to maximum height or density for Delta Star and the MU-NE-90 Sites.
a. Extend project management
b. Incorporate minor edits to the Specific Plan from the May 27, 2025 study session c. Update the community benefits strategy
d. Evaluate increasing public open space
e. No changes to development projections

2.Option 2: Increase maximum heights only for the Delta Star and MU-NE-90 Sites. a. All scope items included in Option 1
b. Increase maximum building height at MU-NE-90 (G.W. Williams) site c. Increase maximum bonus height at 270 Industrial Road (Delta Star) site d. Minor text updates to Environmental Impact Report

3.Option 3: Increase maximum heights and density for the Delta Star and MU-NE-90 Sites. a. All scope items included in Option 1
b. Increase maximum building height and maximum density at MU-NE-90 (G.W.

Williams) site
c. Increase maximum bonus height at 270 Industrial Road (Delta Star) site d. Update development projections
e. Update traffic model
f. Comprehensive updates to Environmental Impact Report Table 6 below summarizes the added budget and timeline necessary to finalize the Northeast Area Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report for adoption. Staff would note that the added budget would be in addition to the approved total budget of $1,550,000.

Table 6. Cost Estimate and Timeline Summary
Option 1:

No changes to
maximum height or
density.

Option 2:

Increase maximum
height only
Option 3:

Increase maximum
height and density
Cost Estimate $79,136 $103,217 $290,777
Timeline Through spring 2026 Through spring 2026 Through summer 2026 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING:

Following the May 27, 2025 City Council study session, staff evaluated potential modifications to incorporate into the next draft of the Specific Plan. Staff also conducted focused outreach with stakeholders who would be most affected by these changes, including G.W. Williams and members of the Greater East San Carlos neighborhood. See Attachment 2 for all public comments submitted to staff since the May 27, 2025 Study Session.

Meeting with G.W. Williams

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 223

3 4
4 1
On July 2, 2025, City staff met with representatives of G.W. Williams, who own a substantial portion of the MU-NE-90 site. G.W. Williams expressed concern that a maximum building height of 90 feet would not result in economically viable redevelopment due to construction costs and revenue generated by existing uses. G.W. Williams was thus in favor of increasing the maximum building height to upwards of 200 feet. Staff note that the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the San Carlos Airport establishes a maximum building height of 155 feet (above mean sea level) for the Northeast Area. Any exception to this height limit is under the reviewing authority and criteria of the ALUCP and the Federal Aviation Administration.

For detailed notes from the meeting with G.W. Williams, see Attachment 3.

Meeting with Greater East San Carlos Board Members
On July 8, 2025, City staff met with members of the Greater East San Carlos (GESC) Board given the proximity of the GESC neighborhood to the Northeast Area. The discussion with members of the GESC Board focused primarily on a future public park in the Northeast Area. GESC Board members were amenable to an increased residential density and height for the G.W. Williams block provided the increased height stepped down toward the GESC neighborhood, and that open space should be increased and accessible to the public.

For detailed notes from the meeting with members of the GESC Board, see Attachment 4.

NEXT STEPS:

Following the City Council study session and direction received from the Council on September 8, 2025, staff will return to the Council for a request to amend the project’s contract for the additional services required to finalize the Northeast Area Specific Plan. Staff and the consultant team will then finalize the Northeast Area Specific Plan based on the approximate timeline summarized above.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

Based on the policy considerations outlined above, staff request the Council’s guidance on the following discussion questions:

1. For the MU-NE-90 block, does the Council support increasing the maximum building height, the maximum density, or both?

2. For the 270 Industrial Road site (owned by Delta Star), does the Council support increasing the maximum bonus height to 155 feet?

3. Does the Council support increasing the publicly accessible open space requirement districtwide or for large sites (i.e. 20% for sites five or more acres), and should the Specific Plan include policies and actions directing the City to pursue purchasing land for the creation of a City-owned public park?

4. Should the community benefits approach reconsider a fee option to provide a more certain path to implementation of community benefits?

5. Does the Council support staff‘s recommended policies for future nonconforming uses in the district?

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 224

3 4
4 1
ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Provide input to staff and the consultant team on the Northeast Area Specific Plan; or

2. Do not provide input to staff and the consultant team on the Northeast Area Specific Plan; or

3. Provide alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Al Savay, Community Development Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Meeting Minutes from the City Council Study Session on May 27, 2025

2. Public Comments as of May 2025

3. G.W. Williams Meeting Summary

4. GESC Board Meeting Summary

5. Courtesy Notice Affidavit

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 225

May 27, 2025 1

San Carlos City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority Regular Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
May 27, 2025 7:00 p.m.

MINUTES

ROLL CALL

City Council Present: Sara McDowell, Mayor
Pranita Venkatesh, Vice Mayor
John Dugan, Councilmember
Neil Layton, Councilmember
Adam Rak, Councilmember

Staff Present: Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
Baraka Carter, Fire Chief
Janice Cheung, Fire Marshal
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Principal
Greg DaCunha, Deputy Fire Chief
Sajuti Haque, Economic Development and Housing Manager
Emma Licko, Recreation Coordinator
Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Amy Newby, Parks and Recreation Director
Gregory Rubens, City Attorney
Al Savay, Community Development Director

1. CALL TO ORDER

Mayor McDowell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

None.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor McDowell called the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

City Manager Jeff Maltbie noted that while there are no changes to the order of the agenda, an update will be provided under the Consent Calendar.

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 226

May 27, 2025 2

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

None.

6. PRESENTATIONS

a. Present Proclamations Recognizing May 2025 as Mental Health Month and Recognizing Eva Greenebaum and Aditya (Tiko) Gupta for Their Contributions.

Mayor McDowell presented proclamations recognizing May 2025 as Mental Health Month and recognizing Eva Greenebaum and Aditya (Tiko) Gupta for their contributions to mental health awareness in San Carlos.

Both Mr. Gupta and Ms. Greenebaum expressed their gratitude for the recognition and thanked the city staff and the Youth Advisory Council for their support in making these events successful.

They emphasized the importance of ongoing commitment to mental health initiatives in the community.

Councilmember Dugan commended the entire Youth Advisory Council for their efforts, particularly highlighting the teen wellness events and the trivia night at the Adult Community Center.

Mayor McDowell emphasized the importance of normalizing conversations about mental health among teenagers and praised the youth for their efforts to spread knowledge and support among their peers.

b. Present Proclamations Recognizing 2025 San Carlos Centennial Art Contest Winners Ellora Mehta, Sophia Jubb, Harper Marek, and Kristen Skaff.

Mayor McDowell presented proclamations recognizing the winners of the 2025 San Carlos Centennial Art Contest, reading each one aloud to highlight their artwork and their connection to San Carlos. Ellora Mehta received the grand prize for her piece titled City of Good Living, Sophia Jubb was awarded first place, Harper Marek received second place, and Kristen Skaff was awarded third place.

7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Council expressed their appreciation for the successful Hometown Days celebration, praising the event as a fantastic tribute to the city’s centennial.

Vice Mayor Venkatesh also congratulated Mayor McDowell on receiving the To ny Hoffman Community Mental Health Services Award, presented to her on behalf of the San Mateo County Mayor Mental Health Initiative.

Council Member Rak added congratulations to Mayor McDowell for her leadership in mental health initiatives. He also thanked Bob from the softball organization for the improvements at Burton Park and expressed appreciation for the Children's Theatre's community show of Mary Poppins, which was supported in part by a grant from the centennial committee.

Mayor McDowell thanked the Parks and Recreation Department and the Sister Cities Association in hosting a delegation from Omura, Japan. She shared that she had recently recognized three Girl Scouts who earned the Gold Award, expressing hope they would be honored in our Council Chambers in the future. She also highlighted the progress of the San Mateo County Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative, including the rollout of Mental Health First Aid trainings countywide.

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 227

May 27, 2025 3

8. PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR

Parks and Recreation Director Amy Newby provided two updates to the Agreement in Item J – Joint Use Agreement with the School District:
- in Section F, revise the language to reflect that the School District, not the City, is responsible for the procurement and contracting of school crossing guard services. - at the end of Section F, add the following sentence: “The District shall not amend the locations of the Crossing Guard Program without prior consultation with the City.”

Pubic Comment
- Jennifer Gaboury, Chief Operations Officer of the San Carlos School District, spoke in support of the Joint Use Agreement under I tem J and expressed appreciation for the strong City –District partnership and the collaborative efforts of staff and subcommittee members.

- Tracy Park, resident and P resident of San Carlos School Board, spoke in support of I tem J and thanked the city for their collaborative effort and expressed appreciation for the continued support of the Crossing Guard Program.

Council Member Layton commended staff for the early payoff of the Library Bond (Item F).

MOTION: Adopt City Council Consent Calendar Items ‘ A’ through ‘ L’; with reported amendments to Item ‘J’ and
Item ‘M’ - Adopting Ordinance No. 1622 Approving the Alexandria Center for Life Science Planned Development Plan, Master Sign Program and Related Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone the Project Site from Heavy Industrial to Planned Development at 900 and 960 Industrial Road; 961- 967, 987, 1003, 1011, 1015, 1057 and 1075 Commercial Street; and 915, 921, 1015, 1055 and 1063 Old County Road (APNs 046- 162-010, 046- 162-210, 046- 162-270, 046- 162-280, 046-162-290, 046-184-090, 046-184-110, 046-184-120, 046-184-280, 046-184- 290 and 046-184-300); and
Item ‘n’ - Adopting Ordinance No. 1623 Approving a Development Agreement with the Alexandria Real Estate Equities, for the Alexandria Life Science Campus Project.

MOVER: Rak
SECONDER: Dugan
AYES: Dugan, Layton, Rak, Venkatesh, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.

b. Approve the City Council April 14, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes.

c. Approve the City Council April 28, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes.

d. Accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Third Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2025.

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 228

May 27, 2025 4

e. Accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 -25 Third Quarter Investment Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2025.

f. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Early Payoff of the General Obligation Refunding Bonds (Bonds) for the Library and the Transfer of the Remaining Fund Balance in the Library Debt Service Fund (Fund 0093) into the General Capital fund (Fund 0025). Resolution 2025 - 041

g. Adopt a Resolution Awarding the 2025 Pavement Maintenance Project C9416; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Public Projects Agreement with Roadway Construction Inc. in the Amount of $1,488,148.10; and Authorizing the Expenditure of a 20% Contingency in the Amount of $297,630 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Project Cost of $1,785,778.10. Resolution 2025 - 042

h. Adopt a Resolution Rejecting All Bids for the Second Floor City Hall Remodel Project C2414.

Resolution 2025 - 043

i. Adopt a Resolution Awarding the 2025 Sewer System Root Foaming Project C1752; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Public Projects Agreement with Duke’s Root Control, Inc. of Elgin, Illinois in the Amount Of $140,963.68; and Authorizing the Expenditure of Contingency up to the Project Budget of $33,986.32 for a Total Not -to- Exceed Contract Amount of $174,950.

Resolution 2025 - 044

j. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Joint Use Agreement between the City of San Carlos and the San Carlos School District for Shared Facility Use, Field Maintenance, and Crossing Guard Program. Resolution 2025 – 045 with amendments reported by Ms.

Newby

k. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Amended Project Proposal for The Children’s Place’s Request for Grant Funding to Utilize Funds Collected through the Childcare Development Impact Fees. Resolution 2025 - 046

l. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Second Sewer Connection for 1235 Edgewood Road, Unincorporated Redwood City, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 058-040-310. Resolution 2025 - 047

m. Adopt Ordinance 1622 Approving the Alexandria Center for Life Science Planned Development Plan, Master Sign Program and Related Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone the Project Site from Heavy Industrial to Planned Development at 900 and 960 Industrial Road; 961 -967, 987, 1003, 1011, 1015, 1057 and 1075 Commercial Street; and 915, 921, 1015, 1055 and 1063 Old County Road (APNs 046-162-010, 046-162-210, 046-162-270, 046-162-280, 046-162-290, 046-184-090, 046-184-110, 046-184-120, 046-184-280, 046-184-290 and 046-184-300).

n. Adopt Ordinance 1623 Approving a Development Agreement with the Alexandria Real Estate Equities, for the Alexandria Life Science Campus Project.

10. NEW BUSINESS

a. Consideration of Appointing Six Youth Advisory Council (YAC) Voting Members for the 2025 -27 Term, Two Alternate YAC Members for the 2025 -26 Term, and Recognizing Five Retiring YAC Voting Members.

Parks and Recreation Director Amy Newby introduced Emma Licko , Recreation Coordinator of Youth Development. Ms. Licko presented the recommended Youth Advisory Council appointments and recognized the five retiring members – Sufiya Kaul, Dylan Karmin, Cecily Mock, Zuri Kadiwar, and Saba Rahimi.

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 229

May 27, 2025 5

MOTION: Appoint Karan Sangani, Aditya (Tiko) Gupta, Keira Nayberg, Avi Cancilla, Vir Rao, and Johan Sijp as Youth Advisory Council Voting Members for the 2025-27 Term; and Doris Lin as Youth Advisory Council Member Alternate 1 and Connor Huh as Youth Advisory Council Member Alternate 2 for the 2025-26 Term.

MOVER: Venkatesh
SECONDER: Rak
AYES: Rak, Dugan, Layton, Venkatesh, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

City Clerk Crystal Mui administered the Oath of Office to the newly appointed members.

b. Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Retitling and Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Section 15.04.110 F (6)(a) to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Local Responsibility Areas as Recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Pr otection Pursuant to Government Code Section 51178.

Deputy Fire Chief Greg DaCunha introduced the item and turned the presentation over to Fire Marshal Janice Cheung, who outlined key updates to the San Carlos Local Responsibility Area maps and responded to questions from the Council.

Mayor McDowell directed staff to share this information with the community to ensure residents are informed about the downgrade in fire risk classifications.

MOTION: Introduce Ordinance No. 1624 Retitling and Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Section 15.04.110 F (6)(a) to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Local Responsibility Areas as Recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Pursuant to Government Code Section 51178.

MOVER: Dugan
SECONDER: Rak
AYES: Venkatesh, Rak, Dugan, Layton, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

11. STUDY SESSION

a. Receive a Presentation and Provide Input on the Northeast Area Specific Plan Public Draft.

Senior Planner Rendell Bustos commenced the item with an introduction of the Northeast Area Specific Plan (NEASP) public draft and turned the presentation over to Consultant Mark Asnis to present an overview of the proposed changes to the plan, and Consultant Dena Belzar to present on the community benefits program.

Public Comment
- Carolyn Shepard, President of Solutions for Supportive Homes, spoke on the need for housing for individuals with mental health disabilities and requested that this population be included in the housing proposed in the NEASP.

- Leslie Wambach, an advocate with the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and Solutions for Supportive Homes, echoed Ms. Shepard’s call for housing for individuals with disabilities and provided a handout with information on Permanent Supportive Housing.

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 230

May 27, 2025 6

- Sean Williams, with GW Williams Company, noted that redevelopments aren’t viable with the current constraints and request Council consider allowances for higher heights.

- Todd Trekell, with Hunter Properties , spoke against the proposed changes to the legal nonconforming businesses and the 35-foot setback along Belmont Creek.

- Sam Herzberg, resident and member of the Greater East San Carlos Neighborhood, expressed strong support for the Northeast Area Specific Plan, urging consideration of recycled water infrastructure, added green space, an eastside community center, a potential public-private pool partnership, and retail-focused community engagement, and raised questions about the Hetch Hetchy pipeline upgrades.

Council recessed at 8:59 p.m., and reconvened at 9:05 p.m.

Mr. Bustos, Deputy Fire Chief Greg DaCunha, Mr. Asnis, Community Development Director Al Savay, Transportation Consultant Alex Mercuri, and Advance Planning Manager Lisa Porras responded to Council questions.

MOTION: At 10:14 p.m., Extend the Meeting to 11:30 p.m.

MOVER: Rak
SECONDER: McDowell
AYES: Layton, Venkatesh, Rak, Dugan, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

Council provided the following feedback and directions in these categories:

Land Use and Urban Form

- Increase the public open space requirements to support the development of a larger neighborhood park.
- Reconsider where the active retail corners are placed. - Consider increasing the maximum height and density of the MU-NE-90 zone. - Update nonconforming uses to incorporate a health and safety provision to allow for improvements to address life safety concerns.

Mobility and Parking
- Clarify Section 5.4.2b.i on page 135 of the Plan to ensure it clearly states that up to 100% of on-site parking may be publicly accessible.
- Direct the City Attorney to evaluate whether the municipal code can be updated to remove outdated requirements for reserved vanpool and EV-only parking spaces, and clarify what is mandated by state law versus what is locally discretionary. - Avoid duplicating existing programs by requiring entities to create new Guaranteed Ride Home services; instead, encourage the use of existing programs such as those offered by Commute.org.
- Do not pursue paid parking in the area at this time; instead, first explore alternative parking management strategies.
- Balance parking solutions that support both residents and businesses without leading to spillover into surrounding neighborhoods.
- Concerns were raised regarding the proposed road diet on Industrial Road.

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 231

May 27, 2025 7

Environmental Resilience
- When the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is released, provide Council with an update summarizing quantifiable data on trip reductions and greenhouse gas impacts to help assess the benefits of the proposed mixed-use plan.
- Add a value statement to the plan prioritizing the full remediation of contaminated sites during redevelopment, rather than relying on capping.
- Require the installation of purple pipe infrastructure for new developments to support recycled water use.

Implementation and Community Benefits
- Confirm that the reference to “Cannabis Microbusiness” on page 105 of the Plan does not include retail sales.
- Explore opportunities to create more substantial green space in the area, potentially by leveraging development incentives or community benefit agreements. - Emphasize a preference for tangible community benefits that are directly tied to the project area, rather than relying solely on monetary contributions, and maintain flexibility to adjust priorities as community needs evolve.

Staff and consultants were directed to incorporate the council's feedback and return with an updated plan for future consideration.

12. PUBLIC HEARING

a. Consideration of Accepting a Report on the City of San Carlos Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Trends (AB 2561).

Administrative Services Director Rebecca Mendenhall presented on the city's workforce vacancies, recruitment, and retention trends as required by Assembly Bill 2561.

Public Comment
None.

MOTION: Close the Public Hearing.

MOVER: Dugan
SECONDER: Rak
AYES: Dugan, Layton, Venkatesh, Rak, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

MOTION: Accept the Report on the City of San Carlos Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Trends (AB 2561).

MOVER: Dugan
SECONDER: Rak
AYES: Rak, Dugan, Layton, Venkatesh, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

b. Consideration of Adopting Resolutions Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset Project; and Adopting the Amendments to the 2030 City of San Carlos General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Cir culation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element.

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 232

May 27, 2025 8

Senior Management Analyst Akanksha Chopra and Principal Consultant Steve Noack from Placeworks presented the 2045 General Plan Reset project and the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Public Comment
None.

MOTION: Close the Public Hearing.

MOVER: Rak
SECONDER: Dugan
AYES: Venkatesh, Rak, Dugan, Layton, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

MOTION: Adopt Resolution 2025-048 Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset Project.

MOVER: Layton
SECONDER: Rak
AYES: Layton, Venkatesh, Rak, Dugan, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

MOTION: Adopt Resolution 2025 -049 Adopting Amendments to the 2030 City of San Carlos General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element as Part of the 2045 General Plan Reset Project.

MOVER: Rak
SECONDER: Venkatesh
AYES: Dugan, Layton, Rak, Venkatesh, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

13. AGENDA SETTING

None.

14. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor McDowell adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 233

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 234

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 235

July 15, 2025 Dear Members of the City Council, The GESC Board met with City staff on July 8, 2025, to have a follow-up meeting regarding the proposed

higher

density

number

buildings

the

Plan.

Based

that

discussion,

were

asked

Community

Development

Director

Savay

formally

submit

our

comments

the

City

Council.

The GESC Board believes there needs to be some consideration of the following: 1) Define the community benefit in the NE Plan community benefits as a large park and not a

patchwork

small

open

spaces,

had

been

previously

proposed.
a) GW Williams presented a vision for a plaza, not a park, to the City Council, a concept

that

was

also

shared

with

the

GESC

Board.

However,

this

proposal

does

not

reflect

the

type

community

benefit

the

Council

discussed

when

considering

new

park

the

property

during

the

recent

review

the

Plan.
2) Increase the park acreage from 2 to 3 acres if new density bonuses are considered in the

Plan

area.

The

community

benefit

should

clearly

defined

park,

and

not

plaza.

plaza

would

primarily

benefit

the

local

businesses

and

not

provide

the

community

benefits

GESC

residents.

There

deficit

available

park

space

the

east

side

the

fields

Laureola

Park

are

consistently

reserved

youth

sports

teams,

preventing

kids

within

the

neighborhood

from

using

the

space.

a) The Park Master Plan proposed a community center concept at Burton Park and a

swim

center

Laureola

Park,

and

the

City

has

not

engaged

the

residents

the

GESC

regarding

proposed

new

uses

Laureola

Park

for

potential

new

park

the

Williams

property.
b) The City should ensure that the Park Master Plan includes improvements to both parks

the

East

Side,

and

request

that

the

new

proposed

park

and

Laureola

Park

both

included

the

Parks

master

plan

and

planned

for

amenities

for

both

parks.

3) The 15% open space requirement for new developments in the NE Plan, particularly those

receiving

density

bonuses,

should

re-evaluated.

Instead

each

developer

contributing

15%

their

parcel

small

open

space

their

property,

effective

strategy

would

contribute

those

funds

general

park

fee

for

the

Plan,

helping

develop

single

large

park

the

MU-NE-90

zoned

property.
a) The City’s Park Master Plan, which was recently presented to the City Council, did

not

include

the

proposed

2-acre

park

the

Williams

property

proposed

for

MU-NE-90

zoning.

would

see

this

new

park

included

the

City’s

Park

Master

Plan.

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 236

4) If density bonuses are approved, the developments should also tier away from the neighborhood,

pyramid,

with

lower

heights

current

height

levels

(south)

and

increased

bonus

heights

155’

further

away

from

the

neighborhood

(north)

reduce

additional

impacts

GESC

residents.
a) Bonus height limits of up to 155 feet have been proposed for MU-NE-90, P-1, and

zoning.

These

proposed

heights

far

exceed

anything

that

has

been

shared

the

planning

sessions

and

community

outreach

meetings

for

the

Northeast

Plan.

These

heights

are

55-80

feet

beyond

what

was

shared

the

Northeast

Plan,

which

significant

difference.

5) While no new height bonuses are proposed in the high-density residential zoning (MU-NE-75),

additional

tiering

away

from

the

neighborhood

should

considered,

which

may

increase

the

number

available

units

but

reduce

the

dramatic

increase

height

currently

proposed.

The

gradual

tiering

will

less

impactful

residents.

Director

Savay

indicated

would

engage

the

proposed

developers

see

this

would

possibility.
6) While City staff intends to conduct outreach to GESC residents regarding the proposed density

bonuses

(as

noted

item

1 above),

that

conversation

should

include

discussion

the

associated

community

benefits—specifically,

the

proposed

park

and

recreational

amenities

intended

for

both

the

neighborhood

and

future

Plan

residents.

To ensure a comprehensive development approach, the City should ensure that the Northeast Developments

are

planned

thoughtful

and

strategic

with

the

Parks

Master

Plan,

traffic

planning,

parking

planning,

and

ensuring

that

all

the

amenities

and

possible

safety

concerns

are

planned

for

ensure

inclusion

and

strategic

development

for

the

city

and

GESC.

We appreciate the ongoing dialogue between staff and the GESC Board about these issues and your

consideration

our

feedback.

Thank you, Sam Herzberg and Jennifer Rosse, Co-Presidents Greater East San Carlos Board CC: City Staff - Al Savay, Amy Newby, Lisa Costa Sanders, and Rendell Bustos Greater East San Carlos Board - Daniel Zizmor, Ben Fuller, Dimitri Vandellos, Scott Marsters,

Caroline

Tudor,

Jeff

Maley,

Danny

Nguyen,

Max

Schneider,

and

Rosario

Fernandes

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 237

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 238

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 239

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 240

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 241

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 242

Meeting with GW Williams
July 2, 2025

Attendees

GW Williams: Sean Williams, Andrew Crabtree
City of San Carlos: Al Savay, Lisa Porras, Sajuti Haque, Rendell Bustos Perkins&Will: Geeti Silwal

GW Williams Questions and Input

1. A maximum height of 90 feet does not pencil-out financially. A project will not pencil until the height approaches 200 feet.

2. We own the sites on this block based on a tax assessment from the 1970s.

Redeveloping the site would reset the tax assessment.

3. The economics should factor the removal of existing business park that generates income.

4. Would increasing the height increase the density?

5. What are the goals of the Specific Plan?

6. The Oracle project is over 155 feet. We are willing to talk to the FAA.

7. A taller project could be more viable in that it could result in more open space, more views from the units, and more value to the district.

8. No one is building at 120 feet due to construction types. Projects that are (5) five over (2) two (stories) do not pencil.

9. We can provide our estimates for what we believe pencils financially.

10. Have you considered another pass-through under the Caltrain berm to assist with traffic flow?

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 243

Meeting with Greater East San Carlos (GESC) Board
July 8, 2025

Attendees

GESC Board: Rosario Fernandez, Sam Herzberg, Scot Marsters, Daniel Zizmor City of San Carlos: Al Savay, Lisa Porras, Sajuti Haque, Rendell Bustos Perkins&Will: Geeti Silwal

GESC Board Questions and Input

1. We need to consider community benefits other than just open space, such as a new park, community building, pool, ballfields etc. Make sure the open space is connected with the Parks Master Plan effort and does not result in patches of open spaces.

2. Laureola Park is not a place for a multi-use building or aquatic center. The east side may want a family-oriented park. The GESC residents need to provide input.

3. The open space shown in GW Williams’ rendering is not an ideal park because it serves businesses.

4. If the maximum building height is increased, then we need to increase the open space to (3) three acres. In addition, this open space needs to be a community open space.

5. Building heights should be tiered away from the GESC neighborhood where the highest buildings are placed toward the north and lower toward the GESC neighborhood.

6. The Specific Plan requires every development to contribute 15% open space. Why are we asking new developments to contribute 15% of their land? Who will use it? It could go toward a larger community space.

7. Consider more gradual stepdowns, rather than a drop in maximum height as shown in the MU-NE-75 zone.

8. How much additional height could be granted through State Density Bonus Law?

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 244

9. There should be a survey to determine what the needs are for Laureola Park and at a new park in the Northeast.

10. Increased density and additional open space should go together.

11. There should be more public information about what community benefits and spaces are open to the public, such as the Alexandria.

12. Everything should be in-writing as to what is a community benefit. Neighbors should know that they are desired there.

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 245

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Mateo The undersigned declares: That at all times hereinafter mentioned, affiant was a permanent resident of the United States, over the age of eighteen years old, and was at and during all said times. The Office Manager of the San Mateo Daily Journal, a newspaper published daily in the County of San Mateo, State of California. The notice mentioned was set in type no smaller than nonpareil and was preceded with words printed in black face type not smaller than size 6, describing and expressing in general terms, the purpose and character of the notice intended to be given; that the PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SAN CARLOS Of which the annexed is a printed copy was published and printed in said newspaper from the 29th Day of August 2025 until the 5th Day of September 2025. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ________________________________ JP Uganiza Dated at San Mateo, California, This 29th Day of August 2025

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 246

11.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 247

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 8, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 – Zoning, to Create Objective Design Standards (ODS) for Development within the Multi-family (RM) Housing and Mixed-use (MU) Zoning Districts: Chapter 18.03 (Rules of Measurement), 18.04 (Residential Districts), 18.05 (Mixed-Use Districts), 18.06 (Commercial Districts), 18.15 (General Site Regulations), 18.18 (Landscaping), 18.26 (Planning Authorities),

18.27 (Common Procedures), 18.29 (Design Review and Objective Design Standards Compliance Review), 18.30 (Use Permits), and

18.41 (Terms and Definitions) of the San Carlos Municipal Code.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance to create objective design standards for development within the Multi-family (RM) and Mixed-use (MU) Zoning Districts.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications for adopting objective design standards for multi-family and mixed-use development.

BACKGROUND:

Recent changes in state law mandate that local jurisdictions review and approve residential developments comprising two or more units based on objective design standards only. These standards are designed to be measurable and verifiable, eliminate any "gray" areas, and leave no room for interpretation or personal judgement. This distinguishes them from subjective standards that are open to varying interpretations. Additionally, one of the Council’s strategic goals is to actively promote and support the streamlined processing of housing projects to boost housing production. Objective design standards bring clarity, predictability, and efficiency to the review process by establishing clear, measurable expectations for applicants early in the application process.

The City has been working on mixed-use and multi-family objective design standards (ODS) with the assistance of Van Meter Williams Pollack (VMWP), an urban design firm with extensive local experience in this field. A key focus of the analysis included evaluating the feasibility of existing regulations and their potential impact on housing production in accordance with several Housing

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 248

Element Policies: HOU 4.2 Zoning Ordinance Revisions, 4.4 Objectivity and Streamlining in Development Regulations, and 4.5 Review of Development Standards to Promote Achieving Maximum Densities.

On May 5, 2025, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) passed a Resolution (5-0) recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed objective design standards for development within the RM and MU Zoning Districts (Attachment 2). The redlined version of the proposed code amendments is included as Attachment 1, Exhibit A: Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Objective Design Standards.

It is important to note that any future development projects, including residential developments, located within any future adopted specific plan area (e.g. Northeast Area Specific Plan and the Downtown Area Specific Plan) will be subject to the regulations established by each respective specific plan.

ANALYSIS:

The proposed RM/MU ODS include numerous zoning amendments that span multiple chapters in the San Carlos Municipal Code. Table 1 provides an overview of the proposed amendments in each chapter. For specific text and details, please refer to Attachment 1, which shows proposed amendments in redlines.

Table 1: San Carlos Municipal Code (SCMC) Chapter Reference for Proposed Amendments SCMC Chapters General Description of Proposed Amendments 1 18.03 (Rules of Measurement) Clarifying areas that count towards floor area. 2 18.04 (Residential Districts)
Making existing standards objective for multi-family (RM) zones and creating new objective standards. Adjusting
Residential FAR limits.
3 18.05 (Mixed-Use Districts)
Making existing standards objective for multi-family (MU) zones and creating new objective standards. Adjusting
Residential FAR limits.
4 18.06 (Commercial District) Adding language to be consistent with AB 2011. 5 18.15 (General Site Regulations) Clarifying projection standards and applicability. 6 18.18 (Landscaping) Amending standards for consistency with other chapters if needed.
7 18.26 (Planning Authorities) Amending roles and responsibilities of the Director and Planning and Transportation Commission.
8 18.27 (Common Procedures) Amending roles and responsibilities related to Compliance Review.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 249

9 18.29 (Design Review and
Compliance Review Procedures)
Revising thresholds and findings, introducing new
procedures for deviation/exception from ODS requirement, major and minor modifications.
10 18.30 (Use Permits) Clarifying applicability of use permits. 11 18.41 (Terms and Definitions) Adding new definitions such as major modification, minor modification, podium, etc.

Objective Design Standards (ODS) Recommendations

The PTC recommended that the City Council adopt several proposed amendments that hold particular significance, which are discussed below.

Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

1. Eliminate maximum FAR for the residential component of projects.

The PTC recommends eliminating FAR maximum limits for residential development within the multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts. Previous feedback from developers indicated that FAR limits layered on to the existing development standards may present a challenge for projects to achieve minimum and maximum densities, especially for narrow sites, and for projects that include family-sized (2/3-bedroom) units.

The consultant team evaluated three existing sites based on current development standards, including setbacks, upper-story step-backs, and maximum height (Attachment 4). The selected sites were small to medium in size, as smaller parcels often face greater challenges in complying with development and design regulations.

The selected sites included:
a.1562 El Camino Real – MU-SB-120 zone, 0.46 acres
b.1058 Laurel Street – MU-N-40 zone (adjacent to RS-6 zone), 0.14 acres c.750 Walnut Street – RM-100 zone, 0.19 acres

The analysis found that most sites had difficulty with developing to the maximum FAR permitted due to other required standards, such as building placement or setbacks and upper-story step- backs. The analysis also found that achieving maximum densities within the allowable FAR limits would lead to very small unit sizes.

In another testing scenario, the FAR limit was reached at five stories, even though six stories were permitted, effectively limiting the potential for additional residential units or density. This suggested that using FAR is a limiting regulation and unnecessarily restricts housing development within an allowable building envelope.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 250

If FAR limits are eliminated, other form-based standards such as maximum height, setbacks, and step-backs would be the primary controlling factor for the mass and size of a structure. Well- designed buildings with strong massing and articulation controls (height, step-backs, window design) typically make FAR requirements unnecessary. Emphasizing aesthetics rather than floor area leads to better design that fits in with a neighborhood and removes FAR as a constraint.

2. Establish minimum and maximum FAR limits for the commercial component of mixed- use projects.

Minimum FAR: The PTC recommends establishing minimum and maximum commercial FAR for mixed-use projects only, which are projects that include both commercial and residential components. In the past, applicants have proposed small commercial floor areas (e.g., 800-900 sq. ft.) in primarily residential projects to be classified as “mixed-use” and therefore benefit from relaxed standards within the zoning district. Small commercial spaces are often unusable or infeasible for tenants due to their size and/or dimensions and therefore become difficult to lease.

Requiring a minimum FAR will ensure there are viable commercial spaces.

Maximum FAR: The recommendation to require a maximum commercial floor area ratio cap in mixed-use buildings will prioritize housing within the allowable building envelope while maintaining viable commercial uses. A commercial FAR cap encourages projects to stay within the overall height and massing limits, rather than allowing commercial space to fully build out its FAR and then add unlimited residential on top through State Density Bonus waivers and concessions. To establish a feasible range for commercial FARs, five local sites were analyzed to identify the minimum and maximum standards, with a focus on supporting commercial viability in mixed-use districts, particularly on small and medium-sized sites (Attachment 4).

Areas within a building that are allocated for residential use would not be subject to FAR limits.

Only non-residential commercial areas within a mixed-use building would be subject to the proposed minimum and maximum FAR limits. Commercial-only development would remain a permitted use in all mixed-use districts and would be subject to current FAR standards for commercial development.

Step-back Requirements

3. Reduce the upper story step-backs from 10 feet to 6 feet.

Step-backs are the distance an upper floor is pushed back from the story below and begin on the third story of a building. These differ from setbacks, which is the required distance the building must be from the edge of the property line. Based on the test fit analyses, the existing 10-foot upper-story step-back requirement on all sides of a building is excessive for residential development, especially when combined with other setback regulations. These step-back requirements can result in the loss of additional housing units and usable space on each floor and encourage only small-sized residential units, precluding a desirable mix of both small and family- size units within a residential development.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 251

The PTC recommends reducing the upper-story step-backs from 10’-0 to 6’-0. The proposed reduction from a 10-foot step-back to a 6-foot step-back for third story and above would create more usable space for additional housing units, thereby eliminating one constraint on housing production. No changes are proposed to existing exceptions that allow upper stories to align with lower story at required step-backs along Laurel Street, San Carlos Avenue, and El Camino Real.

Visually, the difference between a 10-foot and a 6-foot step-back is minimal, while the added floor area can be utilized for balconies, usable space, or additional housing units. This change would balance aesthetic considerations with the need to optimize housing opportunities. Figures 1 and 2 below demonstrate the existing and proposed step-backs.

Figure 1: Existing step-back requirements (10’)

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 252

Figure 2: Proposed step-back requirements (6’)

Setback Requirements

4. Reduce the rear setback in the mixed-use districts from 30 feet to 20 feet for parcels adjoining RS districts and require robust landscaping standards within the rear setback.

Properties that are zoned mixed-use are required to have a 30-foot rear setback when the rear of the property is adjacent to a single-family zoning district (RS zone). This requirement can preclude the development of allowable three-story buildings in certain zoning districts and can render sites infeasible for full development potential under the Municipal Code. Most mixed-use sites that are adjacent to single-family residential zoning are located within the MU-N-40: Neighborhood Mixed- Use zoning district.

Site testing in the MU-N-40 district revealed that the existing 30-foot rear setback for properties adjacent to single-family zones is a constraint, specifically for narrow and small lots, which could force the use of very small, possibly, infeasible units to achieve desired densities.

Three-dimensional photo simulations were prepared to visualize the impact of the proposed 20- foot rear setback compared to the existing 30-foot setback (See Figures 3 and 4 below). The photo simulations demonstrated that 20-feet setbacks will have a minimal visual impact on the neighboring properties. Existing maximum height standards are not proposed to be changed for any of the districts.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 253

Depending on the building configuration, reducing the rear setback from 30 feet to 20 feet, in addition to reducing step-backs (see step-back recommendation above) could increase the building area by 15%, allowing for additional residential units.

Figure 3: Existing rear setbacks at 30 feet from the residential zone Figure 4: Proposed rear setback 20 feet from the residential zone

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 254

Conditional Use Permit Requirements for Ground Floor Residential

4. Remove CUP requirement and allow residential uses by right on the ground floor along El Camino Real and introduce active ground floor uses outside the bounds of the Downtown Specific Plan.

The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends eliminating the conditional use permit (CUP) requirement to allow ground floor residential uses along El Camino Real outside the bounds of the Downtown Specific Plan. Residential uses currently require a CUP to occupy ground-floor spaces in mixed-use districts along El Camino Real. A CUP is a discretionary permit, which involves subjective standards and substantial cost, time and processing.

The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) applies to all projects with two or more residential units.

The HAA limits the amount of discretion the City has when reviewing housing development projects in zones where residential uses are allowed. Specifically, the City cannot deny a housing project or impose conditions that reduce the density of a project, except in very limited, specific situations. The City can, however, require compliance with its ODS. Further, the State Density Bonus Law also allows applicants to request waivers or concessions. Applicants may request to use these waivers and/or concessions to override CUP requirements for the ground floor.

Instead of requiring a CUP to allow a ground floor residential use, the PTC recommends requiring specific “active use” requirements and building transparency standards for the ground floor. This would allow residential units on the ground floor, provided they are either located behind active uses or, if residential units are placed along a main thoroughfare, and meet a minimum of 50% ground floor transparency requirement to provide a more open, welcoming space that interacts with the public area. Some examples of active portions of residential use could include residential units, residential lobbies, gyms, or work-from-home spaces. These activation standards would encourage diverse uses that support overall project feasibility and still contribute to an active ground floor atmosphere consistent with the goals of a mixed-use district. Similar strategies have been implemented successfully in cities such as Sunnyvale and San Mateo activating ground- floor spaces and enhancing mixed-use district vibrancy.

Locally, the recently approved project at 11 El Camino proposed similar active uses along the ground floor (Figures 5 and 6).

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 255

Figure 5: Approved residential units on ground floor at 11 El Camino Real. 3D Image credits: SummerHill Apartment Communities and KTGY Figure 6: Approved corner residential lobby acting as an active ground floor use at 11 El Camino Real.
3D image credits: SummerHill Apartment Communities and KTGY

The PTC also recommends that the portions of El Camino Real within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan be excluded from this recommendation as the Downtown Specific Plan

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 256

is expected to be adopted by the City Council in November 2025 and will have its own standards regarding ground floor uses.

Encouragement of Retail and Commercial Activity: One area of discussion with the City Council on February 10, 2025 Study Session centered on strategies to encourage retail and commercial activity along El Camino Real and southern Laurel Street (outside the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan area). While this topic falls outside the formal scope of the Objective Design Standards project, staff explored several potential strategies that could be pursued independently, including:

1. Requiring commercial or retail uses at key nodes along El Camino Real (recommended by the PTC).

2. Identifying priority retail/commercial uses and streamlining their approval processes.

3. Offering incentives for retail/commercial development, such as waving certain standards.

The Council could direct staff to return with further analysis of these options; however, this would be outside of the scope of the ODS project but could be completed through a new zoning code update project.

For detailed minutes from the City Council Study Session, please refer Attachment 3. To view the full staff report, Item 10a from the meeting on the public portal:
https://cityofsancarlos.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16234

Compliance Review Process

6. Proposed Compliance Review process for ODS projects

The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends replacing the current review process with a new compliance review process. Currently, a review of proposed multi-family and mixed- use development is conducted by the PTC as part of their design review authority. The proposed process would still maintain PTC review authority for most projects; however, it would be a compliance review (ministerial) process rather than a design review (discretionary) process and therefore comply with Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requirements.

Proposed Process:

A.Projects with four or fewer residential units: Compliance Review will be performed at staff level with no public hearing, unless referred to the PTC by the Director.

B.Projects with five or more units: Compliance Review will be performed by the Planning and Transportation Commission for requested entitlements, with evaluations based solely on objective criteria, not discretionary findings.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 257

Partial Discretionary Review:

If any project seeks deviations from objective standards (as outlined below), the City shall conduct discretionary design review for the deviations only. Based on feedback from the PTC, the following deviations are proposed:

A. Minor Deviations: Adjustments to window trim, roof desig n and other criteria as deemed minor by the Director, which have minimal visual impact, to be reviewed by the Community Development Director, unless alre ady under review by the Planning and Transportation Commission due to the number of units, or upon recommendation by the Director.

B. Major Devi ations: Changes such as massing or articulation and other major criteria as d
eemed by the Director, to be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission in conjunction with compliance review.

Discretionary Review:

Commercial projects and projects requiring entitlements that are subjective (e.g., Planned Developments, Variances, or those not requiring Objective Standards) will continue to undergo discretionary review by the Planning and Transporta tion Commission or the City Council, as outlined in the Municipal Code.

Following adoption of ODS, staff will create a Compliance Review information packet specifically for mixed-use and multi-family projects, to support applicants in navigating the updated process.

A similar process has already been implemented successfully for single-family projects.

FINDINGS:

In order to introduce the Ordinance, the City Council must meet the required findings, as outlined in San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.35.080. The PTC finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan and with the purpose of the Zoning Title, as detailed in Attachment 5.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

The public outreach strategy was developed collaboratively by City staff and the consultant team, with a focus on engaging key stakeholders, including local architects, developers, and community members. The City’s communications team also shared meeting information, draft recommendations, and project updates across various platforms.

Outreach efforts included a series of community meetings, workshops, and stakeholder sessions designed to gather input and share progress throughout the project. Full details and materials from each event are available on the project website at www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards Packet Pg. 258 September 08, 2025

12.a
under the "Past Meetings" section. Specifically, the following meetings and workshops were held as summarized below and included as Attachment 3: Community Outreach Summary and Meeting Minutes.

1. PTC Recommendation to the City Council – May 5, 2025

2. City Council Study Session – February 10, 2025

3. Community Open House – January 30, 2025

4. Community Meeting – November 13, 2024

5. PTC Study Session #2 – June 17, 2024

6. Stakeholder Meeting – May 21, 2024

7. PTC Study Session #1 – November 20, 2023

8. Community Workshop – April 26, 2023

9. Citywide Survey – March 10, 2023

10. Community Workshop – October 19, 2022

11. Stakeholder Meeting – October 6, 2022

Additional outreach included a booth at the 2024 Art and Wine Festival, multiple Council newsletters, courtesy notices, regular webpage updates, and social media engagement.

PUBLIC NOTICE

This City Council meeting was notified in accordance with state law and published in the newspaper on August 29, 2025 (Attachment 7). A courtesy notice was sent to property owners adjacent to a mixed-use or multi-family zoning district on August 29, 2025. This item was also advertised through various media (social media, website, and email lists). No public comments had been received as of September 2, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed zoning amendments are within the scope of activities identified in the San Carlos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and 2023 Housing Element EIR, eliminating the need for additional environmental review. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) “Preliminary Review” and Section 15061(b)(3) “Common Sense Exemption”.

NEXT STEPS:

Should the City Council introduce the Ordinance, the proposed Ordinance would return for formal adoption on September 22, 2025. If adopted, the proposed amendments would become effective 30 days after adoption, on October 22, 2025.

Staff request the Council’s authorization to amend any minor items before the second reading, which could include clerical errors, clarifications, additions, or deletions to the language. This request aims to ensure that staff can address any minor revisions without having to return to the Council to repeat the first reading.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 259

As the proposed changes are significant and have not yet been tested in real-life scenarios, staff will closely evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the new ODS once they become effective.

If areas of improvement are identified, staff will return to the Council with recommended revisions approximately a year from adoption. These items could involve clarifying specific code sections, adding definitions, or introducing criteria to facilitate the interpretation and implementation of the review processes.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Introduce an Ordinance Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 – Zoning, to create Objective Design Standards (ODS) for Development within the Multi-family (RM) and Mixed-use (MU) Zoning Districts; or

2. Do not introduce the proposed Ordinance; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Rucha Dande, Principal Planner; and
Al Savay, Community Development Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit A to Ordinance - Proposed Zoning Changes (redlined)

2. May 5, 2025, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Resolution

3. Community Outreach Summary and PTC 5.5.25 Meeting Minutes

4. Test Fit Analysis

5. Findings

6. San Carlos Zoning Map

7. Public Hearing Notice Affidavit
Resources:

Objective Design Standards webpage – www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 260

ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AMENDING SAN CARLOS MUNCIPAL CODE TITLE 18 – ZONING, TO CREATE

OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS (ODS) FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MULTI- FAMILY (RM) HOUSING AND MIXED-USE (MU) ZONING DISTRICTS: CHAPTER 18.03 (RULES OF MEASUREMENT), 18.04 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS), 18.05 (MIXED-USE DISTRICTS), 18.06 (COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS), 18.15 (GENERAL SITE REGULATIONS),

18.18 (LANDSCAPING), 18.26 (PLANNING AUTHORITIES), 18.27 (COMMON PROCEDURES), 18.29 (DESIGN REVIEW AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS COMPLIANCE REVIEW), 18.30 (USE PERMITS), AND 18.41 (TERMS AND DEFINITIONS) OF THE SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE.

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

WHEREAS, recent changes to State Law (Government Code Section 65589.5, SB 35, SB 423, SB 330) require that cities adopt and ministerially act on residential development applications based on whether the project complies with Objective Design Standards; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the City adopted the focused General Plan Housing Element identifying policies and actions to accommodate additional residential units and to eliminate impediments to the creation of more housing; and WHEREAS, the City currently relies on a combination of objective and subjective design standards, implemented through a design review process with staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and sometimes the City Council to regulate the design of applicable housing projects; and
WHEREAS, the City must update its standards for all residential projects to ensure orderly, streamlined development in an effort to be in compliance with State Law and help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of at least 2,735 new housing units; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2023, a City-wide online community survey was published where the community was notified through the City’s website, e-notify mailing list, social media, and City-wide post cards to encourage participation to identify and gather public comments and input on various design aspects pertaining to multi-family and mixed-use residential Objective Design Standards, and where over 420 responses were received; and WHEREAS, the City conducted three (3) Community Workshops held on October 19, 2022, April 26, 2023, and November 23, 2024, respectively, to introduce the project, identify design elements that are integral to the character of San Carlos, and received specific feedback on massing, articulation, transitional standards, walkability, safety, diversity in design, availability of open spaces, green spaces, and neighborhood connectivity; and

12. a
Packet Pg. 261 September 08, 2025
WHEREAS, throughout the planning process, staff also conducted meetings and outreach with subject matter experts through two (2) stakeholder meetings with peer-architects and developers held on October 6, 2022, and May 21, 2024, respectively, and received valuable feedback on preliminary draft standards; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transpiration Commission conducted two (2) study sessions held on November 20, 2023, and June 17, 2024, to provide policy feedback related to transition standards for projects located adjacent to single-family zones, upper story step backs, landscaping requirements, articulation and massing standards, and parking setbacks; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, a community open house was hosted at the Laureola Park Community Room where staff interacted with the community on a 1 on 1 basis to receive feedback and answer any questions related to the proposed objective design standards; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2025, the City Council conducted a study session to provide direction related to proposed step backs, setbacks and transitions standards for projects located adjacent to single-family zones in addition to proposed objective design standards pertaining but not limited to articulation, massing, landscaping, entrance design; and WHEREAS, prior to the community workshops, survey, study sessions, community open house, and public hearings, City of San Carlos staff conducted robust community outreach to encourage maximum participation. This included social media posts on San Carlos’ Facebook, NextDoor, Instagram, and Twitter accounts. Announcements about the project and workshops were also made at public meetings including City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission meetings. Public participation opportunities were also promoted through the City of San Carlos’ Spotlight Newsletter, city-wide postcards, Good Living Newsletter, San Carlos’ E- notify email to interested community members, regular updates to the Multi-Family and Mixed- Use Objective Design Standards landing page website, and mailed flyers and postcards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65853 and 65850 and San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.35 (Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Maps), when a change in the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18) of the San Carlos Municipal Code is found necessary, the Planning and Transportation Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider such change and render its decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.35.050 and California Government Code Section 65090 and 650901 a Public Hearing Notice was published on April 15, 2025, for the Draft Zoning Code Amendments in the newspaper, distributed to interested parties, posted to the City’s website and announced through e-notify to a list of interested community members and other social media platforms; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2025, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code, to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with the proposed amendments

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 262

to Title 18 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code and recommended the City Council introduce the ordinance adopting the changes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would help to ensure orderly, streamlined multi- family and mixed-use residential development while being compliant with State Law; and, WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the Ordinance update process evaluated current issues and successes with the existing ordinance and explored options for changes based on evidence and best practices in other communities and industry experts; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that preferred options were identified based on increasing clarity, increasing efficiency in review procedures, and increasing effectiveness of the ordinance implementation, and adopts the following amendments to San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18.

WHEREAS, the City Council authorizes staff to rectify any clerical errors, clarify graphics if necessary, and make non substantive clarifications, additions, or deletions to the language, before the second reading of the Ordinance to ensure staff can address any minor revisions without having to return to the Council solely for an introduction; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Carlos as follows:

SECTION 2: Pursuant to SCMC Section 18.35.080 Criteria for Zoning Amendments, the City Council shall not approve a zoning amendment unless the proposed amendment meets the following criteria. The City Council hereby approves the Municipal Code Ordinance amendment attached as Exhibit A based on the findings and criteria below.

A. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Findings.

1. The proposed ordinance amendments are consistent with the General Plan.

The recently updated 2023-2031 Housing Element includes the following goal and actions:
Goal HOU-4 states: “Remove or mitigate governmental constraints inhibiting the provision of adequate, affordable housing throughout San Carlos.” Action HOU-4.2 Zoning Ordinance Revisions - “Continue to allow ground floor residential uses in the MU-D100, MU-SC-120, and MU-SB-100 zones. Evaluate, as part of the new Downtown Specific Plan process, additional areas (on side streets and outside of the Downtown Core) where ground-floor residential uses may also be allowed.”
Action HOU 4.4 Objectivity and Streamlining in Development Regulations – This action specifies actions to prepare Objective Design Standards for residential developments by reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and crafting revisions that support objective design

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 263

standards consistent with the Housing Accountability Act to facilitate high-quality residential development.
Action HOU 4.5 Review of Development Standards to Promote Achieving Maximum Densities - “Throughout the planning period, periodically evaluate development standards to ensure that projects are able to achieve maximum densities. Make revisions if review indicates that current standards pose a potential or actual constraint on achieving maximum densities.”
Basis for Finding: The proposed amendments include revisions to the Design Review and Compliance Review Procedures, Common Procedures, and Review Authorities chapters of the Zoning Title to help enhance the efficiency of the review procedures for future multi-family and mixed-use development. These changes aim to streamline the project review process, ultimately facilitating the faster generation of housing. As such, adoption of the proposed Ordinance amendments will facilitate an efficient application process and high-quality residential development in San Carlos and comply with State objectives and law.

The proposed amendments update the Rules of Measurement by clarifying which areas are included or excluded from floor area ratio calculations for residential development. Proposed amendments also revise standards for building setbacks and transitional step-backs to better support projects in achieving maximum densities. These changes are informed by testing three representative housing sites, with the analysis considering factors such as construction costs, development potential, number of units, and unit sizes. This process identified standards that may be limiting housing production and highlighted sections of the Municipal Code in need of revision that are included within the proposed amendment.

The 2030 General Plan Land Use Element also includes the following goals, policies and actions:
Goal LU-8, “Ensure excellence in all development design.” The policies identified to achieve this goal that are consistent with the multi-family and mixed-use objective design standards project includes:
oPolicy LU-8.1 “Require all development to feature high quality design that enhances the visual character of San Carlos”,
Action LU-8.1 “Adopt a form-based zoning code to emphasize building placement, the framing of public space and promoting a pedestrian-oriented environment.”

oPolicy LU-8.2 “Ensure that new development is sensitive to the character of adjacent structures and the immediate neighborhood”;
oPolicy LU-8.4 “Promote pedestrian-scaled design through site planning, building design, finish details and landscaping for all types of development by requiring height and locational transitions be- tween buildings of varied levels that are sensitive to the interrelationships of surrounding uses and structures, especially residential.”

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 264

Action LU-8.4 “Develop objective design standards consistent with State law and amend the Zoning Ordinance and create a Planning Division submittal information checklist and application to require materials that accurately and sufficiently demonstrate a project’s compliance with new objective design standards.”
oPolicy LU-8.5 “Optimize architectural quality by encouraging the use of quality materials, particularly as accents and authentic detailing, such as balconies and window trims”;

oPolicy LU-8.7 “Require new residential development to provide outdoor areas and landscaping or native vegetation, or tree canopy to enhance the surroundings”;

oPolicy LU-8.10 “On all sides of buildings, require the incorporation of quality architectural design elements for all building façades and stepping back upper floors in order to reduce bulk and mass and to break up monotonous wall lines”;
oPolicy LU-8.11 “Discourage abrupt changes in building scale. A gradual transition between low-rise to mid-rise buildings should be achieved by using the low rise buildings at the edge of the project site. Consider the relationship of buildings to the street, to one another and to adjacent structures and land uses, especially single-family residential.” oPolicy LU-8.12 “Require residential building entrances to be related to the street”; oPolicy LU-8.13 “Require parking areas associated with development to be located and designed to minimize visual impact to the greatest extent feasible. This may include locating parking behind buildings street frontage, below grade, or screening through the use of natural landscaping”;
oPolicy LU-8.19 “Residential structures shall be designed to be compatible with existing structures in the vicinity, avoid obstructing views from adjacent structures or views of community importance, avoid interference with the right or ability to use solar energy and be consistent with the community design principles”.
oPolicy LU-8.20 “Require all new residential multi- family residential, commercial and industrial projects subject to design review by the appropriate decision- making body for compliance with site planning, architecture, signing and landscaping criteria prior to approval, as permitted by State law.”
Basis of Finding: The proposed amendments address the neighborhood character through objectively regulating architectural design elements while being consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as specified within the General Plan Land Use Element Actions. The proposed zoning amendments addresses the neighborhood character through objectively regulating architectural design elements such building materials and colors, building massing, articulation, required landscaping, corner treatments, among other design features while being consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and actions.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 265

2. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the purpose of the 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.

The General Plan 2030 Land Use Element includes the following goal:
Goal LU-9 stating, “Protect and enhance all residential neighborhoods”, oPolicy LU-9.1 “Maintain and enhance neighborhoods to be safe and attractive.” oPolicy LU-9.5 “Mitigation measures shall be utilized to the greatest extent feasible for neighborhoods surrounding new pro- posed development. Require buffering, transitional standards, screening, or other measures for new and expanded multifamily residential, mixed use, and/or commercial/industrial developments adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods to minimize impacts and compatibility conflicts.” Basis for Finding: The proposed Ordinance amendments propose to objectively regulate, as required by State Law, building materials, massing, articulation, landscaping, and parking design consistent with the General Plan policies. The proposed amendments also adjust the transitional standards between multi-family and single-family residential districts to create enough buffer areas that minimize impacts and compatibility conflicts.

SECTION 3: Replacement of Code. San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18 Chapter

18.03 (Rules of Measurement), 18.04 (Residential Districts), 18.05 (Mixed-Use Districts), 18.06 (Commercial Districts), 18.15 (General Site Regulations), 18.18 (Landscaping), 18.26 (Planning Authorities), 18.27 (Common Procedures), 18.29 (Design Review and Objective Design Standards Compliance Review), 18.30 (Use Permits), And 18.41 (Terms and Definitions) is hereby replaced with the language in Exhibit A.

SECTION 4: Pending Applications. As to applications for new residential units and additions, which have been submitted and deemed completed, before the Ordinance goes into effect, such applications may continue and shall not be subject to the regulations and requirements listed in Exhibit A. Notwithstanding the above, an applicant may submit a planning application using the new regulations once they become effective.

SECTION 5: California Environmental Quality Act Determination. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code as mentioned above are within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in the 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 15060(c)(2) Preliminary Review and CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) “common sense exemption”. In addition, all future residential development

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 266

projects subject to review under the Objective Design Standards would be required to undergo a separate CEQA review, and approval process as required by State Law.

SECTION 6: Severability. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason any sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.

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 8th day of September 2025 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 _______, 2025 by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
____________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibit A: Proposed text amendments to Title 18.

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 267
1 Attachment 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Amendments to Title 18 Title 18 Zoning Ordinance proposed amendments to create Multi-family (RM) and Mixed-use (MU) Objective Design Standards (RM/MU ODS)
Current zoning maps can be found on the City’s Objective Design Standards webpage at www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards. A PDF of the current zoning districts are also provided at the end of this document for reference. Changes to the zoning maps are not a part of the Objective Design Standards project.

Dated: September 2, 2025

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 268

2 Proposed amendments to SCMC Title 18 Zoning
Amended Code Sections Municipal Code Chapters
1 18.03 Rules of
Measurement

18.03.080 Determining floor area.

18.03.090 Determining floor area ratio.
2 18.04 Residential Districts 18.04.050 Development standards—RM districts.

18.04.060 Supplemental regulations—RM districts.

3 18.05 Mixed-Use Districts 18.05.040 Objective Design Standards 4 18.06 Commercial
Districts

18.06.040 Supplemental Regulations
5 18.15 General Site
Regulations

18.15.130 Visibility at intersections and driveways. 6 18.18 Landscaping
7 18.26 Planning Authorities 18.26.070 Summary of review authorities for decisions and appeals.
8 18.27 Common
Procedures

18.27.030 Pre-application review.

18.27.040 Review of applications.
9 18.29 Design Review and
Objective Design Standards
Compliance Review

18.29.020 Applicability.
10 18.30 Use Permits 18.30.060 Required Findings
11 18.41 Terms and
Definitions

3 Chapter 18.03

RULES OF MEASUREMENT
Sections:

18.03.010 - 18.03.070 (Excluded -No Changes Proposed)

18.03.080 Determining floor area.

18.03.090 Determining floor area ratio.

18.03.100 - 18.03.150 (Excluded -No Changes Proposed)

18.03.080 Determining floor area. Revised 1/24
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
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 (2) feet within the roof line of any building without walls, and balconies, porches or other similar structures that are enclosed on more than two (2) sides. 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:

1. Mmechanical, electrical, and communication equipment rooms that do not exceed two percent (2%) of the building’s gross floor area;

2. ; Sstatewide exemption accessory dwelling units in accordance with Section

18.23.210;

3. Uup to eight hundred (800) square feet of any accessory dwelling unit;

4. Bbay windows or other architectural projections where the vertical distance between the lowest surface of the projection and the finished floor is thirty (30) inches or greater;

5. aAreas that qualify as usable open space;

6. Areas devoted to parking in the following circumstances:

4 a. 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. b. In multi-family and mixed-use buildings, a ll underground, partially underground, or areas that qualify as usable open space; l in multifamily and mixed-use buildings, surface enclosed 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.

7. In addition, in the RS-6 zoning district: the following shall be excluded from floor area calculations:
a1. Basements that are located directly beneath the house footprint (with exceptions for lightwells and access to areas underground) and with an exposed area of no more than three (3) feet from finished grade to finished floor above. b2. Up to four hundred fifty (450) square feet of garage area, provided the garage is detached and located to the rear of residential structures, and is a minimum of forty (40) feet away from the front lot line.

C. Non-residential Uses. For non-residential uses, or non-residential uses in mixed-use developments, gross floor area includes unless otherwise specified, all partially above grade and fully above grade enclosed parking areas , pedestrian access interior walkways or corridors, interior courtyards, walkways, paseos, or corridors covered by a roof or skylight. Non- residential gross floor area does not include arcades, porticoes, and similar open areas that are located at or near street level and are accessible to the general public but are not designed or used as sales, display, storage, service, or production areas. (Ord. 1604 § 4 (Exh. B), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. A (part)), 2018: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.03.090 Determining floor area ratio.

The floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the floor area, excluding the areas described below, of all principal and accessory buildings on a site to the site area. To calculate the FAR, floor area is divided by site area, and typically expressed as a decimal. For example, if the floor area of all buildings on a site totals twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, and the site area is ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the FAR is expressed as 2.0.

5 A. Excluded from Floor Area in Calculating FAR.

1. Underground Areas. Floor area located below finished grade , including below-grade parking.

2. Parking Areas. Floor area provided for parking serving residential units only located above grade in multi-family and mixed-use buildings within the multi-family (RM) and mixed-use (MU) districts.

Parking areas located below finished grade or finished floor of habitable space where the vertical distance between finished grade and finished floor is five feet or less. Structured parking areas located above finished grade or finished floor of habitable space where the vertical distance between finished grade of finished floor is more than five feet are included as floor area in calculating FAR.

3. Side-loaded or Detached Garages. Side-loaded or detached garages not exceeding four hundred fifty (450) square feet, located to the rear of residential structures, a minimum of forty (40) feet away from the front lot line and accessed by a driveway the entire length of which is less than twelve (12) feet in width.

FIGURE 18.03.090: DETERMINING FLOOR AREA RATIO

(Ord. 1537 (Exh. A (part)), 2018: Ord. 1480 (Exh. A), 2015: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

6 Chapter 18.04

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:

18.04.010 - 18.04.040 (Excluded -No Changes Proposed)

18.04.050 Development standards—RM districts.

18.04.060 Supplemental regulations—RM districts.

18.04.070 Residential development types.

18.04.080 Duplex standards.

18.04.090 Townhouse development.

18.04.100 Small lot subdivisions.

18.04.050 Development standards—RM districts.

Tables 18.04.050-1 and 18.04.050-2 prescribe the development standards for RM districts.

Additional regulations are denoted in a right-hand column. Parcels located within an adopted Specific Plan area shall comply with the development standards of the Specific Plan. Section numbers in this column refer to other sections of this title, while individual letters refer to subsections that directly follow the table. The numbers in each illustration below refer to corresponding regulations in the “#” column in the associated table and figure below.

FIGURE 18.04.050-A: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS KEY - RM DISTRICTS

TABLE 18.04.050-1: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - RM DISTRICTS

7 District RM-20 RM-59 RM-100
Additional
Regulations
#
Lot and Density Standards
Maximum Density (units/net
acre)
20 59 100
Minimum Density (units/net
acre)
15 45 75
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 6,000* 10,000* 10,000*
Minimum Lot Width 60 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 1
Corner Lots 70 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 2
Building Form and Location
Maximum Height 35 ft. 50 ft.
(A)
60 ft. (A) See Section 18.15.060,
Height and height
exceptions
3 Maximum Stories 3 4 (B) 5 (B)
Minimum Setbacks

8 Front 15 ft.
(C)
15 ft.
(C)
15 ft. (C) 4
Interior Side 5 ft. (A)
See Section 18.15.080,
Projections into
required yards
5 Street Side 10 ft.
(D)
10 ft.
(D)
10 ft. (D) 6
Rear 15 ft. 15 ft.
(A)
15 ft. (A) 7
Surface Parking, from Street-
Facing Property Line
40 ft. (E) 40 ft.
(E)
40 ft. (E) 8
Maximum Lot Coverage
(Percent of Lot)
65% 75% 75% See Chapter 18.03,
Rules of Measurement

Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
No maximum FAR for
residential buildings. 0.75

2.0 3.0

Maximum Upper Story Massing (Percent of Ground Floor Footprint) 2nd Story 100 100 100 Not applicable on lots
less than 60 feet wide

9 3rd Story and Above 80 80 80
(1) Minimum densities apply to new development and construction of new projects, or when adding residential to an existing commercial use. For wholesale conversion of commercial uses to residential, minimum densities shall apply; but for small conversion of an existing single- space commercial use to residential, minimum densities shall not apply.

TABLE 18.04.050-2: ADDITIONAL STANDARDS - RM DISTRICTS
District RM-20 RM-59 RM-100
Additional
Regulations
Minimum Common and/or Private Open
Space (percent of site area)
15% 15% 10% (F)
Minimum Amount of Landscaping (percent
of site)
20% 15% 10% See Chapter

18.18,
Landscaping
Maximum Paving in Street-Facing Yards
(percent of required yard)
50% 50% 50%

A. Transitional Standards. Where an RM-59 or RM-100 district is adjacent to an RS district, the following standards apply:

1. Rear Transitions, RM-100: For the RM-100 zoning district, the maximum height within forty (40) feet of an RS district is forty (40) feet. The maximum height within fifty (50) feet of an RS district is fifty (50) feet. The rear building setback shall be 20'-0. The maximum height at the rear setback line shall be twenty-eight (28) feet to match the RS district height maximum. Above twenty-eight (28) feet, one (1) stepback of at least six (6) feet shall be provided from the story below. If the building is five (5) stories or more, the upper stories shall step back from the fourth story by at least another six (6) feet.

2. Rear Transitions, RM-59: For the RM-59 zoning district, the maximum height within forty (40) feet of an RS district is thirty (30) feet. The maximum height within fifty (50) feet of

10 an RS district is forty (40) feet. The rear building setback shall be 20'-0. The maximum height at the rear setback line shall be twenty-eight (28) feet to match the RS district height maximum. Above twenty-eight (28) feet, one (1) stepback of at least six (6) feet shall be provided from the story below.

3. Side Transitions, RM-100: The building setba ck from an RS district boundary shall be ten (10) feet for interior side yards and twenty (20) feet for rear yards. The building setback from an RS boundary shall be ten (10) feet for interior side yards. The maximum height at the side setback line facing an RS district shall be twenty-eight (28) feet maximum to match the RS district height maximum. Above twenty-eight (28) feet, one (1) stepback of at least six (6) feet shall be provided from the story below. If the building is five (5) stories or more, the upper stories shall step back from the fourth story by at least another six (6) feet.

3.4. Side Transitions, RM-59: The building setback from an RS boundary shall be ten (10) feet for interior side yards. The maximum height at the side setback line facing an RS district shall be twenty-eight (28) feet to match the RS district height maximum. Above twenty-eight (28) feet, one (1) stepback of at least six (6) feet shall be provided from the story below.

5. 4. A landscaped planting area, a minimum of five (5) feet in width, shall be provided along all RS district boundaries. A tree screen shall be planted in this area with trees planted at a minimum interval of fifteen (15) feet. A minimum ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer area shall be provided along all rear RS district boundaries (Type 2 - Refer to Section 18.18.050 Landscaping Tables 18.18.050-B(1) and Table 18.18.050-B(2) for buffer types). Trees and shrubs shall be planted continuously in the landscape buffer along the site’s rear property line to create privacy screening between properties. Selected tree species shall be of a fast-growing, evergreen variety and capable of attaining a minimum height of twenty-five (25) feet at maturity. Trees shall be planted at a minimum interval of twenty to thirty (20-30) feet on center) depending on the species and mature canopy width or growth habitat. Continuous shrubbery planting is required between the trees and shall reach be a minimum six (6) feet in height within three (3) years of planting when e planted.

Species selection and placement must be approved by the City Arborist. A minimum of fifteen (15) gallon planting stock shall be utilized, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist.

11 a. Type 2 Buffers: Landscape buffer shall be ten (10) feet wide. For every one- hundred (100) feet in rear property line length a minimum of three (3) trees and six (6) shrubs shall be planted.
b. For other landscaping buffer requirements, refer to Section 18.18.050 Areas to be landscaped.
a.c. All new proposed tree species shall adhere to the City’s most recent preferred tree list or as specified by the City Arborist.

Where conflict between this section and landscaping requirements of SCMC Section 18.18.050 occurs, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply.

12 FIGURE 18.04.050-B: REAR TRANSITIONAL STANDARDS—RM DISTRICTS

FIGURES 18.04.050-C: SIDE TRANSITIONAL STANDARDS—RM DISTRICTS

13 B. Upper Story Stepback. Street-FacingUpper Story Stepback. The fourth and fifth story street-facing building frontages shall be stepped back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the stories below. Exceptions may be granted by the Director; provided, that an entry courtyard with a minimum depth of twenty-five (25) feet, landscaping, and seating amenities are provided on the ground level at grade; or other comparable public amenities are provided. uUpper story stepbacks help mitigate building height by providing visual and spatial relief more consistent with the context of San Carlos. All required upper story stepbacks must occur for at least

14 seventy percent (70%) of the facade length. The fourth and fifth story street-facing building frontages shall be stepped back a minimum of six (6) feet from the stories below. A minor deviation may be granted by the Director; provided that an entry courtyard with a minimum depth of twenty-five (25) feet, landscaping, and seating amenities are provided on the ground level at grade; or other comparable public amenities are provided.

FIGURE 18.04.050-D: STREET-FACING UPPER STORY STEPBACK - RM DISTRICTS

15 C. Front Setback. Where seventy-five percent (75%) or more of the lots in a block as defined in SCMC Section 18.41.020, on both sides of the street, have been improved with buildings, the minimum front setback required shall be the average of improved lots or fifteen (15) feet, whichever is less.

D. Street Side Yards on Lots with Reversed Frontage. The rear one-quarter (1/4) of the exterior side yard shall not be less than the front yard required or existing on the lot adjoining such exterior side yard.

FIGURE 18.04.050-E: STREET SIDE YARDS ON LOTS WITH REVERSED FRONTAGE —

RM DISTRICTS

E. Parking Setback. Parking shall may be allowed located within forty (40) feet of the street- facing property line, subject to in accordance with the following standards:

16 1. Fully Undergrounded and Partially Submerged Parking. Parking completely for partially Fully undergrounded parking may be located anywhere on a subject property match the setbacks for the main structure. If tiebacks or similar structures extend beyond the property lines, a tieback agreement with the affected property owner(s) shall be included upon initial application submittal.

2. Partially Submerged Parking. Parking located partially underground shall match the setbacks of the main structure. Parking located partially underground shall must match not be located beyond the required setbacks of the building. may match the setbacks of the main structure. The maximum height of a parking podium visible from a street is five (5) feet above finished grade.

3. Surface Parking. Above-ground parking may be located is allowed within forty (40) feet of from a street-facing property line when all of the following occurs: if when the decision making authority can make all of the following findings:
a. Buildings are built to setback standards and as close to the public sidewalk as feasible; andThe design incorporates habitable space built close to the public sidewalk to the maximum extent feasible;
b. The parking area is at least five (5) feet from public rights-of-way, well screened from adjacent properties with a minimum four (4) foot tall wall, hedges or landscaping, or a trellis along the street facing public-rights-of-way, six (6) foot tall wall, hedges or landscaping, or a trellis along interior side and rear property lines. Fences shall meet the requirements pursuant to SCMC 18.15.040 , and/or landscaping; and c. The site is small and constrained such that underground, partially submerged, or surface parking located more than forty (40) feet from the street frontage is not feasible due to site-specific conditions. Relevant documentation proving infeasibility shall be provided.

F. Open Space. Private and common areas shall be provided in accordance with this section.

Private areas typically consist of balconies, decks, patios, fenced yards, and other similar areas outside the residence. Common areas typically consist of landscaped areas, walks, patios, swimming pools, barbecue areas, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the development. Landscaped courtyard entries that are oriented towards the public street which create an entry feature are also

17 considered common areas. All areas not improved with buildings, parking, vehicular accessways, trash enclosures, and similar items shall be developed as common areas with the types of attributes described above.

1. Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such a surface may be any practicable combination of lawn, garden, flagstone, wood planking, concrete, or other serviceable, dust-free surfacing. The slope shall not exceed ten percent (10%).

2. Common Open Space Common Open Space Accessibility.
a. Common Open Space. The space shall be equally accessible to allthe living units on the project sitelot. It shall be served by any stairway or other accessway qualifying as an egress facility from a habitable room. (Ord. 1596 § 6 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. B (part)), 2018: Ord. 1480 (Exh. B (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.04.060 Objective Design Standards for RM Districts Supplemental regulations—RM districts. Revised 6/23
The intent of the Objective Design Standards is to ensure new buildings are compatible with the scale and character of San Carlos. To promote cohesive building design, quality craftsmanship, and compatible building scale, the following objective design standards apply to all multi-family residential buildings in RM districts. This includes all front, side, and rear building facades except for those not visible from public rights-of-way, such as internal courtyard facades.

Buildings on lots of widths seventy-five (75’) or less shall be subject to modified requirements along side facades as described further in this section. street-facing facades, facades visible from the right-of-way, and alleys for multi-family residential buildings in RM districts. Parcels located within an adopted Specific Plan area shall comply with the Objective Design Standards per the Specific Plan.

A. Building Entrances

1. Orientation. All ground-floor units located along public rights-of-way shall have the primary entrance(s) facing this right-of-way. If ground-floor units are located on four (4) lane streets carrying high traffic volumes and/or streets that do not allow on-street parking, unit entrances may be oriented around courtyards. Exceptions to this requirement may be

18 approved for projects where multiple-family housing is located on four (4) lane streets carrying high traffic volumes and/or streets that do not allow on-street parking. In such cases, the project may be oriented around courtyards

2. Main Building EntranceCanopy Projection or Recess . If a building has Building a main entrance to a shared lobby, the main entrance shall incorporate either entrances must have a canopy, a recess, or a combination thereof. A weather-protected covered area of minimum four (4) feet deep and six (6) feet wide shall be provided. Within the required fifteen (15) front setback, a canopy shall not project beyond eight (8) feet from the building facade on which it is located, shall not project more than three (3) feet into the public right- of-way, shall not be less than eight (8) feet above the sidewalk, and shall be at least seven (7) feet from the property line / back of sidewalk. Other building projections may extend into required yards, according to the standards of SCMC Table 18.15.080.

Entry canopies, stoops, patios, and balconies shall be constructed of all-weather, durable materials. If an entrance requires an accessible ramp, the ramp shall be integrated into the building and landscape design to minimize the visual impact of the ramp. Clear access to the ramp shall be maintained. A minor deviation to the street facing entrance configuration to permit a trellis, landscaped courtyard entry, or other similar feature may be approved by the Director. a roofed projection (such as a porch) or recess with a minimum depth of at least five (5) feet and a minimum horizontal area of fifty (50) square feet. Alternative designs that create an a welcoming entry feature Alternative entrance configurations facing the street, such as trellis or landscaped courtyard entry, may be approved by the Director.

FIGURE 18.04.060-A: MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE - RM DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.04.060-A:

MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE - RM DISTRICTS

19 20

21 3. Ground Floor Dwelling Units.Dwelling Unit Access. Exterior entrances to ground floor units shall be in the forma form of individual or shared entrances at the ground floor of the building and shall be connected to the public sidewalk by a paved walkway with a minimum width of five (5) feet. An at-grade patio, a raised stoop, or a raised porch may serve as a ground floor unit entrance. Raised stoops or porches shall not exceed five (5) feet above grade. Patios, stoops, and porches shall provide a minimum six (6) foot by six (6) foot clear area. Within the required fifteen (15) front setback, a patio, stoop, or porch shall not project beyond eight (8) feet from the building facade on which it is located and shall be at least seven (7) feet from the property line or back of sidewalk, whichever is greater. Ground floor patios shall be surrounded by a low wall, fence, railing, and/or landscaping no higher than 42 inches to distinguish private outdoor space from the public sidewalk area. Ground floor exterior unit entrances may be recessed or project no more than eight (8) feet from the building facade. Other building projections may extend into required yards, according to the standards of SCMC Table 18.15.080. Fences shall meet the requirements pursuant to SCMC 18.15.040.fAll ground floor unit entrances must not exceed five (5) feet above grade. Unit entrances above the ground floor are also permitted; however, no exterior access corridor located above the ground floor may provide access to five (5) or more units.

4. Corner Entrances. Corner building entrances shall have a distinct architectural treatment to animate the intersection and facilitate pedestrian flow around the corner.

Different treatments may include canopies, trellises, angled or rounded corners, arches, and/or other architectural elements. All building and dwelling units located in the interior of a site shall have entrances from the sidewalk that are designed as an extension of the public sidewalk and connect to a public sidewalk.

FIGURE 18.04.060-B: RESIDENTIAL UNIT ENTRANCEFIGURE 18.04.060-B: RESIDENTIAL

UNIT ENTRANCE - RM DISTRICTS

22 23

B. Building Design Massing Breaks. Massing breaks provide visual relief for longer buildings by breaking the building into smaller elements more compatible with San Carlos. Massing break standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades. Exceptions include: buildings on lots seventy-five (75’) feet wide or less require only one (1) minor massing break on side facades; internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way. Buildings shall include adequate design features to create visual variety and avoid a large-scale and bulky appearance.

1. Building Length. The maximum dimension of any single building shall not exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet.Building facadess between fifty (50) feet and one hundred (100) feet in length shall include at least one (1) minor massing break, defined as a minimum of four (4) feet wide by two (2) feet deep extending the full height of the building above the ground floor and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line. The required minor massing break shall be positioned such that no more than two thirds (⅔) of the total building length is without a massing break. When a building has an upper floor stepback, the minor massing break minimum dimensions shall also apply to the upper floors and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line.

2. Buildings greater than one hundred (100) feet and up to two hundred (200) feet in length shall include at least one (1) minor massing break (defined above) and one (1) major massing break, defined

24 3. as a minimum of ten (10) feet wide by ten (10) feet deep extending the full height of the building above the ground floor and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line.

The required major and minor massing breaks shall be positioned such that no more than two thirds (⅔) of the total building length is without a massing break. When a building has an upper floor stepback, the minor massing break minimum dimensions shall also apply to the upper floors and shall include a break in the roof line. The major massing break may continue vertically to align with the walls below the stepback and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line.

4. Buildings greater than two hundred (200) feet in length must include at least one (1) minor massing break and two (2) major massing breaks (defined above). The required minor and major massing breaks shall be positioned such that no more than two thirds (⅔) of the total building length is without a massing break. When a building has an upper floor step back, the minor massing break minimum dimensions shall also apply to the upper floors and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line. The major massing break may continue vertically to align with the walls below the stepback and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line.

FIGURE 18.04.060-C: MASSING BREAKS - RM DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.04.060-C: MASSING

BREAKS - RM DISTRICTS

25 C. Corners. Corner buildings shall emphasize the street corner through a combination of building massing and facade variation.Corners. Corner buildings shall emphasize the street corner through a combination of building massing and facade variation.

1. All corners shall be defined for at least twenty (20) feet along each of the two street- facing building facades. The corner portion shall either have a minimum two (2) foot change in building plane from its adjacent facades, or a minimum two (2) foot by two (2) foot recessed reveal where it meets the adjacent facades.

2. Building corners shall be further differentiated from the rest of the street-facing building facades by at least one (1) of the following: a change in roof form with at least a five (5) foot

26 difference in roof height; a change in building material, color, or texture; or a variation in fenestration placement.

1.3. Alternatively, the corner can either be a common roof terrace above the ground floor or a common plaza at the ground floor.

FIGURE 18.04.060-D: CORNERS - RM DISTRICTS

27 C.D. Roof Variety. Roof variety standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades.

Exceptions include: internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way.

1. Continuous roofs greater than seventy-five (75) feet shall be broken up using either varying parapet or roof heights, changes in plane along the facade, variation between flat and sloped roofs, overhangs with or without brackets, and/or a combination thereof. This standard does not apply to a top floor that is stepped back at least six (6) feet from the floors below.

2. Parapet caps/coping shall be provided along all street-facing building facades. At a minimum, these features shall be at least six (6) inches deep and six (6) inches tall, and project at least three (3) inches from the building facade. Sloped roofs shall have overhangs extending a minimum of twelve (12) inches and a maximum of three (3) feet from the facade, including the eave and gutter profile.

3. Changes in roof height between parapets or differing roof types shall be at least five (5) feet in height. Rooftop equipment shall be fully screened from public/street view pursuant to SCMC Section 18.15.090 using architectural elements including but not limited to parapets and screens. The screening elements shall be integrated into the overall building design. Roof Line. The roof line at each elevation shall demonstrate an offset of at least eighteen (18) inches for each one (1) to three (3) units exposed on that elevation.

Large, continuous roof planes are prohibited.

4. Towers. If the project site is greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet and not located along East San Carlos Avenue, a tower or other projecting architectural element(s) may extend up to ten (10) feet above the top of the roof; provided, that the square footage of the element(s) does not total more than ten percent (10%) of the building roof area. The area above the uppermost permitted floor of the element(s) shall not be habitable space.

28 FIGURE 18.04.060-E: ROOF VARIETY - RM DISTRICTS

29 43. Window Trim or Recess. Trim at least one (1) inch in depth must be provided around all windows, or window must be recessed at least two (2) inches from the plane of the surrounding exterior wall. For double-hung and horizontal sliding windows, at least one (1) sash shall achieve a two (2) inch recess. Exceptions may be granted through the design review process to accommodate alternative window design complementary to the architectural style of the structure.

4. Windows. Snap-in vinyl mullions between double pane glass are prohibited. If a divided light appearance is desired, mullions must be made of dimensional material projecting in front of the panes on both the inside and outside of the window D.E. Base, Middle, and Top Treatment, Middle, and Top. All buildings fourthree (3) stories and taller shall be composed of athe following: a distinct base (in some cases this can be treated as the ground story or combined first two stories) or ground floor, a middle (the majority of the building facade area), and a top (parapet cap/coping, cornice, sloped roof, or in some cases this can be treated as the top story or combined top two stories), cornice, or parapet cap) along all street-facing facades as described below. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another for at least seventy percent (70%) of its street facing facade length by either a change in material, a change in color, and/or a facade plane change of at least two (2) feet. A ground floor or in some cases, a combined ground floor and second floor stepback of at least two (2) feet in addition to the required setback from floors above may be considered a base.

Base, middle, and top treatment standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades.

Exceptions include: internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way.

1. A base for buildings of three (3) to five (5) stories must either be limited to 30 inches in height from grade and project maximum of six (6) inches from the building façade, or be treated as the full height of the ground story. For a 3-story building, the base is limited to 30 inches if the top is treated as the full height of the top story.

2. A base for buildings of six (6) stories or more must either be limited to 30 inches in height from grade and project maximum of six (6) inches from the building façade, or be treated as the full height of the ground story, or be treated as the height of the ground story and second story combined. If the top of the building is treated as the combined height of the top two (2) stories, the base is limited to the full height of the ground story.

30 3. The middle portion of buildings of three (3) or four (4) stories shall be a minimum of two stories in height.

4. The middle portion of buildings of five (5) to six (6) stories shall be a minimum of three stories in height.

5. The middle portion of buildings of greater than six (6) stories shall be a minimum of the total amount of stories minus three (3). For example, an eight (8) story building must have a middle portion that is at least five (5) stories in height.

6. The top of all buildings must have a parapet cap/coping, a cornice, or be a sloped roof.

7. A top for buildings of three (3) to five (5) stories may be treated as the full height of the top story. For a 3-story building, the top is limited to a parapet cap/coping, a cornice, or a sloped roof if the base is treated as the full height of the ground story.

1.8. A top for buildings of six (6) stories or more may be treated as the full height of the top story. The top may also be treated as the full height of the top two (2) stories combined, only if the base is limited to the height of the ground story.

31 FIGURE 18.04.060-F: BASE AND TOP TREATMENT - RM DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.04.060-F:

BASE, MIDDLE, AND TOP - RM DISTRICTS

32 E.F. Fenestration Variety: To achieve the fenestration variety standard, buildings shall include rhythms of at least two (2) types of openings for at least seventy percent (70%) of its street- facing facade length - the required seventy percent (70%) length does not have to be continuous. Various types of distinct openings include storefront windows and doors, residential entry doors, living room windows, bedroom windows, bathroom windows, common hallway windows, and stairway windows. Windows may be grouped vertically or horizontally or designed with shading devices or other architectural features to achieve pattern variety. Fenestration standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades. Exceptions include: internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way.

FIGURE 18.04.060-G: FENESTRATION VARIETY - RM DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.04.060-G:

FENESTRATION VARIETY - RM DISTRICTS

F.G. Materials, Colors, and Texture Variety: To achieve this standard, buildings shall provide at least two (2) different materials, colors, or textures for at least seventy percent (70%) of each of its facade length.(s) except for any interior courtyard-facing facade not visible from a public right-of-way . Material transitions along any facade shall only occur on the inside corner of a plane change. When material changes need to occur in the same plane, bands, trims, cornices, or other architectural elements shall project at least two (2) inches from the facade plane to create a corner for the material transition. Materials, colors, and texture variety standards apply

33 to all front, side, and rear building facades. Exceptions include: internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way.

FIGURE 18.04.060-H: MATERIAL TRANSITIONS - RM DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.04.060-H:

MATERIAL TRANSITIONS - RM DISTRICTS

FIGURE 18.04.060-J: MATERIAL, COLOR, OR TEXTURE VARIETY - RM DISTRICTSFIGURE

18.04.060-J: MATERIAL, COLOR, OR TEXTURE VARIETY - RM DISTRICTS Facade Articulation.All street-facing facades shall have at least one (1) horizontal or vertical projection or recess at least four (4) feet in depth, or two (2) projections or recesses at least two and one-half (2 1/2) feet in depth, for every twenty-five (25) horizontal feet of wall. If located on a building with two (2) or more stories, the articulated elements must be greater than one (1) story in height, and may be grouped rather than evenly spaced in twenty-five (25) foot modules. Building entrances and front porches and projections into required yards such as stoops, bays, overhangs, fireplaces, and trellises may count towards meeting this requirement.

5. 6. Facade Detailing and Materials. All visible building facades shall incorporate details, such as window and door trim, window recesses, cornices, changes in materials or other design elements, in an integrated composition. Each side of a building that is visible from a public right-of-way shall be designed with a complementary level of detailing and quality of materials.

7. Building Colors. Every building shall have at least two (2) complementary colors which demonstrate a harmonious relationship

34 H. Projecting and Recessed Elements. This standard may be applied in lieu of both the fenestration variety standard and the materials, colors, and texture variety standard. This standard applies only to facades facing public rights-of-way, not to side, rear, or internal courtyard facades. To achieve the projecting / recessed elements standard, buildings shall provide a rhythm of at least twoone (21) of the following elements for at least seventy percent (70%) of its street-facing facade length: projecting bays / bay windows, recessed areas containing windows, recessed stair and elevator towers, projecting or recessed balconies, recessed panels, ground floor stoops or porches, projecting frame / box elements containing at least one (1) window, projecting window shading devices, and ground floor awnings or canopies.

1. Projecting bays shall be between eighteen (18) inches and three (3) feet deep, and between six (6) feet and twelve (12) feet wide.

2. Usable balconies shall be a minimum of six (6) feet deep by six (6) feet wide.

Balconies shall avoid a tacked-on look by being recessed at least twelve (12) inches into the building facade. When private balconies are provided, they shall have a transparency of no less than twenty-five percent (25%). Permanent storage boxes, condensers for air- conditioning units, or other mechanical equipment shall not be located on balconies.

Decorative Juliet balconies shall be a minimum of twelve (12) inches deep and three (3) feet wide.

3. Recessed areas of a building containing windows shall be at least one (1) foot deep.

Recessed panels shall be at least four (4) inches deep.

1.4. Screening devices, shading devices, and projecting frame elements shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches deep. Lattices, louvers, and/or perforated metal screens shall be a minimum of four (4) inches deep or set at least four (4) inches from the facade.

35 FIGURE 18.04.060-K: PROJECTING AND RECESSED ELEMENTS - RM DISTRICTSFIGURE

18.04.060-K: PROJECTING AND RECESSED ELEMENTS - RM DISTRICTS

G.I. Windows.

1. Windows without trim shall be recessed at least two (2) inches from the plane of the surrounding exterior wall to create a shadow line and visual interest. Windows with trim shall provide trim at least two (2) inches in depth with windows inset from the trim edge by at least two (2) inches. The window trim objective design standards do not apply to interior- facing windows such as those along an internal building courtyard and windows that are not seen from or facing public rights -of -way.

2. For double-hung and horizontal sliding windows, at least one (1) sash shall achieve a two (2) inch recess. Snap-in vinyl mullions between double pane glass are prohibited. If a divided light appearance is desired, mullions shall be made of dimensional material projecting in front of the panes on both the inside and outside of the window.

3. A minimum of ninety percent (90%) of upper floor windows on street- or public open space-facing building facades shall be designed such that:
a. Windows are at least twelve (12) inches apart.

36 a.b. Proportions of typical windows shall be vertically oriented and shall not exceed a width (x) to height (y) ratio of two to three (2:3). Proportions of picture windows (typically provided for living rooms) shall not exceed a width to height ratio of one to one (1:1).

4. Proportions of typical windows shall be vertically oriented and shall not exceed a width (x) to height (y) ratio of two to three (2:3). Proportions of picture windows (typically provided for living rooms) shall not exceed a width to height ratio of one to one (1:1). Proportions of storefront windows shall also be vertically oriented not to exceed a width to height ratio of two to three (2:3). Storefront Wwindows with a width to height ratio greater than two to three (2:3) shall include vertical mullions such that each window panel is not greater than a two to three (2:3) width to height ratio.

2.5. Mirrored or reflective glass is not allowed on a street- or public open space-facing building facade at any level. Only transparent glass shall be used for windows or glazing at the ground floor.

3.6. Minor deviationsdeviation from the window requirement may be granted by the Director through the design review process to accommodate alternative window design(s) complementary to the architectural style of the structure.

FIGURE 18.04.060-L: WINDOWS - RM DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.04.060-L: WINDOWS - RM

DISTRICTS

37 J. Building Materials. All materials shall be high quality to allow for long-term durability and appearance. The exterior use of foam for trim and plywood, vinyl or aluminum as siding materials is prohibited. Building materials standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades. Exceptions include: internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way.

GStreet-facing ground floor building walls shall have high-quality materials and texture for all non-glass areas. High-quality materials include: stone, marble, granite, brick (real or thin veneers of natural color), ceramic tile, wood, terracotta, precast concrete, glass-fiber reinforced concrete, cast-in-place concrete, board-formed concrete, cement plaster, stucco (light sand or

38 smooth trowel finish), cement fiber or similar synthetic siding resembling wood siding, steel (porcelain enamel panels, steel windows, steel exterior doors, steel rails and fences, painted, stainless, or pre-weathered steel are acceptable when limited to a maximum of fifty percent (50 %) of the building treatment), aluminum (windows, panels, storefront, curtain wall, doors, aluminum should be natural finish anodized, powder-coated, or Kynar, no bronze anodized), high-density fiber cement panels, durable foam coating/window trims with smooth stucco finish.

Prohibited materials include: unfinished or natural T1-11 siding, foam, spray stucco, vinyl. Entry canopies, stoops, patios, and balconies shall be constructed of all-weather, durable materials.

The Planning Director shall maintain a list of approved facade and trim materials, with such a list accessible to the public.

9. Transition Areas. Where new multifamily developments are built adjacent to an existing RS district lower-scaled residential development, the facade facing the existing lower- scaled residential development shall be designed to provide architectural relief and interest, while also respecting the scale of adjacent neighbors.

39 a. Height. Full-height recesses, a minimum of ten (10) feet deep, shall be provided along the facade to break the building into smaller discrete masses.FIGURE 18.04.060-B(8)(a):

MINIMUM RECESS
b. Window
and Balcony Placement. Offset windows to avoid direct sight lines into and from neighboring properties. Position balconies and other private open space so they minimize views into neighboring properties.10. Exceptions. Exceptions to the building design standards may be granted with approval of a conditional use permit based on the finding that adequate design features have been incorporated to create visual variety and avoid a large-scale, bulky, or monolithic appearance.

H.K. Private Storage Space. Each unit shall have at least two hundred (200) cubic feet of enclosed, weather-proofed, and lockable private storage space with a minimum horizontal dimension of four (4) feet.

I.L. Paving. Differentiated paving materials shall be used for driveway aprons, entries, and pedestrian walkways. This may include, but shall not be limited to, textures or colors, concrete pavers, brick, or stamped concrete. The use of permeable materials to reduce runoff is strongly encouraged.

J.M. Pedestrian Access. On-site pedestrian circulation and access shall be provided according to the following standards:

1. Internal Connections. A system of pedestrian walkways shall connect all buildings on a site to each other, to on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, and to any on-site open space areas or pedestrian amenities.

40 2. To Circulation Network. Regular connections between on-site walkways and the public sidewalk and other planned or existing pedestrian routes, such as safe routes to school, shall be provided. An on-site walkway shall connect the primary building entry or entries to a public sidewalk on each street frontage.

3. To Neighbors. Direct and convenient access shall be provided to adjoining residential and commercial areas where to the maximum extent feasible while still providing for safety and security.

4. To Transit. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from transit stops to building entrances.

5. Pedestrian Walkway Design.
a. Walkways shall be have a minimum clear unobstructed width of five (5) feet wide, shall be hard-surfaced, and paved with concrete, stone, tile, brick, or comparable material.
b. Where a required walkway or sidewalk crosses driveways, parking areas, or loading areas, it shall be clearly identifiable through the use of a raised crosswalk, a different paving material, or similar method to prevent conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.
c. Where a required walkway is parallel and adjacent to an auto travel lane, it must be raised or separated from the auto travel lane by a raised curb at least four (4) inches high, bollards, or other physical barrier. (Ord. 1596 § 6 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. B (part)), 2018: Ord. 1480 (Exh. B (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)
* Code reviser’s note: Ord. 1480 added subsection (B)(3a) of this section as subsection (B)(3). It has been editorially renumbered to avoid duplication.

41 Chapter 18.05

MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
Sections:

18.05.010 (Excluded -No Changes Proposed).

18.05.020 Land use regulations.

18.05.030 Development standards.

18.05.040 Objective Design Standards for MU DistrictsSupplemental regulations.

18.05.020 Land use regulations. Revised 4/24
Table 18.05.020 prescribes the land use regulations for mixed-use districts. Parcels located within an adopted Specific Plan area shall comply with the land use regulations as specified within the Specific Plan. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows:
“P” designates permitted uses.
“M” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a minor use permit by the Zoning Administrator.
“C” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning and Transportation Commission. “(#)” numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the table. “-” designates uses that are not permitted.

Use classifications are defined in Chapter 18.40, Use Classifications. In cases where a specific land use or activity is not defined, the Director shall assign the land use or activity to a classification that is substantially similar in character. Use classifications and subclassifications not listed in the table or not found to be substantially similar to the uses below are prohibited.

The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other sections of this title.

TABLE 18.05.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MIXED-USE DISTRICTS

42 Use
Classificat
ions
MU-
DC-
100
MU-
D-
100
MU-
D-
120
MU-
SC-
120
MU-
NB-
120
MU-
SB-
100
MU-
SB-
120
MU-
N-40
MU-
N-50
MU-
N-
120
Additional
Regulatio
ns
Residential Uses
Residential
Housing
Types
See subclassifications below
Multi-Unit
Residential
P(1) P(1) P(2) P P(2) P P(2) P(3) P(2) P(2)
Note: Additional rows in this use table have been excluded from the document, as no amendments are being proposed.

Specific Limitations:

1. Allowed on the ground floor along Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue frontages. Parcels located within an adopted Specific Plan area shall comply with the requirements of the Specific Plan.

2. Conditional use permit approval required to allow residential uses on the ground floor along El Camino Real frontage. Residential-only development is subject to active ground floor use requirement, pursuant to section SCMC Section 18.05.030(H). Parcels located within an adopted Specific Plan area shall comply with the requirements of the Specific Plan.

3. Not allowed on the ground floor along Old County Road.

4. Not allowed on Laurel Street or San Carlos Avenue. Parcels located within an adopted Specific Plan area shall comply with the requirements of the Specific Plan.

Note: Footnotes 5-20 have been excluded, as no amendments are being proposed

18.05.030 Development standards. Revised 6/23
Tables 18.05.030-1 through 18.050.030-6 prescribe the development standards for mixed-use (MU) districts. Additional regulations are denoted in a right-hand column. Parcels located within

43 an adopted Specific Plan area shall comply with the development standards as specified within the Specific Plan. Section numbers in this column refer to other sections of this title, while individual letters refer to subsections that directly follow the table. The numbers in each illustration in this section refer to corresponding regulations in the “#” column in the associated table.

TABLE 18.05-030-1; LOT, DENSITY, AND FAR STANDARDS - MU DISTRICTSTABLE

18.05-030-1; LOT, DENSITY, AND FAR STANDARDS - MU DISTRICTS District
MU-
DC-
100
MU-
D-
100
MU-
D-
120
MU-
SC-
120
MU-
NB-
120
MU-
SB-
100
MU-
SB-
120
MU-
N-
40 MU-
N-
50 MU-
N-
120
Addit
ional
Regul
ation
s
#
Maximum
Density
(units/net
acre)
100 100 120 120 120 100 120 40 50 120
Minimum
Density
(units/net
acre)
75 75 90 90 90 75 90 30 38 90
Minimum
Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
5,000 sq. ft.

44 Minimum
Lot Width
(ft.)
50 ft.

Maximum
Floor Area
(FAR) for
Commerci
al-Only
Developm
ent

2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0
Required
Minimum
and
Maximum
Commerci
al Floor
Area in
Mixed-
Use
Developm
ent
When
commerci
al floor
area is
provided
within a
mixed-use
developm

0.1 - 0.7

45 ent, the
commerci
al space
shall be
subject to
the
specified
minimum
and
maximum
commerci
al FAR as
specified.

Residenti
al Only
Developm
ent
n/a (no maximum FAR)
Residenti
al Floor
Area in
Mixed-
Use
Developm
ent
n/a (no maximum FAR)
(1) Minimum densities apply to new development and construction of new projects, or when adding residential to an existing commercial use. For wholesale conversion of commercial uses to residential, minimum densities shall apply, but for small conversion of an existing single- space commercial use to residential, minimum densities shall not apply.

46 A. Increased Non-Residential FAR for Mixed-Use Buildings. The maximum allowable FAR for non-residential use may be increased by up to ten percent (10%) for buildings that contain a mix of residential and non-residential uses through the provision of one (1) or more of the following elements beyond what is otherwise required, subject to a conditional use permit approval:

1. Provision of off-site improvements. This may include off-site amenities and/or infrastructure (other than standard requirements and improvements) such as right-of-way or streetscape improvements or funding for parks, public safety facilities, libraries, senior centers, community meeting rooms, child care or recreation or other community benefit.

The Director may require a fiscal and economic impact report, or equivalent, as part of the conditional use permit application.

TABLE 18.05.030-2: BUILDING PLACEMENT STANDARDS - MU DISTRICTS TABLE

18.05.030-2: BUILDING PLACEMENT STANDARDS - MU DISTRICTS Dist
rict
MU-
DC-
100
MU-
D-
100
MU-
D-
120
MU-
SC-
120
MU-
NB-
120
MU-
SB-
100
MU-
SB-
120
MU-
N-
40 MU-
N-
50 MU-
N-
120
Additi
onal
Regul
ations
#
Street Frontage Setbacks, Commercial and Mixed-Use Development (ft) Laur
el
Stre
et
Property line or 15 ft. from curb (the greater) for all MU districts (B) 1 El
Cami
no
Real
Property line or 20 ft. from curb (the greater) shall apply to all Mixed Use Zones along El Camino Real
(B) 1

47 San
Carl
os
Aven
ue
Proper
ty line
or 15
ft. from
curb
(the
greater
)
n/a n/a Proper
ty line
or 15
ft. from
curb
(the
greate
r)
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a (B) 1
Elm
Stre
et
0 min,
10 ft.
max
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1
All
Othe
r
Stre
ets
5 ft.
min,
15 ft.
max1
5 ft.
min,
15 ft.
max
5 ft.
min,
15 ft.
max
5 ft.
min,
15 ft.
max
5 ft.
min,
15 ft.
max
0 ft.
min, 5
ft. max
0 ft.
min, 5
ft. max
5 ft.
min,
15 ft.
max
5 ft.
min,
15 ft.
max
5 ft.
min,
15 ft.
max
1 Interi
or
Side
0 ft. min; 10 min adjacent to RS district for all MU districts (A, C, D)
2 Rear 0 ft. min; 20 ft. min 30 min adjacent to RS district for all MU districts (A, C, D)
3 Corn
er
Build
Area
20 ft. 30; Ground floor building facades shall be located in accordance with the required setbacks within 20 ft. 30 feet of every corner. Ground floor pPublic plazas may be at the street corner instead, provided buildings are built to the edge of the public plaza.
4 48

* Applicable to 700 and 800 blocks of Walnut Street only.

FIGURE 18.05-030-C: BUILDING PLACEMENT KEY - MU DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.05-030-C:

BUILDING PLACEMENT KEY - MU DISTRICTS

B. Transitional Standards. Where an MU district is adjacent to an RS district, the following standards apply:

1. Rear transitions, MU districts: For the MU zoning district, the maximum height at the rear setback line shall be twenty-eight (28) feet maximum to match the RS district height maximum. Above twenty-eight (28) feet, a stepback of at least six (6) feet shall be provided from the story below. If the building is five (5) stories or more, the upper stories shall step back from the fourth story by at least another six (6) feet. The maximum height at the rear setback line shall be twenty-eight (28) feet maximum to match the RS district height limit.

Above twenty-eight (28) feet, the building shall step back by at least six (6) feet. If the building is five (5) stories or more, the upper stories shall step back from the fourth story by at least another six (6) feet.

2. Side transitions, MU districts: The maximum height at the side setback line adjacent tofacing an RS district shall be twenty-eight (28) feet maximum to match the RS district height maximum. Above twenty-eight (28) feet, a stepback of at least six (6) feet shall be provided from the story below. If the building is five (5) stories or more, the upper stories shall step back from the fourth story by at least another six (6) feet.

3. A minimum ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer area shall be provided along all rear boundaries adjacent to a RS district boundaries (Type 2 - Refer to Section 18.18.050

49 Landscaping Tables 18.18.050-B(1) and Table 18.18.050-B(2) for buffer types). Trees and shrubs shall be planted continuously in the landscape buffer along the site’s rear property line to create privacy screening between properties. Selected species shall be of a fast- growing, evergreen variety and capable of attaining a minimum height of twenty-five (25) feet at maturity. Trees shall be planted at a minimum interval of twenty to thirty (20-30) feet on center depending on the species and mature canopy width or growth habitat.

Continuous shrubbery planting is required between the trees and shall be a minimum six (6) feet in height within three (3) years of planting when planted. Species selection and placement must be approved by the City Arborist. A minimum of fifteen (15) gallon planting stock shall be utilized, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. a. Type 2 Buffers: Landscape buffer s Sshall be ten (10) feet wide. For every one hundred (100) feet in rear property line length a minimum of threefive (35) trees and six (6) shrubs shall be planted.
b. For other landscaping buffer requirements, refer to Section 18.18.050 Areas to be landscaped.
c. All new proposed tree species shall adhere to the City’s most recent preferred tree list or as specified by the City Arborist.

Where conflict between this section and landscaping requirements of SCMC Section 18.18.050 occurs, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply.

50 FIGURE 18.05.030-A: REAR TRANSITIONAL STANDARDS — MU DISTRICTS

FIGURE 18.05.030-B: SIDE TRANSITIONAL STANDARDS — MU DISTRICTS

51 CB. Build-To Line. Buildings shall be constructed at the required setback for at least eighty percent (80%) of their linear street frontage. The remaining twenty percent (20%) of linear street frontage shall be further set back by at least two (2) feet, including building massing breaks, recessed entrances, service or utility areas, and/or vehicle access areas. The area between the building and property line shall be paved where possible so that it functions as a wider public sidewalk. For further requirements refer to 18.05.040-A-1. This requirement may be modified or waived by the review authority upon finding that:

1. Street Frontage Improvements. This area is allowed to have landscaping and/or planters along ground-floor residential unit frontages and along non-active frontages to reduce the visual impact of blank walls, provided the landscaping and/or planters do not reduce the sidewalk pedestrian clearance width below the pedestrian clear zone requirement. Features including entry courtyards, plazas, building entries, and outdoor eating and display areas located between the build-to line and the building count towards the eighty percent (80%) build-to line requirement provided the buildings are built to the edge of these features.

1. Substantial landscaping is located between the build-to line and ground floor residential units to soften visual impact of buildings;

1. 2. Entry courtyards, plazas, entries, or outdoor eating and display areas are located between the build-to line and building; provided, that the buildings are built to the edge of the courtyard, plaza, or dining area; or

2. 3. The building incorporates an alternative entrance design that creates an a welcoming entry feature facing the street.

DC. Building Heights
TABLE 18.05.030-3 HEIGHT STANDARDS - MU DISTRICTS
Distr
ict
MU-
DC-
100
MU-
D-
100
MU-
D-
120
MU-
SC-
120
MU-
NB-
120
MU-
SB-
100
MU-
SB-
120
MU-
N-
40 MU-
N-
50 MU
-N-
120
Additio
nal
Regulati
ons
#

52 Buildi
ng
Maxi
mum
50 ft. 60 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft. 60 ft. 75 ft. 50 ft.; 35 ft. along East
San Carlos
Avenue in
MU-N-40
District
75 ft.
(D); See
Section

18.15.06 0, Height
and
height
exception
s
(1)
Buildi
ng
Maxi
mum
Adjac
ent to
RS
Distri
ct
30 ft. within 40 ft. of an RS district;
40 ft. within 50 ft. of an RS district
28 ft. along the rear and side setback lines (refer to 18.05.030-A-2 for side step back requirements)
Above 28 ft., the building shall step back by at least 6 ft. If the building is five (5) or more stories, the fifth story and above shall step back from the fourth story by at least another 6ft.

Buildi
ng
Minim
um
n/a 25 ft.;
Applicable
only along
Laurel Street
and El
Camino
Real
frontages

n/a (2)

53 Maxi
mum
Storie
s
4(1)
5 6 6 6 5 6 4; 3
stori
es
alon
g E.

San
Carl
os
Ave.
in
MU-
N-40
distri
ct
4 6
Ground Floor Minimum Height
Grou
nd
Floor
Uses
12 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft.
(3)

1. A use permit is required for the fourth story for parcels with street frontage onto Laurel Street in the 600, 700, and 800 blocks.

FIGURE 18.05.030-C: BUILDING HEIGHTS KEY - MU DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.05.030-C:

BUILDING HEIGHTS KEY - MU DISTRICTS

54 E. Height Limitations and Exceptions.

1. Vertical Projections. Except along East San Carlos Avenue, a parapet wall, cornice or sloping roof may project up to five (5) feet four (4) feet above the height limit (see SCMC Section 18.15.060 for vertical projection allowances).

2. Towers. If the project site is greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet and not located along East San Carlos Avenue, a tower or other projecting architectural elements may extend up to ten (10) feet above the top of a the roofpitched roof; provided, that the square footage of the element(s) does not total more than ten percent (10%) of the building footprint. The area above the uppermost permitted floor of the element(s) shall not be habitable space.
a. The composition of the tower element shall be balanced, where the width of the tower has a proportional relationship to the height of the tower.
b. The tower element shall be proportional to the rest of the building. c. The roof shall be sloped and include architectural detailing, such as a cornice or eave.

F. Upper Story Stepbacks. Upper story stepbacks help mitigate building height by providing visual and spatial relief more consistent with the context of San Carlos. All required upper story stepbacks shall occur for at least seventy percent (70%) of the facade length.

1. Third Story— Laurel Street. The third story along the 600, 700, and 800 blocks of Laurel Street shall be set back a minimum of six (6) feet ten (10) feet from the story below.

55 The fourth story along the 600, 700, and 800 blocks of Laurel Street may align with the third story below.

2. Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Stories. The fourth, fifth, and sixth stories of all street-facing facades buildings shall be stepped back a minimum of six (6) feet ten (10) feet from the third story below, except as provided in this section.

3. San Carlos Avenue and El Camino Real. The fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-story front facades may align with the third story below along San Carlos Avenue in the MU-SC-120 District and along El Camino Real (exception: this provision shall not apply to the 1100 and 1200 blocks of San Carlos Avenue).
c. Laurel Street. The fourth story along the 600, 700, and 800 blocks of Laurel Street may align with the story below.

FIGURE 18.05.030-E(2): STREET FACING UPPER STORY STEPBACKS – MU DISTRICTS

FIGURE 18.05.030-ED: STREET-FACING UPPER STORY STEPBACKS - MU DISTRICTS

56 57

G. Building Projections into the Public Right-of-Way. Building projections, awnings, overhangs, and canopies shall project no more than three (3) feet into the public right-of-way. Building projections shall maintain a minimum twelve (12) foot clearance above sidewalk grade, and awnings, overhangs, and canopies shall maintain a minimum eight (8) foot clearance above the sidewalk. The total width of all projections into the public right-of-way along a building face shall not be more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the building frontage. Projecting balconies may account for up to an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of the building frontage. Refer to Table

18.05.030-3 for building projection allowable dimensions.

1. Blank walls along the building’s street-facing facades shall not exceed ten (10) feet in length along the ground floor and twenty-five (25) feet in length along upper floors. If a blank wall area includes vertical interior spaces such as elevator towers or trash chutes, a change in building material, color, or texture, or a change in facade plane depth shall be provided if those vertical interior spaces would otherwise cause the blank wall to exceed the length limits.

FIGURE 18.05.030-E: PROJECTIONS AND BLANK WALLS - MU DISTRICTSFIGURE

18.05.030-E: PROJECTIONS AND BLANK WALLS - MU DISTRICTS

58 TABLE 18.05.030-4: BUILDING FORM STANDARDS - MU DISTRICTSTABLE 18.05.030-4:

BUILDING FORM STANDARDS - MU DISTRICTS
Distri
ct
MU-
DC-
100
MU-
D-
100
MU-
D-
120
MU-
SC-
120
MU-
NB-
120
MU-
SB-
100
MU-
SB-
120
MU-
N-
40 MU-
N-
50 MU-
N-
120
Additi
onal
Regul
ations
#
Maxim
um
Length
of
Blank
Wall
Ground floor: 10 feett.

Upper floors: 25 feett.

1 Maxim
um
Buildin
g
Project
ions
into
the
Public
Right-
of-
Way
3 feetft.; minimum 12 feetft. minimum above sidewalk grade. (F) 2 Awnin
gs and
Overh
34 feet ft.; minimum 8 ft.feet minimum above sidewalk grade. 3 59

angs
into
the
Public
Right-
of Way
)
E. Building Projections into the Public Right-of-Way. The maximum width of any single projection into the public right-of-way is twelveten (1210) feet and the total width of all projections into the public right-of-way along a building face shall not be more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the building frontage.

FIGURE 18.05.030-GF: PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS KEY - MU DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.05.030-GF: PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS KEY - MU

DISTRICTS

TABLE 18.05.030-5: PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS - MU DISTRICTS

60 District
MU-
DC-
100
MU-
D-
100
MU-
D-
120
MU-
SC-
120
MU-
NB-
120
MU-
SB-
100
MU-
SB-
120
MU-
N-
40 MU-
N-
50 MU-
N-
120
Additi
onal
Regul
ation
s
#
Surface
Parking
Setback
from
Street
Property
Line (ft.)
40 feetft; buildings shall be placed as close to the street as possible, with parking shall be placed underground, behind a building or on the interior side or rear of the site.
(H) 1
Surface
Parking
Setback
from
Buildings
and
Public
Plazas
(ft.)
8 ft feet.: 5 ft feet walkway plus 3 ft feet landscaping; applicable only to above- ground parking.
2 Parking
Access
Location
Side street or alley wherever possible. 3
Curb
Cuts
Prohib
ited
Refer SCMC Chapter 12.04 for dimensional requirements.

61 on
Laurel
Curb cuts shall be minimized and shall be placed in areas least likely to impede pedestrian circulation.

Loading/
Service
Area
Side or rear of lot; must be screened from public ROW. 4 Parking
Podium
Maximum height of a parking podium visible from the street is 5 feet above from finished grade.
5 H. Ground Floor Active Uses. Ground floor active uses in a mixed-use building shall occupy at least sixty-five (65%) of the public street frontage including any side street frontage. Commercial ground floor active uses shall have a depth of at least twelve (12) feet without walls or partitions, providing unobstructed views into the space. Distinct awning, canopy, or entry treatments shall be provided for commercial uses to distinguish from residential uses. Different treatments shall include, but are not limited to, doorway materials and recesses, signage, and paving in front of commercial entries.

1. New development in mixed-use districts shall comply with the window and transparency requirements of Section 18.05.040(K) and shall incorporate at least one (1) of the following active uses within the ground floor along public street frontages for uses as permitted pursuant to Table 18.05.020 : residential units with individual entrances oriented towards the street, retail, restaurant, office, business services, personal services, childcare center, theater, entertainment, indoor recreational uses, art gallery, maker space, live-work units, work-from-home shared work space, social gathering space, common residential lobbies, individual residential entrances, and residential common space such as fitness rooms, conference rooms, leasing and/or management offices.

FIGURE 18.05.030-H: GROUND FLOOR ACTIVE USES - MU DISTRICTS

62 I. Pedestrian Walkway Design.

1. Walkways shall have a minimum clear unobstructed width of five (5) feet, shall be hard-surfaced, and paved with concrete, stone, tile, brick, or comparable material.

2. Where a required walkway or sidewalks crosses driveways, parking areas, or loading areas, it shall be clearly identifiable through the use of a raised crosswalk, a different paving material, or similar method to prevent conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.

Where a required walkway is parallel and adjacent to an auto travel lane, it must be raised or separated from the auto travel lane by a raised curb at least four (4) inches high, bollards, or other physical barrier.

J. Parking Setbacks. Parking shall be allowed within Limitations on Location of Parking.

Parking may be located within forty (40) feet of the street-facing property line, subject to the following standards:

1. Fully Underground ed and Partially Submerged Parking. Parking completely or partially underground may match the setbacks of the main structure. Fully undergrounded parking may be located anywhere on a subject property. If tiebacks or similar structures extend beyond the property lines, a tieback agreement with the affected property owner(s) shall be included upon initial planning application submittal.

63 1.2. Partially Submerged Parking. Parking located partially underground shall match the setbacks of the main structure. The maximum height of a parking podium visible from a street is five (5) feet above finished grade.

2.3. Surface Parking. Above-ground surface parking is allowed may be located within forty (40) feet of from a street-facing property line when the decision making authority can make all of the following occurs findings:
a. Buildings are built to setback standards and as close to the public sidewalk asto the maximum extent feasible;
b. The parking area is at least eight five (85) feet from the public right-of-way, screened from adjacent properties with a minimum four (4) foot tall wall, hedges or landscaping, or a trellis along public-rights-of-way, and six (6) foot tall wall, hedges or landscaping, or a trellis along side and rear property lines. Fences shall meet the requirements pursuant to SCMC 18.15.040along the public right-of-way with a wall, hedge, trellis, and/or landscaping; and
c.b. The site is small and constrained such that underground, partially submerged, or surface parking located more than forty (40) feet from the street frontage is not feasible due to site-specific conditions.

TABLE 18.05.030-6: LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS - MU DISTRICTSTABLE 18.05.030-6: LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS - MU

DISTRICTS
Distric
t
MU-
DC-
100
MU-
D-
100
MU-
D-
120
MU-
SC-
120
MU-
NB-
120
MU-
SB-
100
MU-
SB-
120
MU-
N-
40 MU-
N-
50 MU-
N-
120
Additi
onal
Regul
ations

64 Minimu
m
Commo
nComm
on
and/or
Private
Open
Space
(% of
site)
10%;
Applicable to mixed-use and nonresidential development on lots greater than 15,000 square- feet; and
Applicable to all developments that are 100% residential regardless of lot size.

Minimu
m
Usable
Area for
Commo
n Open
Space
(sq. ft.)
200 square feet minimum, with a minimum width of 10 feet Minimu
m
Usable
Area for
Private
Open
Space
(sq.ft.)
Minimu
m
Dimens
20 36 square feet minimum, with minimum 65 foot depth

65 ions
(ft.)
Minimu
m
Amount
of
Landsc
aping
(% of
site)
10% Refer
Chapte
r 18.18
for
Landsc
aping
Requir
ement.

K. Commercial Loading and/or Service Areas. Commercial loading or service spaces shall not be located along the primary street frontage and shall be located either along the sides or rear of the structure. Loading and/or service areas shall only be allowed along the primary street frontage when the subject property fronts only one street and where there is no internal onsite vehicle circulation and/or access points.

L. Landscaping and Residential Open Space. Landscaping and residential open space shall be provided as required by Table 18.05.030-6 above. Residential open space shallmust be usable space and may be common, or private, or a combination thereof. Common open space areas consist of courtyards, plazas, terraces, lawns, patios, swimming pools, barbecue areas, playgrounds, or other usable outdoor areas. Private open areas typically consist of balconies, decks, patios, porches, or fenced yards. Private open areas when provided shall provide a minimum six (6) foot by six (6) foot clear area and be directly accessed from a residential unit., and other similar areas outside the residence. Common areas typically consist of landscaped areas, walks, patios, swimming pools, barbecue areas, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the development.

Landscaped courtyard entries that are at the ground level and oriented towards a public street are considered common areas. All areas not improved with buildings, parking, vehicular circulationaccessways, trash enclosures, and similar elementsitems shall be developed as common areas.Landscaping consists of planting areas, stormwater management features, treed areas, gardens, and other vegetation areas not otherwise considered common or private open space.

66 1. Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such a surface may be any practicable combination of lawn, garden, flagstone, wood planking, concrete, or other serviceable, dust-free surfacing. The maximum slope shall not exceed ten percent (10%).

2. Accessibility.
a. Private Open Space. The space shall be accessible to only one (1) living unit by a doorway to a habitable room or hallway.
b. Common Open Space. The space shall be accessible to the living units on the lot.

It shall be served by any stairway or other accessway qualifying as an egress facility from a habitable room. (Ord. 1596 § 6 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1485 (Exh. A), 2015; Ord. 1480 (Exh. B (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.05.040 Objective Design Standards for MU Districts. Supplemental regulations.

The intent of the Objective Design Standards is to ensure new buildings are compatible with the scale and character of San Carlos. To promote cohesive building design, quality craftsmanship, and compatible building scale, the following objective design standards apply to all multi-family residential buildings in MU districts. This includes all front, side, and rear building facades except for those not visible from public rights-of-way, such as internal courtyard facades.

Buildings on lots of widths seventy-five (75’) or less shall be subject to modified requirements along side facades as described further in this section. street-facing facades, including alleys, for multifamily residential buildings in MU districts. Parcels located within an adopted Specific Plan area shall comply with the Objective Design Standards per the Specific Plan.

A. Maximum Block Length. Five hundred (500) feet; block length of up to six hundred (600) feet is allowed when a mid-block pedestrian connection is provided.Street Preservation. Existing public right-of-way(s) shall be preserved. Public right-of-way shall not be eliminated or abandoned unless substantial public benefits are provided, such as a new park, as determined by the review authority.

B. Street Frontage Improvements. New development shall provide street frontage improvements in accordance with the following:

1. Between the Property Line and Curb (Sidewalk Zone) .

67 a. Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be provided if none already exist or if the existing sidewalks are in poor condition as determined by the Public Works Director. Sidewalks shall be designed to be composed of two (2) zones, the pedestrian clear zone and the landscape and furniture zone. The pedestrian clear zone shall have a minimum width that varies based on the street within which no landscape, furniture, or any other obstructions may be located. The width of the landscape and furniture zone may vary, and shall include a combination of street trees, landscaping, planter boxes, benches, street lights, bike racks, trash receptacles, bus shelters, outdoor dining, utilities such as fire hydrants, and sidewalk paving. Sidewalk width and design within any adopted Specific Plan area shall meet the objective requirements of the Specific Plan. If minimum sidewalk dimensions cannot be accommodated in the public right-of-way, a sidewalk easement shall be required.
b. Street Furniture. Trash receptacles, benches, bike racks, and other street furniture from a list maintained by the Director shall be provided. These elements shall be located outside of the required pedestrian clear path and within the landscape and furniture zone.
c. Street Lights. Pedestrian-scaled street lights, including attachments from which banners may be hung, shall be located in the landscape and furniture zone and shall be provided from a list maintained by the Director shall be provided. d. Street Trees. Sidewalks shall include at least one (1) street tree from the City’s most recent Preferred Tree List for every thirty (30) feet of sidewalk length. Street Shade trees shall be planted no more than at least thirty (30) feet on center. Tree guards shall be provided. Street trees and other trees on site counted towards the minimum tree requirement shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) inch box size. All new Ttrees shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) gallons in size., and at least ten percent (10%) of the required trees shall be twenty-four (24) inch box size or larger. When trees cannot be accommodated due to site constraints a minor deviation may be requested subject to the discretion of the City Arborist and Director.

2. Interior from Property Line (Frontage/Setback Zone) . Except where occupied by a building, residential ground floor entrances, or areas necessary for parking access, the street frontage, for a depth of ten (10) feet from the property line, shall be utilized for active outdoor uses for at least sixty-five percent (65%) of the available frontage length, including

68 but not limited to outdoor dining,; paved for public uses so that it functions as .0part of a wider public sidewalk;, stormwater management planters, or improved with landscaping, public art, and/or pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating.

FIGURE 18.05.040-A: FRONTAGE ZONES - MU DISTRICTS

C. Building Orientation and Entrances.

1. Buildings shall be oriented to face public streets.

2. Building frontages shall be generally parallel to streets, and the primary building entrances shall be located on a public street.

3. Building entrances shall be emphasized with special architectural and landscape treatments.

4. Entrances located at corners shall generally be located at a forty-five (45) degree angle to the corner and shall have a distinct architectural treatment to animate the intersection and facilitate pedestrian flow around the corner. Different treatments may include angled or rounded corners, arches, and other architectural elements. All building and dwelling units located in the interior of a site shall have entrances from the sidewalk that are designed as an extension of the public sidewalk and connect to a public sidewalk.

5. Entrances to residential units shall be physically separated from the entrance to the permitted commercial uses and clearly marked with a physical feature incorporated into the building or an appropriately scaled element applied to the facade.

69 1. Orientation. All ground-floor commercial and residential active uses located along public rights-of-way shall have their primary entrance(s) facing this right-of-way. If ground- floor residential active uses are located on four (4) lane streets carrying high traffic volumes and/or streets that do not allow on-street parking, unit entrances may be oriented around courtyards.

2. Main Building Entrances. If a building has a main entrance to a commercial space or shared residential lobby, the main entrance shall incorporate either a canopy, recess, or combination thereof. A covered area a minimum of four (4) feet deep shall be provided.

Refer to Table 18.05.030-3 for canopy projection standards. Entry canopies, stoops, patios, and balconies shall be constructed of all-weather, durable materials. If an entrance requires an accessible ramp, the ramp shall be integrated into the building and landscape design to minimize the visual impact of the ramp. Clear access to the ramp shall be maintained.

FIGURE 18.05.040-B: MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE - MU DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.05.040-B:

MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE - MU DISTRICTS

70 71

3. Ground Floor Dwelling Units. Exterior entrances to ground floor units shall be connected to the public sidewalk by a paved walkway with a minimum width of five (5) feet.

An at-grade patio, a raised stoop, or a raised porch may serve as a ground floor unit entrance. Raised stoops or porches shall not exceed five (5) feet above grade. Patios, stoops, and porches shall provide a minimum six (6) foot by six (6) foot clear area. Ground floor patios shall be surrounded by a low wall, fence, railing, and/or landscaping no higher than 42 inches to distinguish private outdoor space from the public sidewalk area. Ground floor exterior unit entrances may be recessed or project no more than eight (8) feet from the building facade. Fences shall meet the requirements pursuant to SCMC 18.15.040.

FIGURE 18.05.040-C: RESIDENTIAL UNIT ENTRANCE - MU DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.05.040- C: RESIDENTIAL UNIT ENTRANCE - MU DISTRICTS

72 73

FIGURE 18.05.040-D: BUILDING ORIENTATION AND ENTRANCES

4. Corner Entrances. Corner building entrances shall have a distinct architectural treatment to animate the intersection and facilitate pedestrian flow around the corner.

74 CE. Building TransparencyDesign — Required Openings for Nonresidential Uses. Exterior walls facing and within twenty (20) feet of a front or street side property line shall include windows, doors, or other openings for at least sixty percent (60%) of the building wall area located between two and one-half (2
1/2) and seven (7) feet above the level of the sidewalk. No wall may run in a continuous horizontal plane for more than twenty-five (25) feet without an opening.

FIGURE 18.05.040-E: BUILDING TRANSPARENCY—MU DISTRICTS

1. Design of Required Openings. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displays that are at least three (3) feet deep.

2. Exceptions for Parking Garages. Multilevel garages are not required to meet the building transparency requirement of this subsection. Instead, they must be screened and treated, consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.20, Parking and Loading.

3. Alternatives Through Design Review. Alternatives to the building transparency requirement may be approved if the Planning and Transportation Commission finds that:
a. The proposed use has unique operational characteristics with which providing the required windows and openings is incompatible, such as in the case of a cinema or theater; and
b. Street-facing building walls will exhibit architectural relief and detail, and will be enhanced with landscaping in such a way as to create visual interest at the pedestrian level.

75 D. Building Design and Articulation Massing Breaks. Massing breaks provide visual relief for longer buildings by breaking down the building scale into smaller elements more compatible with San Carlos. Massing break standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades.

Exceptions include: buildings on lots seventy-five (75’) feet wide or less require only one (1) minor massing break on side facades; internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights- of-way. Massing Breaks. Massing breaks provide visual relief for longer buildings by breaking down the building scale into smaller elements more compatible with San Carlos. Buildings shall provide adequate architectural articulation and detail to avoid a bulky and “box-like” appearance. Building design shall reflect and complement the architectural style of significant buildings within the community. This may be accomplished through the incorporation of architectural style, colors, and materials of significant buildings within the community. The following standards apply to commercial and mixed-use development in the MU districts.

Residential-only development is subject to the building design standards for the RM districts in Section 18.04.060(B), Building Design.

1. Massing. Building massing shall align with the street grid of adjacent blocks.

2. Relation to Existing Buildings. Buildings shall be designed to appear integrated with existing buildings in the district.

3. Wide Buildings. Any building over fifty (50) feet wide shall be broken down to read as a series of buildings no wider than fifty (50) feet each or thirty (30) feet in the MU-DC District or within one hundred (100) feet of the train depot.

4. Vertical Relationship. Buildings shall be designed to have a distinctive base (ground floor level), middle (intermediate upper floor levels), and top (either top floor or roof level).

Cornices, balconies, roof terraces, and other architectural elements should be used, as appropriate, to terminate roof lines and accentuate setbacks between stories.

1. Buildings between fifty (50) feet and one hundred (100) feet in length shall include at least one (1) minor massing break, defined as a minimum of four (4) feet wide by two (2) feet deep extending the full height of the building above the ground floor and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line. The required minor massing break shall be positioned such that no more than two thirds (⅔) of the total building length is without a massing break. When a building has an upper floor stepback, the minor massing break minimum

76 dimensions shall also apply to the upper floors and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line

2. Buildings greater than one hundred (100) feet and up to two hundred (200) feet in length shall include at least one (1) minor massing break (defined above) and one (1) major massing break, defined as a minimum of ten (10) feet wide by ten (10) feet deep extending the full height of the building above the ground floor and shall include a break in the roof line. The required major and minor massing breaks shall be positioned such that no more than two thirds (⅔) of the total building length is without a massing break. When a building has an upper floor stepback, the minor massing break minimum dimensions apply to the upper floors and shall include a break in the roof line, and the major massing break may continue vertically to align with the walls below the stepback and shall include a break in the roof line.

3. Buildings greater than two hundred (200) feet in length must include at least one (1) minor massing break and two (2) major massing breaks (defined above). The required minor and major massing breaks shall be positioned such that no more than two thirds (⅔) of the total building length is without a massing break. When a building has an upper floor stepback, the minor massing break minimum dimensions shall also apply to the upper floors and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line. The major massing break may continue vertically to align with the walls below the stepback and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line

FIGURE 18.05.040-D: MASSING BREAKS - MU DISTRICTS

77 78

E. Corners. Corner buildings shall emphasize the street corner through a combination of building massing and facade variation.

1. All corners shall be defined for at least twenty (20) feet along each of the two street- facing facades. The corner portion shall either have a minimum two (2) foot change in building plane from its adjacent facades, or a minimum two (2) foot by two (2) foot recessed reveal where it meets the adjacent facades.

2. Building corners shall be further differentiated from the rest of the street-facing facades by at least one (1) of the following: a change in roof form with at least a five (5) foot difference in roof height, a change in building material, color, or texture, or a variation in fenestration placement.

3. Alternatively, the corner can either be a common roof terrace above the ground floor or a common plaza at the ground floor.

FIGURE 18.05.040-E: CORNERS - MU DISTRICTS

79 80

F. Roof Variety. Roof variety standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades.

Exceptions include: internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way.

2. Parapet caps/coping shall be provided along all street-facing building facades at a minimum, be at least six (6) inches deep and six (6) inches tall, and project at least three (3) inches from the building facadeParapet caps/coping shall be at least six (6) inches deep and six (6) inches tall and project at least three (3) inches from the building facade.

Cornices shall project a minimum of six (6) inches from the facade and be at least 12 inches tall. Sloped roofs shall have overhangs extending a minimum of twelve (12) inches and a maximum of three (3) feet from the facade, including the eave and gutter profile.

3. Changes in roof height between parapets or differing roof types must be at least five (5) feet in height. Rooftop equipment shall be fully screened from public/street view pursuant to SCMC Section 18.15.090 using architectural elements including but not limited to parapets and screens. The screening elements shall be integrated into the overall building design.

81 4. Towers. If the project site is greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet and not located along East San Carlos Avenue, a tower or other projecting architectural element(s) may extend up to ten (10) feet above the top of the roof; provided, that the square footage of the element(s) does not total more than ten percent (10%) of the building roof area. The area above the uppermost permitted floor of the element(s) shall not be habitable space.

FIGURE 18.05.040-F: ROOF VARIETY - MU DISTRICTS

G. Base, Middle, and Top Treatment. All buildings three (3) stories and taller shall be composed of the following: a distinct base (in some cases this can be treated as the ground

82 story or combined first two stories), a middle (the majority of the building facade area), and a top (parapet cap/coping, cornice, or sloped roof, or in some cases this can be treated as the top story or combined top two stories) along all street-facing facades as described below. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another for at least seventy percent (70%) of its street facing facade length by either a change in material, a change in color, and/or a facade plane change of at least two (2) feet. A ground floor or in some cases, a combined ground floor and second floor stepback of at least two (2) feet in addition to the required setback from floors above may be considered a base. Base, middle, and top treatment standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades. Exceptions include: internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way.

3. The middle portion of buildings of three (3) or four (4) stories shall be a minimum of two stories in height.

4. The middle portion of buildings of five (5) to six (6) stories shall be a minimum of three stories in height.

6. The top of all buildings must have a parapet cap/coping, a cornice, or be a sloped roof.

83 8. A top for buildings of six (6) stories or more may be treated as the full height of the top story. The top may also be treated as the full height of the top two (2) stories combined, only if the base is limited to the height of the ground story.

FIGURE 18.05.040-G: BASE, MIDDLE, AND TOP - MU DISTRICTS

84 H. Fenestration Variety: To achieve the fenestration variety standard, buildings shall include rhythms of at least two (2) types of openings for at least seventy percent (70%) of its street- facing facade length - the required seventy percent (70%) length does not have to be continuous. Various types of distinct openings include storefront windows and doors, residential entry doors, living room windows, bedroom windows, bathroom windows, common hallway windows, and stairway windows. Windows may be grouped vertically or horizontally or designed with shading devices or other architectural features to achieve pattern variety. Fenestration standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades. Exceptions include: internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way.

FIGURE 18.05.040-H: FENESTRATION VARIETY - MU DISTRICTS

85 I. Materials, Colors, and Texture Variety: To achieve this standard, buildings shall provide at least two (2) different materials, colors, or textures for at least seventy percent (70%) of each of its facade lengths except for any interior courtyard-facing facade not visible from a public right- of-way street-facing facade length. Material transitions along any facade shall only occur on the inside corner of a plane change. When material changes need to occur in the same plane, bands, trims, cornices, or other architectural elements shall project at least two (2) inches from the facade plane to create a corner for the material transition. Materials, colors, and texture variety standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades. Exceptions include: internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way.

FIGURE 18.05.040-J: MATERIAL TRANSITIONS - MU DISTRICTS

86 J. Projecting and Recessed Elements. This standard may be applied in lieu of both the fenestration variety standard and the materials, colors, and texture variety standard. This standard applies only to facades facing public rights-of-way, not to side, rear, or internal courtyard facades. To achieve the projecting / recessed elements standard, buildings shall provide a rhythm of at least two (2) of the following elements for at least seventy percent (70%) of its street-facing facade length: projecting bays / bay windows, recessed areas containing windows, projecting or recessed balconies, ground floor stoops or porches, projecting frame / box elements containing at least one (1) window, projecting window shading devices, and ground floor awnings or canopies.

1. Projecting bays shall be between eighteen (18) inches and three (3) feet deep, and between six (6) feet and twelve (12) feet wide.

2. Usable balconies shall be a minimum of six (6) feet deep by six (6) feet wide.

Decorative Juliet balconies shall be a minimum of twelve (12) inches deep and three (3) feet wide.

3. Recessed areas of a building containing windows shall be at least one (1) foot deep.

Recessed panels shall be at least four (4) inches deep.

4. Screening devices, shading devices, and projecting frame elements shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches deep. Lattices, louvers, and/or perforated metal screens shall be a minimum of four (4) inches deep or set at least four (4) inches from the facade.

FIGURE 18.05.040-L: PROJECTING AND RECESSED ELEMENTS - MU DISTRICTS

87 E.K. Windows and Ground Floor Transparency.

3. A minimum of 90% of upper floor windows on street- or public open space-facing building facades shall be designed such that:
a. Windows are at least 12 inches apart.
b. Proportions of typical windows shall be vertically oriented and shall not exceed a width (x) to height (y) ratio of two to three (2:3). Proportions of picture windows

88 (typically provided for living rooms) shall not exceed a width to height ratio of one to one (1:1)

1.5. Mirrored or reflective glass is not allowed on a street- or public open space-facing building facade at any level. Only transparent glass shall be used for windows or glazing at the ground floor.

2.6. Facade transparency is important to provide visual interest, visibility for businesses, and an active sidewalk environment. For mixed-use buildings with commercial ground floors, a minimum 60% of the ground floor facade area between two (2) feet and ten (10) feet above the sidewalk shall be glazed with transparent windows and doors. For mixed- use buildings with non-commercial ground floors, such as office, institution, residential units, or residential active uses as further defined in Section 18.05.030(H)(1), a minimum 50% of the ground floor facade area between four (4) feet and ten (10) feet above the sidewalk shall be glazed with transparent windows and doors. For corner buildings, this standard also applies to the secondary street facade for at least twenty-five (25) feet from the corner.

3.7. Minor deviation from the window requirement may be granted through the design review process to accommodate alternative window design complementary to the architectural style of the structure.

89 a. Trim at least one (1) inch in depth must be provided around all windows, or window must be recessed at least two (2) inches from the plane of the surrounding exterior wall.

FIGURE 18.05.040-F(5)(a): WINDOW TRIM OR RECESS—MU DISTRICTS

b. Snap-in vinyl mullions between double pane glass is prohibited. If a divided light appearance is desired, mullions must be made of dimensional material projecting in front of the panes on both the inside and outside of the window. c. Exceptions may be granted through the design review process to accommodate alternative window design complementary to the architectural style of the structure.

FIGURE 18.05.040-M: WINDOWS - MU DISTRICTSFIGURE 18.05.040-M: WINDOWS - MU

DISTRICTS

90 91

FIGURE 18.05.040-N: GROUND FLOOR WINDOW TRANSPARENCY - MU DISTRICTS

92 F.L. Building MaterialsExterior Building Materials and Colors. Building materials standards apply to all front, side, and rear building facades. Exceptions include: internal courtyard facades not visible from public rights-of-way. G Street-facing ground floor building walls shall have high- quality materials and texture for all non-glass areas. High-quality materials include: stone, marble, granite, brick (real or thin veneers of natural color), ceramic tile, wood, terracotta, precast concrete, glass-fiber reinforced concrete, cast-in-place concrete, board-formed concrete, cement plaster, stucco (light sand or smooth trowel finish), cement fiber or similar synthetic siding resembling wood siding, steel (porcelain enamel panels, steel windows, steel exterior doors, steel rails and fences, painted, stainless, or pre-weathered steel are acceptable when limited to a maximum of fifty percent (50 %) of the building treatment), aluminum (windows, panels, storefront, curtain wall, doors, aluminum should be natural finish anodized, powder-coated, or Kynar, no bronze anodized), high-density fiber cement panels, durable foam coating/window trims with smooth stucco finish. Prohibited materials include: unfinished or natural T1-11 siding, foam, spray stucco, vinyl. Entry canopies, stoops, patios, and balconies shall be constructed of all-weather, durable materials. The Planning Director shall maintain a list of approved facade and trim materials, with such a list accessible to the public. a. A unified palette of quality materials shall be used on all sides of buildings. b. Exterior building materials shall be stone, brick, stucco, concrete block, painted wood clapboard, painted metal clapboard or other quality, durable materials approved by the City as part of the project review.
c. A wainscoting of quality materials on the bottom eighteen (18) to thirty-six (36) inches of the ground floor facade is required. Exceptions may be granted through the design review process to accommodate alternative design complementary to the architectural style of the structure.
d. Colors shall be used to help delineate windows and other architectural features to increase architectural interest.

7. Building Details. Buildings shall provide adequate architectural articulation and detail to avoid a bulky and “box-like” appearance.
a. Building facades shall include building projections or recesses, doorway and window trim, and other details that provide architectural articulation and design interest.

93 b. All applied surface ornamentation or decorative detailing shall be consistent with the architectural style of the building.
c. All balconies that do not meet the minimum size required for private open space, such as Juliet balconies, shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of two (2) feet. d. Each side of the building that is visible from a public right-of-way shall be designed with a complementary level of detailing.

M. Private Storage Space. Each unit shall have at least two hundred (200) cubic feet of enclosed, weather-proofed, and lockable private storage space with a minimum horizontal dimension of four (4) feet.

N. Paving. Differentiated paving materials shall be used for driveway aprons, entries, and pedestrian walkways. This may include, but not be limited to, textures or colors, concrete pavers, brick, or stamped concrete. The use of permeable materials to reduce runoff is strongly encouraged.

G.O. Pedestrian Access. On-site pedestrian circulation and access must be provided according to the following standards:

2. To Circulation Network. Connections between on-site walkways and the public sidewalk and other existing or planned pedestrian routes, such as safe routes to school, shall be provided. An on-site walkway shall connect the primary building entry or entries to a public sidewalk on each street frontage.

3. To Neighbors. Direct and convenient access shall be provided from commercial and mixed-use projects to adjoining residential and commercial areas to the wheremaximum extent feasible while still providing for safety and security.

4. To Transit. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from transit stops to building entrances.

94 5. Across Rail Corridor. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided across the rail corridor. If an aerial viaduct or trench is used for rail alignment, the following standards shall apply where to the extent feasible given engineering requirements. a. Extend the street grid below the aerial viaduct or above the trench to provide new street and pedestrian connections across the corridor.
b. Locate active commercial uses or public park and recreation space below the aerial viaduct to enhance connectivity and create safe, attractive connections across the rail corridor.
c. Enhance connections below the viaduct with lighting and public art.

6. Interior Pedestrian Walkway Design.
a. Walkways shall have a minimum clear unobstructed width of five (5) feet, shall be hard-surfaced, and paved with concrete, stone, tile, brick, or comparable material. b. Where a required walkway crosses driveways, parking areas, or loading areas, it shall be clearly identifiable through the use of a raised crosswalk, a different paving material, or similar method.
c. Where a required walkway is parallel and adjacent to an auto travel lane, it must be raised or separated from the auto travel lane by a raised curb at least four (4) inches high, bollards, or other physical barrier.

H.P. Residential Notification. Residents of mixed-use development shall be informed by the applicant and/ or property management of potential noise from refuse collection and other activities typically associated with commercial activity.

I.Q. Rail Station.

1. Rail stations shall be designed to have physical presence and visibility on both sides of the rail corridor, including key architectural features that are visible from major roadways and connections, as well as pedestrian-level entries and vehicle drop-off areas.

2. Rain-protected east-west pedestrian connections shall be provided at the ground level of the station to enhance pedestrian connectivity along the rail corridor. These connections should be extensions of the existing street grid and pedestrian network with a minimum

95 clear width of eight (8) feet. (Ord. 1612 § 1 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1596 § 6 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1480 (Exh. B (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

96 Chapter 18.06
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Revised 4/24
Sections:

18.06.010 – 18.06.040 (Excluded. No changes proposed)

18.06.040 Supplemental regulations. Revised 4/24

18.06.040 Supplemental regulations. Revised 4/24
Note: Section A-C excluded. No changes proposed.

C.D. Residential Development. Residential Development subject to Government Code Section 65400 (Assembly Bill 2011, Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022) shall be developed in accordance with the RM-100 Objective Design Standards (Section 18.04) while residential mixed-use development shall be developed in accordance with the Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards (Section 18.05) related to building design. Other development standards such as landscaping, height and setbacks, with the exception of allowable FAR, shall adhere to the regulations of this Chapter. (Ord. 1612 § 1 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1480 (Exh. B (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

97 Chapter 18.15
GENERAL SITE REGULATIONS Revised 1/24 Revised 7/24
Sections:

18.15.010 - 18.15.030 (Excluded. No changes proposed)

18.15.040 Fences and walls.

18.15.050 (Excluded. No changes proposed)

18.15.060 Height and height exceptions.

18.15.070 Lighting and illumination. Revised 1/24

18.15.080 Projections into yards. Revised 1/24

18.15.090 - 18.15.140 (Excluded. No changes proposed).

18.15.040 Fences and walls.

Fences, walls, dense hedges, and similar structures shall comply with the standards of this section.

A. Purpose. To provide residents with greater security and protected outdoor living space through fencing of property while allowing light, access and visibility for the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry. Limitations on fencing also serve to maintain the aesthetic value of the City.

B. Standard Fences—Height, Regulation and Exceptions in Residential Districts.

1. Front Yards. No fence, wall, hedge or screen planting of any kind located between the front property line and the front-most wall of a main structure residence establishing an existing front setback (or the required front setback, whichever is less) shall be constructed, grown or maintained to exceed four (4) feet in height. This height may be increased to up to five (5) feet when the fence, wall, hedge or screen planting is used to screening podium parking. However, front yard fences, hedges or screen plantings within the sight distance triangular area shall not exceed three (3) feet in height unless an exception is obtained pursuant to subsection (C)(14) of this section. This provision shall not apply to the following items; provided, that such amenities do not significantly obstruct vehicular or pedestrian visibility or significantly obscure light to adjacent properties:
a. Specimen trees or shrubs that do not form a continuous barrier; b. Light poles, pillars or pilasters (not to exceed six (6) feet in height and eighteen inches in width);

98 c. Front yard fence posts with attached lights (not more than two (2) permitted; posts not to exceed four (4) feet in height and eighteen (18) inches in width and depth plus a two-foot-high light fixture);
d. Gates no higher than four (4) feet in height and four (4) feet in width for pedestrian gates; fourteen (14) feet in width for driveway gates;
e. Trellises used for pedestrian purposes (not to exceed eight (8) feet in height, five (5) feet in width and five (5) feet in depth);
f. One mailbox structure not to exceed six (6) feet in height; g. Up to three (3) statuary structures not to exceed four (4) feet in height, two (2) feet in width and two (2) feet in depth each; and
h. Other structures which the Director determines are of a similar nature.

2. Rear and Side Yards. Fences located between the front-most wall establishing an existing front setback (or the required front setback, whichever is less) and the side or rear lot line shall not be constructed or maintained to exceed six (6) feet in height plus one (1) foot of lattice. If the fence falls within a corner lot or driveway area, the fence must also meet the requirements of subsection (B)(3) of this section, Corner Lots.

3. Corner Lots. Fences shall be a maximum of three (3) feet in height within the sight distance triangle, unless an exception is obtained from the Building Official as outlined in subsection (C)(14) of this section. Trees, or any portions thereof, that are located within this sight distance triangle shall have a clearance of seven (7) feet high minimum between the lowest portion of the canopy and the sidewalk, and thirteen (13) feet high minimum between the lowest portion of the canopy and street.

99 FIGURE 18.15.040-B: FENCE AND WALL HEIGHT

C. Special Fences—Height and Regulations. Special fences are subject to review and approval by the Director, who may impose reasonable conditions or restrictions including, but not limited to, neighbor notification, setbacks and landscape screening as deemed necessary to ensure compatibility of the special fence with adjoining lots and those in the general vicinity, and may require guarantees and evidence that such conditions are being, or will be, complied with.

Special fences include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Recreation Area Fences. Fences not to exceed twelve (12) feet in height may be located around tennis courts, badminton courts, basketball or volleyball courts and similar play areas, providing that all parts of the fence over six (6) feet are made of open-wire construction or other corrosion-resistant material;

2. Security Fences. Fences not to exceed eight (8) feet in height may be located around industrial, manufacturing or research uses where required for security purposes, screening, or containing and protecting hazardous materials;

3. Swimming Pool Fences. Fences required for swimming pools are governed by Chapter

15.40, Swimming Pools, and Section 18.15.100, Swimming pools and spas. Swimming pool fences are not subject to Director approval unless they exceed the standard fence height regulations stated in subsection B of this section;

4. Abutting Nonresidential Fences. Where residential properties abut industrial or commercial areas, or public property other than a public street, fences may be constructed

100

to a height not to exceed eight (8) feet, and meeting minimum sight distance triangle requirements;

5. Trellises used for pedestrian purposes exceeding eight (8) feet in height, five (5) feet in width and five (5) feet in depth;

6. Statuary structures exceeding the exemption limit of three (3) structures and/or exceeding four (4) feet in height and two (2) feet in depth;

7. Fence posts greater than eighteen (18) inches in width or depth;

8. Front yard fence posts with more than two (2) attached lights. In no event shall such posts exceed four (4) feet in height plus a two-foot-high light fixture;

9. Chain-link fencing in residential areas is permitted in the side and rear yards with vinyl- coating and landscape screening. Chain-link fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height in these areas. Chain-link fencing in front yards in residential areas is not permitted;

10. Fences not to exceed six (6) feet in height with an additional one (1) foot of lattice for any portion of an irregular lot between the house and property line adjacent to the public right-of-way;

11. Fences not to exceed six (6) feet in height with an additional one (1) foot of lattice for any portion of a lot two hundred (200) feet in depth or greater between the house and property line adjacent to the public right-of-way. Such fences shall not be located closer than fifteen (15) feet to the front property line;

12. Fences not to exceed six (6) feet in height with an additional one (1) foot of lattice within front yards when not located in front of a primary residence and not closer than fifteen (15) feet to a front property line;

13. Gates exceeding four (4) feet in width for pedestrian use or fourteen (14) feet in width for driveway use;

14. Exceptions to sight distance triangles if the necessity for the fence outweighs concerns for public safety as determined by the Building Official;

15. Other structures which the Director determines are of a similar nature.

D. Prohibited Fences. The following types of fences are prohibited:

101

1. Barbed wire or razor wire, except the use of barbed wire fencing may be permitted for security purposes in industrial districts at the top portion of a fence at least six (6) feet in height upon approval of a conditional use permit;

2. Electrically charged fences;

3. All wire, twine or rope fences consisting of one or more strands;

4. Fences constructed or maintained in the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit;

5. Fences constructed or maintained closer than three (3) feet to any fire hydrant;

6. Fences constructed or maintained so as to sag or lean;

7. Dilapidated fences;

8. Fences creating a safety hazard to motorists and/or pedestrians;

9. Construction fencing where no valid building permit exists; and

10. Chain-link fencing in front and corner side yards in residential districts.

E. Fencing in Mixed-Use and Commercial Zoning Districts. All fencing over six (6) feet in height within mixed-use and commercially zoned districts shall be subject to review and approval by the Director. In no case shall fencing exceed eight (8) feet in height.

F. Fencing in the Public Right-of-Way. All fencing in the public right-of-way requires an encroachment permit from the City Engineer and shall be subject to all requirements of this chapter, in addition to those of the Public Works Department.

G. Building Permit and Staff Approval Requirements.

1. No person shall erect, construct or maintain any solid fence or wall exceeding six (6) feet in height (exclusive of lattice) without first obtaining a permit from the Building Division.

2. No person shall erect, construct or maintain fences in combination with retaining walls of any height without first obtaining a permit from the Building Division.

102

3. No person shall erect, construct or maintain pressure treated wood retaining walls over three (3) feet tall without first obtaining a permit from the Building Division. Walls three (3) feet and under shall must have backfill no steeper than 2:1.

4. No person shall erect, construct or maintain concrete or masonry retaining walls over four (4) feet tall, measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall without first obtaining a permit from the Building Division.

H. Nonconforming Fences and Vegetation. Nonconforming fences and vegetation shall comply with the following:

1. All existing nonconforming fences and walls in the public right-of-way shall be immediately removed or otherwise made to conform to this title’s standards.

2. Any shrubs, trees or other foliage which, in the opinion of the Chief of Police, obscures safe sight distance from driveways and corners shall be trimmed by the property owner to a condition satisfactory to the Chief of Police.

3. Any other existing legally nonconforming fence may remain; provided, that it is not replaced as defined in Section 18.41.020, Definitions, or constituting a hazardous condition as determined by the Building Official. (Ord. 1480 (Exh. C (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.15.060 Height and height exceptions.

The structures listed in the following table may exceed the maximum permitted building height for the district in which they are located, subject to the limitations stated; and further provided, that no portion of a structure in excess of the building height limit may contain habitable areas or advertising. Additional height, above this limit, may be approved with a conditional use permit, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.30, Use Permits.

Structures Allowed Above the
Height Limit
Maximum Coverage,
Locational Restrictions
Maximum Vertical
Projection Above

103

the Height Limit
(ft.)
Skylights 20% of roof area 1 ft.

Chimneys not over 6 feet in width 10% of roof area 8 ft.

Flagpoles 5% of roof area 8 ft.

Rooftop open space features such as
sunshade and windscreen devices,
open trellises, and landscaping (for
multifamily and nonresidential buildings
only)
10% of roof area.

Shall Must be set back from the
exterior building wall one (1)
foot for every one (1) foot of
projection above the height limit
10 ft.

Elevator and stair towers (for
multifamily and nonresidential buildings
only)
10% of roof area.

ShallMust be set back from the
exterior building wall one (1)
foot for every one (1) foot of
projection above the height limit
1016 ft.

Decorative features such as spires, bell
towers, domes, cupolas, obelisks, and
monuments
10% of roof area.

Must be set back from the
exterior wall one foot for every
foot of projection above the
height limit
6 ft. for residential
development in RS
districts; 10 ft.
elsewhere

104

Fire escapes, catwalks, and open
railings required by law
Solar panels, and other energy
production facilities located on a
rooftop
No restriction 10 ft.

Distribution and transmission towers,
lines, and poles
Water tanks
Windmills
Radio towers
Industrial structures where the
manufacturing process requires a
greater height
25% of the area of the lot, or
10% of the roof area of all on-
site structures, whichever is
less.

Shall Must be located at least
25 feet from any lot line
10 ft.

Building-mounted telecommunications
facilities, antennas, and microwave
equipment
Subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.24, Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities
(Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.15.070 Lighting and illumination. Revised 1/24
A. Applicability. The standards of this section apply to all new development and additions that expand existing floor area by ten percent (10%) or more.

B. General Standards.

1. Multiple-Unit Residential Buildings. Aisles, passageways, and recesses related to and within the building complex shall be illuminated with an intensity of at least one-quarter

105

(1/4) foot-candle at the ground level during the hours of darkness. Lighting devices shall be downward directed and protected by weather and vandal-resistant covers.

2. Nonresidential Buildings. All exterior doors, during the hours of darkness, shall be illuminated with a minimum of one-half (1/2) foot-candle of light. Lighting devices shall be shielded and downward directed to prevent light pollution and contain light onto the subject property.

3. Pedestrian-Oriented Lighting. In Mixed-Use districts, exterior lighting shall be provided for pedestrian environments at building entrances, public sidewalks, and public open spaces. Exterior lighting devices shall be downward directed or employ other shielding techniques to prevent light pollution and spillover onto adjacent properties. In the mixed- use districts, exterior lighting shall be provided for a secure nighttime pedestrian environment by reinforcing entrances, public sidewalks and open areas with a safe level of illumination.

4. Maximum Height. Lighting standards shall not exceed the maximum heights specified in the following table:

District
Maximum Height
(ft.)
Residential
Districts
16 feet
Commercial and
Mixed-Use
Districts
16 feet within 100 feet
of any street frontage;
20 feet in any other
location.

Industrial Districts 20 feet within 100 feet
of any street frontage;

106

25 feet in any other
location.

Public and Semi-
Public and Airport
District
25 feet, or as
necessary for safety
and security.

C. Control of Outdoor Artificial Light.

1. Purpose. This subsection is intended to minimize outdoor artificial light that may have a detrimental effect on the environment, astronomical research, amateur astronomy, and enjoyment of the night sky. These provisions are also intended to reduce the unnecessary illumination of adjacent lots and the use of energy.

2. Exemptions. The following types of lighting fixtures are exempt from the requirements of this section:
a. Public and private street lighting.
b. Athletic Field Lights. Athletic field lights used within a school campus or public or private park.
c. Safety and Security Lighting. Safety and security lighting for public facilities, including but not limited to the airport and hospitals. d. Construction and Emergency Lighting. All construction or emergency lighting fixtures, provided they are temporary and are discontinued immediately upon completion of the construction work or abatement of the emergency. e. Seasonal Lighting. Seasonal lighting displays related to cultural or religious celebrations.

3. Prohibited Lighting. The following types of exterior lighting are prohibited:
a. Drop-down lenses;
b. Mercury vapor lights; and

107

c. Searchlights, laser lights, or any other lighting that flashes, blinks, alternates, or moves.

4. Fixture Types. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded so as not to produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties. Lighting fixtures shall adhere to the below requirements:
a. Freestanding Fixtures. When using freestanding light fixtures, the light elements shall be screened to minimize light spillage, confine light to site, and directed away from neighbors.
b. Outdoor and Parking Lights. All outdoor and parking lights shall be situated away from windows of residential units to reduce light impact on residents and shall be directed downward and away from adjacent residences and public right-of-way. c. Wall-Mounted Fixtures. To minimize the light glare and spillage all wall-mounted fixtures shall be oriented to an angle towards the ground. The optimal angle shall be between fifty (50) and seventy (70) degrees.
d. Bollard Lighting. Bollard lighting can be used to light walkways and other landscape features but shall cast its light downward.
e. Security Lighting. Motion-activated security lighting shall not be capable of being activated by any person(s) in the public right-of-way or on adjacent property. f. Luminaires. All luminaires shall meet the most recently adopted criteria of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) for cutoff or full cutoff luminaires.

108

FIGURE 18.15.070-C(4): FIXTURE TYPES

5. Glare. No use shall be operated such that significant, direct glare incidental to the operation of the use is visible beyond the boundaries of the lot where the use is located.

Light or glare from mechanical or chemical processes, high-temperature processes such as combustion or welding, or from reflective materials on buildings or used or stored on a site, shall be shielded or modified to prevent emission of adverse light or glare onto other properties.

6. Light Trespass. Lights shall be placed to deflect light away from adjacent lots and public streets, and to prevent adverse interference with the normal operation or enjoyment of surrounding properties.
a. Direct or sky-reflected glare from floodlights shall not be directed into any other lot or street.
b. No light or combination of lights, or activity shall cast light exceeding one (1) foot- candle onto a public street, with the illumination level measured at the centerline of the street.
c. No light, combination of lights, or activity shall cast light exceeding one-half (1/2) foot-candle onto a residentially zoned lot, or any lot containing residential uses.

7. Required Documentation. Project applicants shall submit photometric data from lighting manufacturers to the City to demonstrate that the lighting requirements have been satisfied.

109

8. Alternate Materials and Methods of Installation. Designs, materials, or methods of installation not specifically prescribed by this section may be approved; provided, that the proposed design, material, or method provides approximate equivalence to the specific requirements of this section or is otherwise satisfactory and complies with the intent of these provisions. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.15.080 Projections into yards. Revised 1/24
Building projections may extend into required yards, according to the standards of Table

18.15.080, Allowed Building Projections into Required Yards, subject to all applicable requirements of the California Building Code. The “Limitations” column states any dimensional, area, or other limitations that apply to such structures where they project into required yards.

Projection
Front or
Street Side
Yard (ft.)
Interior
Side Yard
(ft.)
Rear Yard
(ft.)
Limitations
All projections Notwithstanding any other subsection of this section, no projection may extend closer than three (3) feet to an interior lot line or into a public utility easement.

Where any setback of this title conflicts with the California Building Code, the more restrictive shall apply.

Cornices, canopies,
eaves, and similar
architectural features;
chimneys
32 ft. 2 ft. 2 ft.

Bay windows 3 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. Shall not occupy more
than one-third (⅓) of the
length of the building wall
on which they are located

110

or one-half (½) of the
length of a single room.

Balconies 3 ft. 2 ft. 5 ft. Applies only to RS-3 and
RS-6 zoning districts.

Fire escapes required by
law or public agency
regulation
4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft.

Uncovered stairs, ramps,
stoops, or landings that
service above first floor
of building
3 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft.

Depressed ramps or
stairways and supporting
structures designed to
permit access to parts of
buildings that are below
average ground level

3.5 ft. 3.5 ft. 3.5 ft.

Decks, porches and
stairs

111

Less than 18 inches
above ground elevation
6 ft. 2 ft. Any distance
if uncovered;
10 ft. if
covered
Must be open on at least
three sides and no closer
than 7 ft. to a street-
facing property line or 3
ft. to an interior property
line. The Director may
grant exceptions in the
Hillside Overlay District to
provide access to a
driveway or street.
18 inches or more above
ground elevation
5 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft.

Ramps and similar
structures that provide
access for persons with
disabilities
Reasonable accommodation will be made, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act; see Chapter 18.33, Waivers.

FIGURE 18.15.080: BUILDING PROJECTIONS

(Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011) Note: The remaining code section is excluded as no amendments are proposed

112

Chapter 18.18

LANDSCAPING
Sections:

18.18.010 - 18.18.040 (Excluded. No Changes Proposed)

18.18.040 Landscape plans.

18.18.050 Areas to be landscaped.

18.18.060 General landscaping standards.

18.18.070 - 18.18.120 (Excluded. No changes proposed)

18.18.050 Areas to be landscaped.

The following areas shall be landscaped, and may count toward the total area of site landscaping required by the zoning district regulations:

A. Required Setbacks. All required front and street-facing side setbacks, except for areas used for exit and entry, shall be landscaped.

FIGURE 18.18.050-A: REQUIRED SETBACKS

B. Lot Perimeters. Landscape buffers shall be installed and maintained along side and rear lot lines between differing land uses, in accordance with the following standards:

1. Required Landscape Buffers. Table 18.18.050-B(1), Required Landscape Buffers, shows when a buffer treatment is required, and of what type, based on the proposed and the adjoining use. Only the proposed use is required to provide the buffer yard. Adjoining uses are not required to provide the buffer yard. The type of buffer yard required refers to buffer yard-type designations as shown in Table 18.18.050-B(2), Buffer Yard

113

Requirements. “-” means that a buffer yard is not required unless required by another section of this title.

TABLE 18.18.050-B(1): REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS
Use
Adjoining Use
Park or
Open
Space
Single-Unit
Residential
Multi-Unit
Residential
Mixed-Use
General
Commercia
l
Industrial
Multi-Unit
Residential
Type 1 Type 1,
Type 2
along East
San Carlos
Avenue
- - - -
Mixed-Use Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 - - -
Commercial Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 - - Type 1
Industrial Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 -

2. Buffer Yard Types. Table 18.18.050-B(2), Buffer Yard Requirements, describes the minimum width, plant materials, and wall requirements for each type of buffer yard. The listed number of trees and shrubs is required for each one hundred (100) lineal feet of buffer yard. Trees shall be planted at least forty (40) feet on center. Natural areas with native vegetation or alternative planting materials which achieve equivalent buffering effects may be approved by the Director. For Multi-Family (RM) and Mixed-Use (MU)

114

zoninged districts, these standards shall be supplemented by Section 18.04.050(A)(5) and Section 18.05.030(b)(3), respectively.

TABLE 18.18.050-B(2): BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS
Buffer Yard
Type
Minimum
Width (ft.)
Trees Shrubs
Canopy
(mature
height of 40
ft or more)
Understory
(mature height
of less than 40
ft.)
Large
(mature
spread of 2 ft.
or more)
Small
(mature
spread of
less than 2
ft.)
Type 1 5 2 2 4 8
Type 2 10 2 3 6 8
FIGURE 18.18.050-B(2): BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS

3. Width Reduction for Adjacent Landscaped Buffer. If an equivalent landscape buffer exists on the adjacent lot, the width of the required buffer may be reduced fifty percent (50%); provided, that the abutting property owners have provided a written agreement restricting the use of the adjacent landscape buffer.

115

C. Building Perimeters. The portions of a building that front a public street shall have one (1) or more landscape planters installed along a minimum twenty percent (20%) of that building face. The minimum width of the planter shall be three (3) feet. This standard does not apply where a building is located on the front or street side property line.

FIGURE 18.18.050-C: BUILDING PERIMETERS

D. Parking Areas. Parking areas as required by Chapter 18.20, Parking and Loading.

E. Unused Areas. All areas of a project site not intended for a specific use, including areas planned for future phases of a phased development, shall be landscaped or left in a natural state. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.18.060 General landscaping standards.

A. Materials.

1. General. Landscaping may consist of a combination of ground covers, shrubs, vines, and trees. Landscaping may also include incidental features such as stepping stones, benches, fountains, sculptures, decorative stones, or other ornamental features, placed within a landscaped setting. Landscaped areas may include paved or graveled surfaces, provided they do not cover more than ten percent (10%) of the area required to be landscaped. Plant materials shall be selected from among those species and varieties known to thrive in the San Carlos climate and, where applicable, selected from an approved list maintained by the City. Recirculating water shall be used for decorative water features. Garden areas and other areas dedicated to edible plants are considered landscaped areas and count toward required landscaping.

116

2. Ground Cover Materials. Ground cover shall be of live plant material. Ground cover may include grasses. Nonplant materials such as gravel, colored rock, cinder, bark, and similar materials may not be used to meet the minimum planting area requirements required by this section, except with approval of an alternative landscape plan under Section 18.18.040(B).

3. Turf Allowance/Drought-Tolerant Materials. The maximum amount of lawn in required landscape areas shall be twenty-five percent, except for turf areas that comprise an essential component of a project (e.g., golf courses or playing fields), which are exempt from this limit. The installation of turf on slopes greater than twenty-five percent is prohibited. The use of drought-tolerant plant materials is preferred to conserve the City’s water resources.

4. Mulch. A minimum two-inch layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting ground covers or other special planting situations where mulch is not recommended. Stabilizing mulching products shall be used on slopes.

5. Size and Spacing. Plant materials shall be grouped in hydrozones in accordance with their respective water, cultural (soil, climate, sun and light) and maintenance needs. Plants shall be of the following size and spacing at the time of installation:
a. Ground Covers. Ground cover plants other than grasses must be at least the four- inch pot size. Areas planted in ground cover plants other than grass seed or sod must be planted at a rate of one (1) per twelve (12) inches on center. b. Shrubs. Shrubs shall be a minimum size of one (1) gallon. When planted to serve as a hedge or screen, shrubs shall be planted with two (2) to four (4) feet of spacing, depending on the plant species.
c. Trees. A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the trees planted shall be twenty- four-inch box or greater in size. All other trees shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) gallons in size with a one-inch diameter at forty-eight (48) inches from grade. Newly planted trees shall be supported with stakes or guy wires.

B. Dimension of Landscaped Areas. No landscaped area smaller than three (3) feet in any horizontal dimension shall count toward required landscaping.

117

C. Prescribed Heights. The prescribed heights of landscaping shall indicate the height to be attained within three years after planting.

D. Drivers’ Visibility. Trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained so that at maturity they do not interfere with traffic safety sight areas, or public safety. Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, landscaping must comply with Section 18.15.130, Visibility at intersections and driveways. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

118

Chapter 18.26
PLANNING AUTHORITIES Revised 1/24
Sections:

18.26.010 (Excluded. No changes proposed)

18.26.020 City Council. Revised 1/24

18.26.030 Planning and Transportation Commission. Revised 1/24

18.26.050 Community Development Director. Revised 1/24

18.26.060 Zoning Administrator. Revised 1/24

18.26.070 Summary of review authorities for decisions and appeals. Revised 1/24

18.26.020 City Council. Revised 1/24
The powers and duties of the City Council under this title include but are not limited to the following:

A. Consider and adopt, reject or modify amendments to the General Plan map and text pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.34, Amendments to General Plan, and of the Government Code, following a public hearing and recommended action by the Planning and Transportation Commission.

B. Consider and adopt amendments to the Zoning Map and to the text of this title pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.35, Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Map, and the Government Code, following a public hearing and recommended action by the Planning and Transportation Commission.

C. Adopt guidelines and objective design standards for compliance review and design review pursuant to Chapter 18.29, Design Review and Objective Design Standards Compliance Review.

D. Hear and decide proposals to revoke permits, pursuant to Section 18.27.140, Revocation of permits, following a public hearing and recommended action by the Planning and Transportation Commission.

E. Hear and decide applications for development agreements, pursuant to Chapter 18.37, Development Agreements.

F. Hear and decide appeals from decisions of the Planning and Transportation Commission on use permits, variances, objective design standards deviation requests, and any other permits that can be appealed, pursuant to Section 18.27.150, Appeals.

119

G. Hear and decide appeals on environmental determinations by the Director or the Planning and Transportation Commission, pursuant to Section 18.27.050, Environmental review.

H. Appoint and remove members of the Planning and Transportation Commission as provided for in Title 2, Administration and Personnel.

I. Establish, by resolution, a municipal fee schedule listing fees, charges, and deposits for various applications and services provided pursuant to this title. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.26.030 Planning and Transportation Commission. Revised 1/24 The Planning and Transportation Commission is established and organized pursuant to Chapter

2.24, Commissions, and the requirements of the Government Code. The powers and duties of the Planning and Transportation Commission under this title include but are not limited to the following:

A. Initiate, conduct hearings, and make recommendations to the City Council on proposed amendments to the General Plan map and text, pursuant to Chapter 18.34, Amendments to General Plan.

B. Annually review progress towards implementation of the General Plan and recommend to the City Council changes needed due to new legislation, development trends and changing economic, social and environmental conditions.

C. Initiate, conduct hearings, and make recommendations to the City Council on proposed amendments to the Zoning Map and to the text of this title, pursuant to Chapter 18.35, Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Map.

D. Approve, conditionally approve, modify or deny conditional use permits and variances, pursuant to Chapter 18.30, Use Permits, and Chapter 18.32, Variances.

E. Hear and decide on modifications to approved conditional use permits, and variances, and objective design standards compliance review permits, pursuant to Section 18.27.130, Modification of approved plans.

F. Conduct hearings and make recommendations to the City Council on applications for preliminary development plans, pursuant to Chapter 18.36, Planned Development.

120

G. Conduct hearings and make recommendations to the City Council on proposed revocations of permits, pursuant to Section 18.27.140, Revocation of permits.

H. Hear and decide appeals from decisions of the Community Development Director or the Zoning Administrator on decisions, determinations, or interpretations made in the enforcement of this title and any other decisions that are subject to appeal, pursuant to Section 18.27.150, Appeals.

I. Make environmental determinations on any approvals it grants that are subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of San Carlos’ adopted environmental review guidelines pursuant to the State law and the procedures in Section 18.27.050, Environmental review.

J. Prepare and recommend to the City Council for adoption guidelines for conducting design and compliance review review and objective design standards, pursuant to Chapter 18.29, Design Review and Objective Design Standards Compliance Review.

K. Conduct design review, compliance review for projects with five (5) or more residential units, all single-family deviation requests, and all major deviation request located pursuant to Chapter 18.29, Design Review and Objective Design Standards Compliance Review.

L. Such other duties and powers as assigned or directed by the City Council. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.26.050 Community Development Director. Revised 1/24
The powers and duties of the Community Development Director (the “Director”) under this title include but are not limited to the following:

A. Maintain and administer the Zoning Ordinance, including processing of applications, abatements and other enforcement actions.

B. Interpret the Zoning Ordinance to members of the public and to other City departments.

C. Prepare and effect rules and procedures necessary or convenient for the conduct of the Director’s business. These rules and procedures must be as approved by a resolution of the City Council following review and recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission. They may include the administrative details of hearings officiated by the Director (e.g., scheduling, rules of procedure and recordkeeping).

121

D. Issue administrative regulations for the submission and review of applications subject to the requirements of this title and Government Code Section 65950, Deadlines for Project Approval Conformance; Extensions.

E. Review applications for permits and licenses for conformance with this title and issue a zoning clearance when the proposed use, activity or building is allowed by right and conforms to all applicable development and use standards.

F. Review applications for discretionary permits, and approvals under this title for conformance with applicable submission requirements and time limits.

G. Review applications for discretionary permits and approvals to determine whether the application is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act and the City’s environmental review requirements and notify the applicant if any additional information is necessary to conduct the review.

H. Process and make recommendations to the City Council on all applications, amendments, appeals and other matters upon which the Council has the authority and the duty to act under this title.

I. Process and make recommendations to the Planning and Transportation Commission on all applications, appeals and other matters upon which the Commission has the authority and the duty to act under this title.

J. Conduct design review and/or objective design standards compliance review for projects with four (4) or fewer units, hear and decide proposals for objective design standards compliance review, major and minor objective design standardscompliance review deviation and modification requests, and Director’s Review requests pursuant to Chapter 18.29, Design Review and Objective Design Standards Compliance Review.

K. Refer items to the Planning and Transportation Commission where, in their opinion, the public interest would be better served by a Planning and Transportation Commission public hearing and action.

L. Approve, conditionally approve, modify or deny requests for tree removal, pursuant to Section 18.18.070(C), Protected Tree Removal Permit.

122

M. Approve, conditionally approve, modify or deny requests for waivers to dimensional requirements, pursuant to Chapter 18.33, Waivers.

N. Negotiate the components and provisions of development agreements for recommendation to the City Council.

O. Serve as staff of the Planning and Transportation Commission.

P. Investigate and make reports to the Planning and Transportation Commission on violations of permit terms and conditions when the City has initiated revocation procedures.

Q. Delegate administrative functions as he/she so deems to members of the Planning Division.

R. Appoint a Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 18.26.060, Zoning Administrator.

S. Other duties and powers as may be assigned by the City Council or established by legislation. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.26.060 Zoning Administrator. Revised 1/24
The Zoning Administrator is a City staff member appointed by the Director with the following powers and duties:

A. Hear and decide applications for minor use permits, modifications to conditions of approved minor use permits, and time extensions of use permits, pursuant to Chapter 18.30, Use Permits.

B. Approve, conditionally approve, modify or deny applications for temporary use permits, pursuant to Chapter 18.31, Temporary Use Permits.

C. Hear and decide requests for minor modifications to approved permits, pursuant to Section

18.27.130, Modification of approved plans.

D. Refer items to the Planning and Transportation Commission where, in their opinion, the public interest would be better served by a Planning and Transportation Commission public hearing and action.

E. Other duties and powers as may be assigned by the Director. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.26.070 Summary of review authorities for decisions and appeals. Revised 1/24

123

Application or
Action
Found in
Chapter
Advisory Body Decision-Maker Appeal Body
Type One: Ministerial Actions
Zoning Clearance 18.28 N/A Director Planning and
Transportation
Commission
Interpretations 18.27 N/A Director Planning and
Transportation
Commission
Minor Changes to an
Approved Permit

18.27 N/A Zoning
Administrator
Planning and
Transportation
Commission
Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Actions
Protected Tree
Removal

18.18 N/A Director Planning and
Transportation
Commission
Waiver from
Dimensional
Standards

18.33 N/A Director Planning and
Transportation
Commission

124

Permit Modifications,
Major

18.27 Zoning
Administrator
Review Authority
of Original Permit
City Council
Compliance Review
Permit Modifications,
Major

18.27 Director or Zoning
Administrator
Zoning
Administrator or
Planning and
Transportation
Commission
City Council
Compliance Review
Permit Modifications,
Minor

18.27 Director or Zoning
Administrator
Zoning
Administrator or
Planning and
Transportation
Commission

City Council
Permit Revocation 18.27 Planning and
Transportation
Commission
City Council Superior Court
Temporary Use
Permits

18.31 N/A Zoning
Administrator
Planning and
Transportation
Commission
Design Review

18.29 N/A Director or
Planning and
Transportation
Commission
Planning and
Transportation
Commission or
City Council
Objective Design
Standards
Compliance Review

18.04 N/A Director N/A

125

(4 or less residential
units)

18.05 18.29
Objective Design
Standards
Compliance Review
(5 or more residential
units)

18.04 18.05

18.29 Director Planning and
Transportation
Commission
N/A
Minor Use Permits 18.30 N/A Zoning
Administrator
Planning and
Transportation
Commission
Conditional Use
Permits

18.30 Director Planning and
Transportation
Commission
City Council
Deviation or
Exceptions to
Objective Design
Standards RS
Districts (Design
Review)

18.04 Director Planning and
Transportation
Commission
City Council
Minor Deviations to
Objective Design
Standards (Design
Review) RM/MU
Districts

18.04 18.05
N/A Director Planning and
Transportation
Commission and
City Council

126

Major Deviations to
Objective Design
Standards (Design
Review) RM/MU
districts

18.04 18.05
Director Planning and
Transportation
Commission City Council
Variances 18.32 Director Planning and
Transportation
Commission
City Council
Type Three: Discretionary Legislative Actions
General Plan Text
and Map
Amendments

18.34 Planning and
Transportation
Commission
City Council Superior Court
Zoning Ordinance
and Map
Amendments

18.35 Planning and
Transportation
Commission
City Council Superior Court
Planned
Development
Districts

18.36 Planning and
Transportation
Commission
City Council Superior Court
Development
Agreements

18.37 Director City Council Superior Court

127

Prezoning 18.38 Planning and
Transportation
Commission
City Council Superior Court
(Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

128

Chapter 18.27
COMMON PROCEDURES Revised 1/24 Revised 4/24
Sections:

18.27.010 - 18.27.020 (Excluded. No Changes Proposed)

18.27.030 Pre-application review.

18.27.040 Review of applications. Revised 4/24

18.27.050 (Excluded. No changes proposed).

18.27.060 Public notice. Revised 4/24

18.27.070 (Excluded. No changes proposed)

18.27.080 Timing and notice of action and findings required. Revised 4/24

18.27.090 - 18.27.100 (Excluded. No changes proposed)

18.27.110 Effective dates.

18.27.120 Expiration and extension.

18.27.130 Modification of approved plans.

18.27.140 Revocation of permits.

18.27.150 Appeals. Revised 1/24

18.27.160 Interpretations and determinations.

18.27.030 Pre-application review.

Pre-application review is a review process that is intended to provide information on relevant policies, zoning regulations, and procedures. This review is recommended for residential or mixed-use projects with five (5) or more residential units, for large or complex projects, and or projects that are potentially controversial. The Director may require a pre-application for non- residential projects.

A. Exemption from Permit Streamlining Act. Pre-application review is not subject to the requirements of the California Permit Streamlining Act (the Act). An application that is accepted for pre-application review shall not be considered complete pursuant to the requirements of the Act unless and until the Director has received an application for approval of a development project, reviewed it, and determined it to be complete under Section 18.27.040, Review of applications.

B. Review Procedure. The Planning Division shall conduct pre-application review. The Director may consult with or request review by any City agency or official with interest in the application.

C. Recommendations Are Advisory. Neither the pre-application review nor the provision of information and/or pertinent policies shall be construed as a recommendation for approval or denial of the application by City representatives. Any recommendations that result from pre- application review are considered advisory only and shall not be binding on either the applicant or the City. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

129

18.27.040 Review of applications. Revised 4/24
A. Review Process. The Director shall determine whether an application is complete within thirty (30) days of the date the application is filed with the required fee.

B. Incomplete Application. If an application is incomplete, the Director shall provide written notification to the applicant listing the applications for permit(s), forms, information and any additional fees that are necessary to complete the application.

1. Zoning Ordinance Violations. An application shall not be found complete if conditions exist on the site in violation of this title or any permit or other approval granted in compliance with this title, unless the proposed project includes the correction of the violations.

2. Appeal of Determination. Determinations of incompleteness are subject to the provisions of Section 18.27.150, Appeals, except there shall be a final written determination on the appeal not later than sixty (60) days after receipt of the appeal. The fact that an appeal is permitted to both the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council does not extend the sixty (60)-day period.

3. Submittal of Additional Information. The applicant shall provide the additional information within the time limit specified by the Director, which must be no sooner than thirty days. The Director may grant one extension of up to ninety days.

4. Expiration of Application. If an applicant fails to correct the specified deficiencies within the specified time limit, the application shall expire and be deemed withdrawn. After the expiration of an application, project review shall require the submittal of a new, complete application, along with all required fees.

C. Complete Application. When an application is determined to be complete, the Director shall make a record of that date. If an application requires a public hearing, the Director shall schedule it and notify the applicant of the date and time.

D. Extensions. The Director may, upon written request and for good cause, grant extensions of any time limit for review of applications imposed by this title. (Ord. 1612 § 1 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.27.060 Public notice. Revised 4/24

130

Unless otherwise specified, whenever the provisions of this title require public notice, the City shall provide notice in compliance with State law as follows:

A. Mailed Notice. At least ten (10) days before the date of the public hearing, the Director, or the City Clerk for hearings before the City Council, shall provide notice by first-class mail delivery to:

1. The applicant, the owner, and any occupant of the subject property;

2. All property owners of record within a minimum three- hundred-(300) foot radius of the subject property as shown on the latest available assessment roll or a larger radius if deemed necessary by the Director in order to provide adequate public notification;

3. All neighborhood and community organizations that have previously filed a written request for notice of projects in the area where the site is located; and

4. Any person or group who has filed a written request for notice regarding the specific application.

B. Posted Notice. Notices shall be posted at three (3) public places within the City of San Carlos. In addition, the applicant shall erect a temporary sign or post a poster, in a format approved by the Planning Division, in a prominent place on the site for the ten (10) days prior to the hearing.

C. Newspaper Notice. At least ten (10) days before the date of the public hearing the Director, or the City Clerk for hearings before the City Council, shall publish a notice in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City.

D. Alternative Method for Large Mailings. If the number of owners to whom notice would be mailed or delivered is greater than one thousand, instead of mailed notice, the Director or City Clerk may provide notice by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the hearing.

E. Contents of Notice. The notice shall include the following information:

1. The location of the real property, if any, that is the subject of the application;

2. A general description of the proposed project or action;

131

3. The date, time, location, and purpose of the public hearing or the date of action when no public hearing is required;

4. The identity of the hearing body or officer;

5. The names of the applicant and the owner of the property that is the subject of the application;

6. The location and times at which the complete application and project file, including any environmental impact assessment prepared in connection with the application, may be viewed by the public;

7. A statement that any interested person or authorized agent may appear and be heard;

8. A statement describing how to submit written comments; and

9. For Council hearings, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation.

F. Failure to Notify Individual Properties. The validity of the proceedings shall not be affected by the failure of any property owner, resident or neighborhood or community organization to receive a mailed notice. (Ord. 1612 § 1 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1443 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2012; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.27.080 Timing and notice of action and findings required. Revised 4/24 When making a decision to approve, approve with conditions, modify, revoke or deny any discretionary permit under this title, the responsible authority shall issue a notice of action and make findings of fact as required by this title.

A. Date of Action. The responsible authority shall decide to approve, modify, revoke, or deny any discretionary permit following the close of the public hearing, or if no public hearing is required, within the time period set forth below. These deadlines do not apply to any action that has been appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 18.27.150, Appeals. Time extensions may be granted pursuant to Section 18.27.120, Expiration and extension.

1. Project Exempt from Environmental Review. Within thirty (30) days of the date the City has determined an application to be complete, a determination must be made whether the project is exempt from environmental review per State CEQA requirements.

132

2. Project for Which a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration Is Prepared. Within sixty (60) days of the date a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration has been completed and adopted for project approval, the City shall take action on the accompanying discretionary project.

3. Project for Which an EIR Is Prepared. Within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the decision-making authority certifies a final EIR, the City shall take action on the accompanying discretionary project.

B. Notice of Action. After the Director or Planning and Transportation Commission takes any action to approve, modify, or deny an application that is subject to appeal under the terms of this title, the Director shall issue a notice of action. The notice shall describe the action taken, including any applicable conditions, and shall list the findings that were the basis for the decision. The Director shall file the notice with the City Clerk and mail the notice to the applicant and to any other person or entity that has filed a written request for such notification with the Planning Division.

C. Findings. Findings, when required by State law or this title, shall be based upon consideration of the application, plans, testimony, reports, and other materials that constitute the administrative record and shall be stated in writing in the resolution or record of the action on the permit. (Ord. 1612 § 1 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.27.110 Effective dates.

A final decision on an application for any discretionary approval subject to appeal shall become effective after the expiration of the ten (10) -day appeal period following the date of action, unless an appeal is filed. No building permit or business license shall be issued until the eleventh (11) day following the date of the action. If a different termination date is fixed at the time of granting, or if actual construction or alteration has begun under valid building permits, the ten (10) -day period may be waived. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.27.120 Expiration and extension.

A. Expiration. The decision-maker, in the granting of any permit, may specify a time, consistent with the purposes of the use and necessary to safeguard the public safety, health and welfare, within which the proposed use must be undertaken and actively and continuously pursued. If no time period is specified, any permit granted under this title shall automatically expire if it is not exercised or extended within one year of its issuance.

133

B. Exercise of Use Permit. A permit for the use of a building or a property is exercised when a building permit has been submitted and is actively being reviewed. When a Use Permit does not require a building permit, a valid City business license shall suffice to exercise a Use Permit. , if required, a valid City business license has been issued, and the permitted use has commenced on the site.

C. Exercise of Building Permit. A permit for the construction of a building or structure is exercised when a valid City building permit, if required, is issued, and construction has lawfully commenced.

D. Extensions. The Zoning Administrator may approve a two-year extension of any permit or approval granted under this title upon receipt of a written application with the required fee within one year of the date of the approval. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.27.130 Modification of approved plans.

No change in the use or structure for which a permit or other approval has been issued is permitted unless the permit is modified as provided for in this title. For the purpose of this section, the modification of a permit may include modification of a design review or an objective design standards compliance review approval.

A. Minor Modifications. The Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes to approved plans that are consistent with the original findings and conditions approved by the hearing body and would not intensify any potentially detrimental effects of the project.

Objective Design Standards Compliance Review. The Director may approve minor modifications to approved plans that are consistent with the original objective design standards compliance review approved by the decision- making body and would not intensify or make the project inconsistent with the applicable objective design standards. The Director may refer a request for minor modification to the Zoning Administrator or Planning and Transportation Commission for a review and decision.

B. Major Modifications. A request for changes in conditions of approval of a discretionary permit or a change in an approved site plan or building plan that would affect a condition of approval shall be treated as a new application, except that the Zoning Administrator may approve changes that he/she/they determines to be minor. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

134

Objective Design Standards Compliance Review. The Director may approve major modifications to approved plans that are consistent with the original objective design standards compliance review approved by the decision-making body and would not intensify or make the project inconsistent with the applicable objective design standards. The Director may refer a request for major modification to the Zoning Administrator or Planning and Transportation Commission for a review and decision

18.27.140 Revocation of permits.

Any permit granted under this title may be revoked or modified for cause if any of the conditions or terms of the permit are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated. Notwithstanding this provision, no lawful residential use can lapse regardless of the length of time of the vacancy.

A. Initiation of Proceeding. Revocation proceedings may be initiated by the City Council, Planning and Transportation Commission, Director, or Zoning Administrator.

B. Public Notice, Hearings and Action.

1. Planning and Transportation Commission. After conducting a duly-noticed public hearing, the Planning and Transportation Commission shall make a recommendation on the proposed revocation within thirty (30) days.

2. City Council. Within forty-five (45) days after receipt of the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission, the City Council shall conduct a duly-noticed public hearing and act on the proposed revocation.

C. Required Findings. The Planning and Transportation Commission may recommend and the City Council may revoke or modify the permit if it makes any of the following findings:

1. The approval was obtained by means of fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact;

2. The use, building, or structure has been substantially expanded beyond what is set forth in the permit or substantially changed in character;

3. The use in question has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one year or more;

4. There is or has been a violation of or failure to observe the terms or conditions of the permit or variance, or the use has been conducted in violation of the provisions of this title, or any applicable law or regulation; or

135

5. The use to which the permit or variance applies has been conducted in a manner detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare, or so as to be a nuisance.

D. Notice of Action. Following City Council action to revoke or modify a permit, the City Clerk shall within seven days issue a notice of action describing the Council’s action, with its findings.

The City Clerk shall mail notice to the permit holder and to any person who requested the revocation proceeding. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.27.150 Appeals. Revised 1/24
A. Applicability. Any action by the Zoning Administrator, Director, or Planning and Transportation Commission in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this title may be appealed in accordance with this section.

1. Appeals of Zoning Administrator Decisions. Decisions of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning and Transportation Commission by filing a written appeal with the Planning Division.

2. Appeals of Director Decisions. Decisions of the Director may be appealed to the Planning and Transportation Commission by filing a written appeal with the Planning Division.

3. Appeals of Planning and Transportation Commission Decisions. Decisions of the Planning and Transportation Commission may be appealed to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk.

B. Rights of Appeal. Appeals may be filed by the applicant, by the owner of property, or by any other person aggrieved by a decision that is subject to appeal under the provisions of this title.

C. Time Limits. Unless otherwise specified in State or Federal law, all appeals shall be filed in writing within ten (10) days of the date of the action, decision, motion, or resolution from which the action is taken. In the event an appeal period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or any other day the City is closed, the appeal period shall end at the close of business on the next consecutive business day.

D. Procedures.

136

1. Filing. The appeal shall identify the decision being appealed and shall clearly and concisely state the reasons for the appeal. The appeal shall be accompanied by the required fee.

2. Proceedings Stayed by Appeal. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay all proceedings in the matter appealed including, but not limited to, the issuance of City building permits and business licenses.

3. Transmission of Record. The Director, or in the case of appeals to the City Council, City Clerk, shall schedule the appeal for consideration by the authorized hearing body within forty-five (45) days of the date the appeal is filed. The Director shall forward the appeal, the notice of action, and all other documents that constitute the record to the hearing body. The Director shall also prepare a staff report that responds to the issues raised by the appeal and may include a recommendation for action.

E. Calls for Review. A majority of the City Council may call for review of a decision of the Director, Zoning Administrator, or Planning and Transportation Commission within the ten (10) day appeal period. The call for review shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal by any other person. Such action shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal. Such action shall not require any statement of reasons and shall not represent opposition to or support of an application or appeal.

F. Standards of Review. When reviewing any decision on appeal, the appeal body shall use the same standards for decision-making required for the original decision. The appeal body may adopt the same decision and findings as were originally approved; it also may request or require changes to the application as a condition of approval.

G. Public Notice and Hearing. Public notice shall be provided and the hearing conducted by the applicable appeal body pursuant to this chapter. Notice of the hearing shall also be given to the applicant and party filing the appeal and any other interested person who has filed with the City Clerk a written request for such notice. In the case of an appeal of a Planning and Transportation Commission decision, notice of such appeal shall also be given to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission may be represented at the hearing.

137

H. Action. An action to grant an appeal shall require a majority vote of the hearing body members. A tie vote shall have the effect of rejecting the appeal. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.27.160 Interpretations and determinations.

Requests for interpretations of this title and verifications relating to prior approvals or permits may be made to the Director. Requests shall be in writing. The decision of the Director on such requests may be appealed under Section 18.27.150, Appeals. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

138

Chapter 18.29
DESIGN REVIEW AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS COMPLIANCE REVIEW Revised 1/24
Sections:

18.29.010 Purpose. Revised 1/24

18.29.020 Applicability. Revised 1/24

18.29.030 Assignment of review responsibilities. Revised 1/24

18.29.040 Procedures. Revised 1/24

18.29.050 Scope of design review. Revised 1/24

18.29.060 Design review criteria. Revised 1/24

18.29.070 Required findings. Revised 1/24

18.29.080 Conditions of approval. Revised 1/24

18.29.090 Appeals—Expiration, extensions, and modifications. Revised 1/24

18.29.010 Purpose. Revised 1/24
This chapter establishes the design review and compliance review procedures to ensure that new development supports the General Plan’s goal of creating a vibrant pedestrian- and transit- oriented core and distinctive neighborhoods and districts with a diversity of building types that provide continuity in scale and character with appropriate transitions, where needed. The specific purposes of the design review and compliance review process are to:

A. Promote excellence in site planning and design and the harmonious appearance of buildings and sites;
B. Ensure that new and modified uses and development will be compatible with the existing and potential development of the surrounding area; and
C. Supplement other City regulations and standards in order to ensure control of aspects of design that are not otherwise addressed. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. D (part)), 2018: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)152173

18.29.020 Applicability. Revised 1/24
Design review or objective design standards compliance review is required for all projects that require a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, deviations or exceptions from objective design standards 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

139

B. Additions of floor area within an existing building envelope not including accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units.

C. As specified by the State law.

Compliance review is required for allany residential improvement in the Single-family (RS), Multi-family (RM), and Mixed-Uuse (MU) districts or Commercial districts that are subject to the objective design standards of the specified district. (Ord. 1604 § 4 (Exh. B), 2023; Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. D (part)), 2018: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.29.030 Assignment of review responsibilities. Revised 1/24 A. Planning and Transportation Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission shall have design review and/or objective design standards compliance review authority for all projects requiring Planning and Transportation Commission approval (such as but not limited to, all new projects that contain five (5) or more net new residential units, design review for new commercial development, conditional use permits, single-family deviations, major deviations or exceptions to the objective design standards, and variances).

B. Director.

1. The Director shall conduct compliance review of all projects with four (4) or less new units, any residential improvement in the RS districts subject to objective design standards, and any request for a minor deviation subject to the requirements of this chapter .

2. Upon written request submitted within ten (10) calendar days of the compliance review decision, the Director shall conduct a Director’s Review to verify whether the project complies with applicable objective design standards. This request may be submitted by the applicant or, adjacent or directly facing neighbors of the project site . Such requests must provide a written statement to the City specifying which objective design standards they believe are not being met.T, the Director shall conduct verification of any compliance review decision.

3. The Director shall have design review authority for all projects that do not meet subsection A of this section for a decision by the Planning and Transportation Commission, including outdoor dining and outdoor retail sales pursuant to Sections 18.23.140 and

18.23.150.

140

4. The Director may refer items directly to the Planning and Transportation Commission when in his/her/their opinion the public interest would be better served by having the Planning and Transportation Commission conduct design review.

5. 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 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. (Ord. 1604 § 4 (Exh. B), 2023; Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. D (part)), 2018: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.29.040 Procedures. Revised 1/24
A. Forms and Fees. Written applications for design review and objective design standards compliance review applications shall be submitted to the Planning Division in compliance with the application procedures in Chapter 18.27, Common Procedures and set forth in the compliance review guidelines.

B. Objective Design Standards. Objective Design Standards, where applicable and adopted by the City Council, are intended to provide measurable and predictable standards for residential or residential mixed-use and multi-family development projects to promote cohesive building design, quality craftsmanship, and compatible building scale. As applicable, single- family, multi-family, and residential mixed-use projects shall undergo a compliance review process to ensure conformance with the Objective Design Standards.

C. Objective Design Standards Deviations. Proposed deviations or exceptions from the objective standards shall require design review and the review and approval of the Director or Planning and Transportation Commission as outlined below:

1. Single - Family (RS) Districts
a. As outlined in Section 18.04.030(B), allowed deviations or exceptions from the following objective design standards shall require the review and approval of the Planning and Transportation Commission:

141

i. Building articulation and massing
ii. Building materials and colors
iii. Building modification to preserve a protected tree unless a setback modification requires a variance
iv. Driveway location, width, and configuration
v. Entry location, connectivity, and treatments
vi. Garage location and setbacks
vii. Landscape design
viii. Roof form and detail
ix. Window treatment
Standards not on this list shall not be eligible for a deviation or exception for single-family development projects.

2. Multi-Family (RM) and Mixed-Use (MU) Districts
a. The Director may, at his/her/their discretion, refer any application for a minor or major deviation from the objective design standards that may generate substantial public controversy or involve significant land use policy decisions to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a decision rather than acting on it himself/herself/themself:
b. Major Deviations.
i. All major deviation requests shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission
ii. Allowed major deviations or exceptions from the following objective design standards are outlined below:

1. Massing breaks

2. Corner Designs

142

3. Roof variety

4. Transitional standards

5. Ground floor active uses / transparency

6. Landscaping

7. Ornamentation in-lieu of massing and articulation

8. Other standards as deemed major by the Director
All deviation requests shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission
c. Minor Deviations.
i. All minor deviations shall be reviewed and approved by the Director unless deemed to be a major deviation by the Director or specified otherwise. ii. Allowed minor deviations or exceptions from the following objective design standards are outlined below: :

1. Building entrances

2. Upper story step-backs

3. Windows (including trim)

4. Building materials

5. Street frontage improvements

6. Base, middle, and top

7. Street trees

8. Other as deemed minor by the Director
iii. For projects with four (4) or less residential units: All minor deviations shall be reviewed and approved by the Director unless deemed to be a major deviation by the Director.

143

iv. For projects with five (5) or more residential units: All minor deviation requests submitted with the compliance review application, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission.

D. Design Guidelines. Design guidelines, where applicable and adopted by the City Council, provide recommendations to be used in the design review process. They are intended to promote high-quality design, well-crafted and maintained buildings and landscaping, the use of high-quality building materials, and attention to the design and execution of building details and amenities in both public and private projects.

EC. Concurrent Processing. When a development project requires a use permit, variance, or any other discretionary approval, the design review and/or compliance review application shall be submitted to the Planning Division as a part of the application for the underlying permit, use permit, deviation or exception to the objective design standards or variance.

FD. Peer Review. At the sole discretion of the Director, a project may be referred to an architect or design professional retained by the City to provide independent peer review of architectural plans and specifications, landscape plans, and related documents for consistency with the purposes of this section, the General Plan, adopted design guidelines, and the findings required in Section 18.29.070, Required findings. The applicant shall pay the reasonable actual cost and a reasonable administrative fee for hiring an approved architect or design professional to provide peer review.

EGF. Public Notice.

1. All applications for design review and objective design standards compliance review subject to review by the Director or his/her/their designee shall be required to perform noticing and outreach as outlined by the Planning Division within the compliance review procedures.

2. All applications for design review and objective design standards compliance review subject to review by the Planning and Transportation Commission shall require public notice and hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.27, Common Procedures.

144

FG. Alterations to Drawings. If alterations to the approved drawings are desired by the applicant, the drawings shall be resubmitted and processed according to the procedures established for approval of the original drawings.

GH. Private Architectural Review. Where deed restrictions or private property covenants, codes, and restrictions require review by a private architectural board, committee, or homeowners’ association, the review shall be accomplished by the applicant and the findings of the board or committee shall be transmitted in writing to the City prior to City action. Application to the board and transmission of its findings shall be the responsibility of the applicant, not the City. Conditions or requirements imposed pursuant to private covenants, restrictions, and regulations are not binding upon or enforced by the City unless approved by the City pursuant to the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1574 § 4 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 1537 (Exh. D (part)), 2018: Ord. 1443 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2012; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.29.050 Scope of design review. Revised 1/24
Design review shall be based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter as they apply to the design of the site plan, structures, landscaping, and other physical features of a proposed project, including:

A. Building proportions, massing, and architectural details; B. Site design, orientation, location, and architectural design of buildings relative to existing structures on or adjacent to the property, topography, and other physical features of the natural and built environment;
C. Size, location, design, development, and arrangement of on-site parking and other paved areas;
D. Exterior materials and, except in the case of design review of a single-family residence, color as they relate to each other, to the overall appearance of the project, and to surrounding development;
E. Height, materials, design, and, except in the case of design review of a single-family residence, color of fences, walls, and screen plantings; F. Location and type of landscaping including selection and size of plant materials, design of hardscape, and irrigation; and

145

G. Size, location, design, color, lighting, and materials of all signs. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. D (part)), 2018: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.29.060 Design review criteria. Revised 1/24
When conducting design review, the Director, Planning and Transportation Commission, or City Council shall evaluate applications to ensure that they satisfy the following criteria, conform to the policies of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, the City’s design guidelines, and are consistent with any other policies or guidelines the City Council may adopt for this purpose. To obtain design review approval, projects must satisfy these criteria to the extent they apply.

A. The overall design of the project including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping will enhance the appearance and features of the project site and surrounding natural and built environment.

B. The project design is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.

C. Project details, materials, signage and landscaping are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.

D. The project has been designed to be compatible with neighboring development by avoiding big differences in building scale and character between developments on adjoining lots in the same zoning district and providing a harmonious transition in scale and character between different districts.

E. The project contributes to the creation of an attractive and visually interesting built environment that includes a variety of building styles and designs with well-articulated structures that present varied building facades, roof lines, and building heights within a unifying context that encourages increased pedestrian activity and promotes compatibility among neighboring land uses within the same or different districts.

F. The design of streetscapes, including street trees, lighting, and pedestrian furniture, is consistent with the character of activity centers, commercial districts and nearby residential neighborhoods.

146

G. The proposed design is compatible with the historical or visual character of any area recognized by the City as having such unified character.

H. The project design preserves major public views and vistas from major public streets and open spaces and enhances them by providing areas to stroll, benches to rest and enjoy views, and similar amenities.

I. Parking areas are designed and developed to buffer surrounding land uses; complement pedestrian-oriented development; enhance the environmental quality of the site, including minimizing stormwater run-off and the heat-island effect; and achieve a safe, efficient, and harmonious development.

J. Lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to complement buildings, be of appropriate scale, provide adequate light over walkways and parking areas to create a sense of pedestrian safety, and avoid creating glare.

K. The proposed building design and landscaping supports public safety and security by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere on the site.

L. Landscaping is designed to be compatible with and enhance the architectural character and features of the buildings on site, and help relate the building to the surrounding landscape.

Proposed planting materials avoid conflicts with views, lighting, infrastructure, utilities, and signage. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. D (part)), 2018: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.29.070 Design review Rrequired findings. Revised 1/24 The Director, Planning and Transportation Commission, or City Council may only approve a design review application if it finds that the application is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and with the following:

A. The applicable standards and requirements of this title; B. The General Plan and any applicable specific plans the City Council has adopted; C. Any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council; D. Any approved tentative map, use permit, variance, or other planning or zoning approval that the project required; and

147

E. The applicable design review criteria in Section 18.29.060, Design review criteria. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. D (part)), 2018: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.29.080 Conditions of approval. Revised 1/24
In granting design review or objective design standards compliance review approval, the Director, Planning and Transportation Commission, or City Council may impose conditions that are reasonably related to the application and deemed necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter and ensure compliance with the applicable criteria and standards established by this title. They may not impose requirements pertaining to use or that are more restrictive than the standards set forth in this title or a valid use permit or variance if such conditions would require a reduction in the residential density or the floor area ratio (FAR) of a proposed project. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. D (part)), 2018: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.29.090 Appeals—Expiration, extensions, and modifications. Revised 1/24 A. Appeals. Design review decisions are subject to the appeal provisions of Section

18.27.150, Appeals.

B. Expiration, Extensions and Modifications. Design review and compliance review approval is effective and may only be extended or modified as provided for in Chapter 18.27, Common Procedures. (Ord. 1603 § 3 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1537 (Exh. D (part)), 2018: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh.

A (part)), 2011)

148

Chapter 18.30
USE PERMITS Revised 4/24

Sections:

18.30.010 Purpose. Revised 4/24

18.30.020 Applicability. Revised 4/24

18.30.030 Review authority. Revised 4/24

18.30.040 Application requirements. Revised 4/24

18.30.050 Public notice and hearing. Revised 4/24

18.30.060 Required findings. Revised 4/24

18.30.070 Conditions of approval. Revised 4/24

18.30.080 Appeals—Expiration, extensions, and modifications. Revised 4/24

18.30.090 Failure to comply with conditions. Revised 4/24

18.30.100 Revocation of use permits. Revised 4/24

18.30.010 Purpose. Revised 4/24
The use permit review and approval process is intended to apply to uses that are generally consistent with the purposes of the zoning district where they are proposed but require special consideration to ensure that they can be designed, located, and operated in a manner that will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. (Ord. 1611 § 3 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1464 § 3 (Exh. C (part)), 2013: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.30.020 Applicability. Revised 4/24
Approval of a use permit is required for uses or developments specifically identified in Article II, Base and Overlay Districts, and/or any other section of this title which requires a use permit. (Ord. 1611 § 3 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1464 § 3 (Exh. C (part)), 2013: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.30.030 Review authority. Revised 4/24
A. Conditional Use Permits. The Planning and Transportation Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for conditional use permits based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter.

B. Minor Use Permits. The Zoning Administrator shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for minor use permits based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter.

The Zoning Administrator may, at his/her discretion, refer any application for a minor use permit for a project that may generate substantial public controversy or involve significant land use policy decisions to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a decision rather than acting on it himself/herself. In that case, the application shall be processed as a conditional use

149

permit. (Ord. 1611 § 3 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1464 § 3 (Exh. C (part)), 2013: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh.

A (part)), 2011)

18.30.040 Application requirements. Revised 4/24
Applications for use permits shall be filed with the Planning Division on the prescribed application forms. In addition to any other application requirements, the application for a use permit shall include data or other evidence in support of the applicable findings required by Section 18.30.060, Required findings. (Ord. 1611 § 3 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1464 § 3 (Exh. C (part)), 2013: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.30.050 Public notice and hearing. Revised 4/24
A. Conditional Use Permits. All applications for conditional use permits shall require public notice and hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission pursuant to Chapter

18.27, Common Procedures.

B. Minor Use Permits. All applications for minor use permits shall require public notice and hearing before the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Chapter 18.27, Common Procedures. (Ord. 1611 § 3 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1464 § 3 (Exh. C (part)), 2013: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.30.060 Required findings. Revised 4/24
The decision-maker must make all of the following findings in order to approve or conditionally approve a use permit application. The inability to make one (1) or more of the findings is grounds for denial of an application.

A. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this title and all other titles of the municipal code; B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; C. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements; D. The proposed use complies with any design, objective design standards, or development standards applicable to the zoning district or the use in question unless waived or modified pursuant to the provisions of this title;

150

E. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity; and F. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints.

G. Proposed projects located within the Landmark Commercial (LC) zoning district are subject to one (1) of the following additional findings, as applicable:

1. Regional retail and destination-oriented uses must have significant beneficial results in employment growth and contribute to the economic sustainability of the City and implementation of the Economic Development Plan, and meet the economic objectives for landmark sites.

2. Interim uses (uses other than regional retail and destination-oriented uses) shall be considered on an interim basis and shall entail use of existing buildings; erection of permanent buildings inconsistent with regional retail and destination-oriented uses shall not be permitted; additions or alterations to a building or site may be considered for health and safety purposes and limited to bring a structure into conformance with Building Code requirements. Interim uses shall be conditioned with time limitations and may be renewed on a periodic basis subject to Planning and Transportation Commission use permit review and approval.

H. Proposed projects located within the Northeast Area Overlay District (see Chapter 18.14A) are subject to the following additional finding:

1. The design, location, size, site, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses as contemplated in the development of the Northeast Area Specific Plan as set forth in Resolution 2023-032. (Ord. 1612 § 1 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1611 § 3 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1464 § 3 (Exh. C (part)), 2013: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.30.070 Conditions of approval. Revised 4/24
In approving a use permit, the decision-maker may impose reasonable conditions or restrictions deemed necessary to:

A. Ensure that the proposal conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan and with any other applicable plans or policies adopted by the City Council;

151

B. Achieve the general purposes of this title or the specific purpose of the zoning district in which the project is located;
C. Achieve the findings for a use permit listed in Section 18.30.060, Required findings; or D. Mitigate any potentially significant impacts identified as a result of environmental review conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

The decision-maker may require reasonable guarantees and evidence that such conditions are being, or will be, complied with. (Ord. 1611 § 3 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1464 § 3 (Exh. C (part)), 2013: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.30.080 Appeals—Expiration, extensions, and modifications. Revised 4/24 A. Appeals. A decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning and Transportation Commission and a decision of the Planning and Transportation Commission may be appealed to the City Council, as provided in Section 18.27.150, Appeals.

B. Expiration, Extensions and Modifications. Use permits are effective and may only be extended or modified as provided for in Chapter 18.27, Common Procedures. (Ord. 1612 § 1 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1611 § 3 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1464 § 3 (Exh. C (part)), 2013: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.30.090 Failure to comply with conditions. Revised 4/24 Failure to comply with any condition of approval of a use permit is a violation of this title subject to provisions of Chapter 18.39, Enforcement and Abatement Procedures. (Ord. 1611 § 3 (Exh.

A), 2024; Ord. 1464 § 3 (Exh. C (part)), 2013: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

18.30.100 Revocation of use permits. Revised 4/24
A use permit may be revoked as provided by Section 18.27.140, Revocation of permits. (Ord. 1611 § 3 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 1464 § 3 (Exh. C (part)), 2013: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)

152

Chapter 18.41
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Revised 1/24 Revised 4/24
Sections:

18.41.010 List of terms. Revised 1/24 Revised 4/24

18.41.020 Definitions. Revised 1/24 Revised 4/24

18.41.010 List of terms. Revised 1/24 Revised 4/24

18.41.020 Definitions.
“Deviation” from an objective design standard is a request for relief from objective design standards that apply to a project. Deviations may be classified as minor or major, as outlined in SCMC Section 18.29.040, and are subject to design review to ensure consistency with the overall intent of the applicable regulations. Approval authority for deviations rests with either the Director or the Planning and Transportation Commission, based on the nature and scope of the request.
“Massing Break” means a design technique that reduces the visual bulk of a building by dividing its form into smaller, articulated components.

Minor Massing Break, Multi-Family (RM) and Mixed-Use (MU) Districts is a minimum of four (4) feet wide by two (2) feet deep extending the full height of the building above the ground floor and shall include a corresponding break in the roof line.

Major Massing Break, Multi-Family (RM) and Mixed-Use (MU) Districts is a minimum of ten (10) feet wide by ten (10) feet deep extending the full height of the building above the ground floor and shall include a break in the roof line “Ornamentation” means decorative elements of a building façade often using artistic flourishes that enhance the building’s architectural character. Ornamentation includes but is not limited to elements such as awnings, eave brackets, column or pilaster capitals and bases, tiles, reliefs, moldings, lighting fixtures, door and window trim, accent materials or colors, graphic motifs, balconies, balustrades, cornices, entry door features, or other such architectural features. “Podium” means the above grade portion of a building that is constructed of concrete. It is usually the ground floor or first two floors of a building depending on the construction type.

Podiums often are taller than the wood-framed residential floors above and often contain structured parking. In multi-family residential buildings, the roof of the podium often serves as a courtyard common open space.

GCI
GCI

GCI GCI
PD-9
IH
IA
PD-3
PD-8
PD-20
MU-SB-120
MU-SB-120PD-11
MU-N-40
MU-N-40
PKPK
P
P
RS-6
GCI
PD-31
GCI
P
A
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
P
P
P
PK
PK
PK
PK
PK
PK
PK
PK
PK
PK
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
RS-6
RM-20
RM-20
RM-20
RM-20
RM-20
RM-20
RM-20
RM-20
RS-3
RS-3
RS-3RS-3
RS-3
RS-3
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-3
RS-3
RS-3
RS-3
RS-3
RS-3
RS-3
RS-3 RS-3
RM-59
P
PD-12
RS-6
PD-17
RM-100
PK
MU-NB-120
MU-N-120
MU-N-50
PD-23
IL
IL
PD-18
PD-2
IP
IP
PD-21
IH
RS-6
LC
LCNR
PK
MU-N-40
PD-23
MU-D-120
MU-D-120
MU-DC-100
PD-14
PD-15
PD-24
PK
P
RM-100
PD-22PD-4
MU-SC-120
PD-1
PD-19
PD-26
IH
IH
IH
PD-10
PD-25
PD-16
RS-3
RS-3
RS-3
PD-23
PD-5
RM-100
PD-13

BELMONT
PULGAS
RIDGE
BAIR
ISLAND

REDWOOD
CITY
PD-6
PD-7
PD-3
MU-SB-100

PALOMAR
PARK
PD-27
PD-28
PD-29
IL
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6
RS-6

EXETER AVE

BAYTREE RD

WOODLAND AVE

CENTER ST

BAYSIDE BLVD

CEDAR ST

MEADOWSWEET LN

LYNTON AVEMAYFLOWER LN

ROSEWOOD AVE

WHITE OAK WY
ELM ST

BIRCH AVE

WALNUT ST

KINGS CTHYDE PARK AVE

WINDING WY

ST FRANCIS WY

PROSPECT ST

CHERRY ST

CHESTNUT ST
STATE HIGHWAY 82
ALLEY

OLIVE ST

WALNUT ST

VISTA AVE

ARROYO AVE

INDUSTRIAL RD

KNOLL DR

PLYMOUTH AVE

TRILLIUM LN

BELMONT AVE
ALLEY

LYNTON AVE

WASHINGTON STALLEY

BLUEBELL LN GASLIGHT LN HOWARD AVE

BELLFLOWER LN

GREENWOOD AVE
ALLEY

GENEVA AVE

MARIGOLD LN HOWARD AVE

GREENWOOD AVE

ABERDEEN DR

EUCALYPTUS AVE
ALLEY

SAN CARLOS AVE

SYCAMORE ST

BEVERLY DR

EXETER AVE

HEMLOCK ST

ORANGE AVE
ALLEY

ARROYO AVE

WILLOW GLEN WY AMERICAN ST

BAYPORT AVE

WOODLAND AVE

CHESTNUT ST

KNOLL DR

BING ST

BAYPORT AVE

LAUREL ST
ALLEY

BELMONT AVE

CHESTNUT ST

WINDING WY

BAUER DR

LAUREL ST

SAN CARLOS AVE

PHELPS RD

SAN CARLOS AVE

CHERRY STWELLINGTON DR

OLIVE ST

ROSEWOOD AVE

WASHINGTON ST

WITHERIDGE RD

MALABAR CT

CLUB DR

CORONADO AVE

EL CAMINO REAL

CORDILLERAS AVE

TORINO DR
ALLEY

CENTRAL AVE
ELM ST

VISTA AVE

SAN CARLOS AVE

BEVERLY DR
ELM ST

CLUB DR

OLD COUNTY RD
ALLEY

BAYTREE RDCHESTNUT ST

BRITTAN AVE

CEDAR ST

DEVONSHIRE BLVD

VIOLET LN

WALNUT ST

PYXIE LN

TORINO DR

IRIS LN

CRESTVIEW DR

CHARLTON ST

MOLTON AVE

PROSPECT ST

CHILTON AVE

CLUB DR

CARMELITA AVE

PLYMOUTH AVE

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

MADERA AVE

WOODLAND AVE

GREENWOOD AVE

LAUREL ST

CRESTVIEW DR

EDGEWOOD RD

SHELFORD AVE

RIVERTON DR

HOLLY ST

E SAN CARLOS AVE

BAYPORT CT

MIRAMONTE CT

PEPPER LN

BUCKLAND AVE

LAUREL ST

WELLINGTON DR

HOLLY ST

HULL DR
ELM ST

BUSH ST

COTTAGE LN

LOMA RD
US HIGHWAY 101
US HIGHWAY 101

SHOREWAY RD
US HIGHWAY 101

HOLLY ST
US HIGHWAY 101

HOLLY ST

SKYWAY RD

MONTE VISTA RD

SKYWAY RD
US HIGHWAY 101US HIGHWAY 101
ALLEY

WALNUT ST

ALTA LN

WELLINGTON DR

MANZANITA AVE

SYCAMORE ST

HALL ST

INDUSTRIAL RD

CURRY CT

CLIFTON AVE

TERMINAL WY

OLD COUNTY RD

WESSEX WY

MAGNOLIA AVE

CHESTNUT ST

SYCAMORE ST

SAN CARLOS AVE

SEQUOIA CT

CURTIS CT

LAUREL ST
ELM ST

MADRONA ST

HIGHLAND AVE

WILLIAMS LN

ADAM CT

CLIFTON AVE

CHERRY ST

WALNUT ST

SAN CARLOS AVE

BRANSTEN RD

ALLEYALLEY

ARUNDEL RD

SPRING VALLEY WY

PHELPS RD
ALLEY

CEDAR ST

OLIVE ST
ALLEY

SEQUOIA CT

ARUNDEL RD
ELM ST

CEDAR ST
ALLEY
ALLEY

HOLLY ST

WALNUT ST

MONTGOMERY ST

LAUREL ST

SAN CARLOS AVE

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

BRAGATO RD

OLD COUNTY RD TAYLOR WY

GLENN WY

QUARRY RD

BRAGATO RD

ENSENADA RD

MONTGOMERY ST

DARTMOUTH AVE
F ST

RIVERTON DR

FAIRFIELD DR

INVERNESS DR

DARTMOUTH AVE

INDUSTRIAL RD

BUCKLAND AVE

NORTHAM AVE

VINE ST

TAYLOR WY

SPRING ST
STATE HIGHWAY 82

PRIMROSE LN

SHELFORD AVE

LYNDHURST AVE

MC CUE AVE

CHESTNUT ST

LAUREL ST

CHERRY ST

BAYPORT AVE

LAUREL ST

FAIRFIELD DR

SYLVAN DR

MANZANITA AVE
FIR ST

E SAN CARLOS AVE

OLD COUNTY RD

GARDEN LN

ERLIN DR

BARFORD AVE
OAK ST

LAUREL ST

HILLCREST RD

VALLEY RD

BRANSTEN RD

HALL ST

SHELFORD AVE

HULL DR

CLIFTON AVE

DARTMOUTH AVE

SPRING ST
ELM ST

INDUSTRIAL RD

WYCOMBE AVE

NORTHAM AVE

ACACIA CT

MONTGOMERY LN

BUCKLAND AVE

OLD COUNTY RD

EXBOURNE AVE
OAK ST

NORTHWOOD DR

OLD COUNTY RD
ELM ST

CEDAR ST

ARCH LN

NORTHAM AVE

CHERRY LN

HULL DR

LAUREL ST

ANCHOR LN

DARTMOUTH AVE

MC CUE AVE

BAYPORT CT

HARTFORD AVE
STATE HIGHWAY 82

DARTMOUTH AVE

VINE ST TERMINAL WY
ALLEY

NORTHAM AVE

CHESTNUT ST

GLENWOOD ST

KENTON AVE

SAN CARLOS AVE

HIGHLAND AVE

SHELFORD AVE

WELLINGTON DR

NORTHAM AVE

CHERRY ST

OLD COUNTY RD

MAGNOLIA AVE

SAN CARLOS AVE

HIGHLAND CT

TANKLAGE RD

HOLLY ST
ELM ST

BARBARA LN

CLUB DR

LYNTON AVE

ELIZABETH ST

CEDAR ST

ARROYO AVE

TAMARACK AVE

GREENWOOD AVE

ORANGE AVE

CAPRINO WY

BELLE AVE

TULIP LN

BRITTAN AVE

PORTOFINO CT

EL SERENO CORTE

CHESTNUT ST

ORANGE AVE

E TULIP LN

WALNUT ST

CRESTVIEW DR

CLOVER LN

SUNSET DR

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

HEWITT DR

BELMONT AVE

OAKHURST AVE

ROCKRIDGE RD

NANETTE DR

PARK AVE

MELENDY DR

CLOVER LN SUNSET DR

EATON AVE
ELM ST

LILY LN

HOWARD AVE

DAYTON AVE

ST FRANCIS WY

GOVER LN

CORDILLERAS AVE

BRITTAN AVE

EDGEHILL DR

CEDAR ST

SUNNYDALE AVE

WILDWOOD AVE

BRITTAN AVE

ROGERS AVE

PORTO ROSA WY

CRESTVIEW DR

ST FRANCIS WY

SUNNYDALE AVE

CHESTNUT ST

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

SAN SIMEON WY

PARK AVE

LEWIS RANCH RD

PORTOFINO DR

BROOK ST

OAKHURST AVE

MELENDY DR

CRESTVIEW DR

EATON AVE

STANFORD LN

HEWITT DR

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

NORMANDY CT

SUNSET DR

LAUREL ST

HILLCREST RD

KIRKWOOD WY

BRITTAN AVE

INDUSTRIAL RD

SAN CARLOS AVE

PHELPS RD

WELLINGTON DR

CARMELITA AVE

FAY AVE

MANOR DR

TAMARACK AVE

DOLTON AVE

DEVONSHIRE BLVD

DEVONSHIRE CIR

CENTER ST
ALLEY

ARROYO AVE

TRILLIUM LN

BELLE AVE

HEMLOCK ST

GLASGOW LN
ALLEY

WOODLAND AVE
STATE HIGHWAY 82

BAUER CT

HYDE PARK AVE

CLIFTON AVE

PALM AVE

COMMERCIAL ST

OLD COUNTY RD

CLUB DR

BEVERLY DR

EL CAMINO REAL CENTER STBAYPORT AVE

VARIAN ST

ROSLYN AVE
ALLEY

ASHFORD AVE

HOWARD AVE

WHITE OAK WY

MELENDY DR

QUEENS CT

TORINO KNOLLS

ROCKRIDGE RD

OLD COUNTY RD
ALLEY

ARROYO AVE
ALLEY

CORDILLERAS AVE

CARMELITA AVE

BUTTERCUP LN

INDUSTRIAL RD

CORONADO AVE

KNOLL DR

CEDAR ST

HOWARD AVE
ALLEY

LAUREL ST

BELLE AVE

RUTHERDALE AVE

BRITTAN AVE

WALNUT ST

TAMARACK AVE

CORDILLERAS AVE

CEDAR ST

DAFFODILL LN

BELVEDERE AVE

CARMELITA AVE

INDUSTRIAL RD

CARMELITA AVE

CAMBRIDGE ST

CORDILLERAS AVE

CLUB DR

WOODLAND AVE
ALLEY

GERANIUM LN

OAKLEY AVE

WINDSOR DR

BIRCH AVE ALLEY

BELMONT AVE

MELENDY DRTULIP LN

RICHLAND CT

WHITE OAK WYWINGATE AVE

AZALEA LN

PINE AVE

LAUREL ST

SCHOOL ST

CHESTNUT ST

PHILIP LN

MOLTON AVE

BRITTAN AVE

OLD COUNTY RD

BAYVIEW AVE

WALNUT ST

HIDDEN VALLEY DR AMERICAN ST
ALLEY

WINDSOR CT

ORANGE AVE

LAUREL ST

INDUSTRIAL RD
ELM ST

CEDAR ST

BING STOLD COUNTY RD

KINGS CT

GREENWOOD AVE

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

DALE AVE MORSE BLVD

WALNUT ST

ARROYO AVE
STATE HIGHWAY 82

ALMA ST

AMERICAN ST

POPPY LN

CRESTVIEW DR

CORONADO AVE

VISTA DEL GRANDE

BRITTAN AVE

TAMARACK AVE

CHESHAM AVE
ALLEY

HEATHER DR
ALLEY

EL SERENO DR

MANOR DR
ALLEY

CLUB DR ELM ST

ROSEWOOD AVE

HONEYSUCKLE LN

OLD COUNTY RD

COLEMAN CT

ELSTON CT
ELM ST

ROSEWOOD AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVECORDILLERAS AVE

BELVEDERE AVE

ELM STWINDING WY

CHICORY LN

ABERDEEN DR

CENTRAL AVE

LAUREL ST

TRAMANTO DR

MONTALVO RD

CORDILLERAS AVE

HIGHLAND AVE

NORTHAM AVE

VISTA DEL GRANDE

CORONADO AVE

WINDSOR DR

SUNNYDALE AVE

EL CAMINO REAL

GENEVA AVEGLASGOW LN

BRAGATO RD

GLENN WY

SPRINGFIELD DR

SYLVAN DR

INVERNESS DR

BAYPORT CT

AIRPORT WY

HOLLY ST

CHERRY ST

CHESTNUT ST

CEDAR ST
ELM ST

CLUB DR

BAUER DR

LUPIN AVE

BIRCH AVE

ARROYO AVE

ROSEWOOD AVE

WALNUT ST
ELM ST

BRITTAN AVE

CHESTNUT ST

MELENDY DR

PORTOFINO DR

SUNSET DR BROOK ST

HOWARD AVE

OAKVIEW DR

RUBY AVE

OAKHURST AVE

BELMONT AVE

CHESTNUT ST

CEDAR ST

ORANGE AVE

OAKHURST AVE LAUREL ST

KELTON AVE

GARNET AVE

HOWARD AVE

LAUREL ST

BAYVIEW AVE

CRESTVIEW DR

RAYMOND CTROLAND AVE

BRITTAN AVE

LAMSHIN LN

CEDAR ST

HILLCREST RD

MAGNOLIA AVE

CHESHAM AVE

HEATHER DR

LOS CERROS RD

ROYAL LN

EXETER AVE

BAUER DR

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

CHESTNUT ST

HOWARD AVE

PYROLA LN

EXETER AVE

PORTOFINO DR

WESSEX WY

WHITE OAK WY

PICADILLY CT

CORDILLERAS AVE

HOWARD AVE

HILLCREST RD

UPLAND AVE

SAN CARLOS AVE

SAN MIGUEL WY

SOMERSET CT

MELENDY DR

ARUNDEL RD

ST FRANCIS WY

OAKVIEW DR

ALBERTA AVE

MADERA AVE

EATON AVE

CLUB DR

LYNTON AVE

COBBLESTONE LN

THORNHILL DR

ELIZABETH ST

ASTER RD

DRAKE CT

EATON AVE

GRANITE CT

CHESHAM AVE

BRITTAN AVE

DOVER CT

EATON AVEBRITTAN AVE

CAMELOT CT

GREENBRIAR RD

HIGHLAND AVE
ELM ST

INDUSTRIAL RD

DARTMOUTH AVE

CEDAR ST

LA MESA DR

RUBY AVE

TERRACE RD

BRITTAN AVE

CRESTVIEW DR

CHESHAM AVE

MELENDY DR

SUNSET DR

CEDAR ST

WALNUT ST

BEVERLY DR

DEVONSHIRE BLVD

HOWARD AVE

MORSE BLVD

WASHINGTON ST

SORRELL LN

EXETER AVE

EXETER WY

SUNSET DR

FAIRBANKS AVE

WINDING WY

ELIZABETH ST

SHRATTON AVE

TRILLIUM LN

OAK CREEK LN

ROSLYN AVE

EXBOURNE AVE

HILLTOP DR

HERMOSA RD

MONTALVO RD

BELLE ROCHE AVE

CABOT CT

ST FRANCIS WYMELENDY DR

CRESTVIEW DR

HUDSON CT

DEBBIE CT

KRISTA LN

TIMOTHY DR

PORTO MARINO DR

ESTATES CT

EDGEHILL DR

PORTO MARINO DR

CEDAR ST

QUAIL LN

SAN REMO WY WHITE OAK WY

REGENT CT APPIAN WY

HILL WY

FRANCES LN

BRITTAN AVE

CLIFFORD AVE

TIMOTHY DR

LEMOORE DR

PORTOFINO DR

HILLTOP DR

LUPIN AVE

DUNDEE LN

CALYPSO LN

CLUB DR

WILSHIRE CT

FAIRMONT AVE

PARK AVE

GAYLORD ST

BRITTAN AVE GRACELAND AVE

LOS VIENTOS WY

GRACELAND AVE

ALDERLEE WY

DE ANZA AVE DE ANZA AVE

LA MESA DRCRESTVIEW DR

ESTRADA PL

PALOMAR DR

CRESTVIEW DR

VINE ST

CHESTNUT ST

EATON AVE

CHESTNUT ST

FOREST LN

KELTON AVE

PEARL AVE

CRESTVIEW DR

BRITTAN AVE

DE ANZA AVE

LA BARTHE LN

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

ST FRANCIS WY

MESA LN

MESA VERDE WY

LA MESA DR

SCENIC DR

CARMEL LN

WALTON ST

CEDAR ST

TANKLAGE RD

SPRINGFIELD DR

OLD COUNTY RD

MELENDY DR

BURNHAM CT

EMERALD AVE

TERRACE RD

SHERWOOD DR

PEARL AVE

GARNET AVE

LOMA CT

BRECON CT

LA MESA DR

CLIFFORD AVE

ALBERTA AVE

BEST CT

CRESTVIEW DR

FRANCISCAN CT ST FRANCIS WY

LESLIE CT

LESLIE DR

PALOMAR DR PALOMAR DR

ENCINA RD

BAYVIEW AVE

BLOSSOM LN

GRACELAND AVE

GRACELAND LN

WILDWOOD AVE

EDGEHILL DR

HOWARD AVE

CEDAR ST

COVENTRY CT

EATON AVE

RUBY AVE

AMBER CT

EATON AVE

HUBBARD AVE

PALOMAR DR

CRESTVIEW CT

STEVENS CT

KENT AVE

OAKVIEW DR

TRAMANTO DR

LOCARNO WY

SUDAN LN

FAIRMONT AVEPEARL AVE

CRESTVIEW DR

DEBBIE PL

EATON AVE

ROBIN WY

PALOMAR DR

SCENIC DR

EDMOND DR

VAL MAR PL

BRITTAN AVE

EATON AVE

EMERALD AVE

LA MESA DR

FLEETWOOD DR

PALOMAR DR

PEBBLE DR

HOSMER CT

CORDILLERAS AVE

BRITTAN AVE

MILANO WY

KELTON AVE

PARK AVE

LESLIE DR

GARNET AVE

OAK CREEK LN

NORBURT LN

BANBURY LN SUSIE LN

CYPRESS CT

PALOMAR DR

CORTEZ RD

PALOMAR DR

TRAMANTO DR

NEAL AVE

RIDGE RD

HEWITT DR

BRITTAN AVE

EMERALD AVE

SARA LN

FRANCES LN

BRITTAN AVE

MICHAEL CT

PALOMAR DR

S PALOMAR DR

CRESTVIEW DR
BOW DR

MONTALVO RD

CRESTVIEW DR

HILL AVE

TASKER LN

EATON AVE

LOMA RD

CLIFFORD AVE

VICTORIA MANOR

ELVANADA RD

DE ANZA AVE

MAPLE WY

EATON AVE

LAUREL ST

WINDING WY

HILLTOP DR

COLTON AVE

HOWARD AVE

MAJORCA WY

ROLAND AVE

DICKENS CT

LOMA LN

LOMA RD

WHITMAN CT

GREENBRIAR RD

WINDING WY

BRITTAN AVE

TORINO DR

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

EATON AVE

BROMLEY DR

LOMA RD

INDUSTRIAL RD

EATON VILLA PL

ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS

CAMBORNE AVE

FAY AVE

CRANFIELD AVE

FIRE ACCESS ROAD

BAYVIEW AVE

HYDE PARK AVE

DOLTON AVE

DEVONSHIRE BLVD FAY AVE

WINDSOR DR

BROMLEY DR

HULL DR

INDUSTRIAL RD

SHELFORD AVE

DEL REY CT

GATEWAY CT

CIRCLE STAR WY

MIRABEL PL

DEER LN

CERVANTES RD

DUGGAN RD

DUGGAN CT

S PALOMAR DR

BELLE ROCHE CT

PALOMAR OAKS LN

RATHGAR CT

FIRE ACCESS ROAD

PARK ACCESS

ARUNDEL RD
PD-30
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
RS-3: Single Family, Low Density
RS-6: Single Family
RM-20: Multi-Family, Low Density
RM-59: Multi-Family, Medium Density
MU-NB-120: Mixed Use North Boulevard
MU-SB-100: Mixed Use South Boulevard
MU-D-120: Mixed Use Downtown
MU-DC-100: Mixed Use Downtown Core
MU-N-40: Neighborhood Mixed Use
MU-SA: Mixed Use Station Area
MU-SC-120: Mixed Use San Carlos Ave
IL: Light Industrial
IH: Heavy Industrial
IA: Industrial Arts
IP: Industrial Professional
GCI: General Commercial/Industrial
NR: Neighborhood Retail
PD: Planned Development
LC: Landmark Commercial
A: Airport
P: Public
PK: Park
OS: Open Space
City Boundary
Gateway Overlay District
JANUARY 2024 0 1000 2000 4000
FEETSource: City of San Carlos, 2024; CALCAD, 2024
G
MU-N-120: Neighborhood Mixed Use
MU-N-50: Neighborhood Mixed Use
MU-SB-120: Mixed Use South Boulevard
RM-100: Multi-Family, Medium Density

CITY OF SAN CARLOS ZONING MAP
N
S
W E
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
22 23
24 25
PD# Ordinance Reference
951
968
988
1004
1106
1133
1135
1195
1230
1232
1234
1240
1256
1265
1277
1288 & 1355
1289
1312
1335
1133, 1363 & 1577
1427
1468
1490
1507
21 1393
27 1592
26 28
1549
1598
29 1601
30 1607
31 1564
RESOLUTION NO. PTC2025-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SAN CARLOS RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPOTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING) CHAPTER 18.03 (RULES OF MEASUREMENT), 18.04 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS), 18.05 (MIXED-USE DISTRICTS), 18.06 (COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS), 18.15 (GENERAL SITE REGULATIONS), 18.26 (PLANNING AUTHORITIES), 18.27 (COMMON PROCEDURES), 18.29 (DESIGN REVIEW AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS COMPLIANCE REVIEW), 18.30 (USE PERMITS), AND 18.41 (TERMS AND

DEFINITIONS) OF THE SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, recent changes to State Law (Government Code Section 65589.5, SB35, SB 423, SB 330, SB9) require that cities adopt and ministerially act on residential development applications based on whether the project complies with Objective Design Standards; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the City adopted the focused General Plan Housing Element identifying policies and actions to accommodate additional residential units and to eliminate impediments to the creation of more housing; and WHEREAS, the City currently relies on a combination of objective and subjective design standards, implemented through a design review process with staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and sometimes the City Council to regulate the design of applicable housing projects; and
WHEREAS, if adopted the City Municipal.Code will update its standards for all residential projects in the mixed-use and multi-family zoning districts to ensure orderly, streamlined development in an effort to be in compliance with State Law and help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA’”) of at least 2,735 new housing units; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2023, a City-wide online community survey was published where the community was notified through the City’s website, e-notify mailing list, social media, and City-wide post cards to encourage participation to identify and gather public comments and input on various design aspects pertaining to multi-family and mixed-use residential Objective Design Standards, and where over 420 combined responses were received; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted three (3) Community Workshops held on October 19, 2022, April 26, 2023, and November 23, 2024, respectively, to introduce the project, identify design elements that are integral to the character of San Carlos, and received

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 421
specific feedback on massing, articulation, transitional standards, walkability, safety, diversity in design, availability of open spaces, green spaces, and neighborhood connectivity; and
WHEREAS, throughout the planning process, staff also conducted meetings and outreach with subject matter experts through two (2) stakeholder meetings with peer- architects and developers held on October 6, 2022 and May 21, 2024, respectively, and received valuable feedback on preliminary draft standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted two (2) study sessions held on November 20, 2023, and June 17, 2024, respectively, to provide policy feedback related to transition standards for projects located adjacent to single-family zones, upper story step backs, landscaping requirements, articulation and massing standards, and setbacks; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, a community open house was hosted at the Laureola Park Community Room where staff interacted with the community on a 1-on-1 basis to receive feedback and answer any questions related to the proposed objective design standards; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2025, the City Council conducted a study session to provide direction related to proposed step backs, setbacks and transitions standards for projects located adjacent to single-family zones in addition to proposed objective design standards pertaining but not limited to articulation, massing, landscaping, entrance design; and
WHEREAS, prior to the community workshops, survey, study sessions, community open house, and public hearings, City of San Carlos staff conducted robust community outreach to encourage maximum participation. This included social media posts on San Carlos’ Facebook, NextDoor, Instagram, and Twitter accounts. Announcements about the project and workshops were also made at public meetings including City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission meetings. Public participation opportunities were also promoted through the City of San Carlos’ Spotlight Newsletter, city-wide postcards, Good Living Newsletter, San Carlos’ E-notify email listserv, regular updates to the Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards landing page website, and mailed flyers and postcards.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65853 and 65850 and San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.35 (Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Maps), when a change in the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18) of the San Carlos Municipal Code is found necessary, the Planning and Transportation Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider such change and make its recommendations to the City Council; and

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 422

WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.35.050 and California Government Code Section 65090 and 650901 a Public Hearing Notice was published on April 15, 2025, for the Draft Zoning Code Amendments in the newspaper, distributed to interested parties, posted to the City’s website and announced through e- notify listserv and other social media platforms; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on Amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with the proposed amendments to Title 18 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on May 5, 2025, in consideration of a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would help to ensure orderly, streamlined multi-family and mixed-use residential development while being compliant with State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transporation Commission authorizes staff to rectify any clerical errors, clarify graphics if necessary, and make non substantive clarifications, additions, or deletions to the language, before presenting the recommended Ordinance to the City Council to ensure staff can address any minor revisions without having to return to the Commission solely for a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code as mentioned above are within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in the San Carlos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), no new environmental effects have been found, and no new mitigation is necessary.

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would help to ensure orderly, streamlined single-family residential development while complying with the State Law; WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code as mentioned above are 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 15060(c)(2) Preliminary Review and 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.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning and Transportation Commission of the City of San Carlos that:

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 423

Pursuant to SCMC Section 18.35.080 Criteria for Zoning Amendments, the Planning and Transportation Commission shall not recommend, and the City Council shall not approve a zoning amendment unless the proposed amendment meets the following criteria:

A. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Findings

1. The proposed ordinance amendments are consistent with the General Plan.

The recently updated 2023-2031 Housing Element includes the following goal and action:
e Goal HOU-4 states: “Remove or mitigate governmental constraints inhibiting the provision of adequate, affordable housing throughout San Carlos.” e Action HOU-4.2 Zoning Ordinance Revisions - “Continue to allow ground floor residential uses in the MU-D100, MU-SC-120, and MU-SB-100 zones.

Evaluate, as part of the new Downtown Specific Plan process, additional areas (on side streets and outside of the Downtown Core) where ground-floor residential uses may also be allowed.”
e Action HOU 4.4 Objectivity and Streamlining in Development Regulations — This action specifies actions to prepare Objective Design Standards for residential developments by reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and crafting revisions that support objective design standards consistent with the Housing Accountability Act to facilitate high-quality residential development. e Action HOU 4.5 Review of Development Standards to Promote Achieving Maximum Densities - “Throughout the planning period, periodically evaluate development standards to ensure that projects are able to achieve maximum densities. Make revisions if review indicates that current standards pose a potential or actual constraint on achieving maximum densities.” Basis for Finding: The proposed amendments include revisions to the Design Review and Compliance Review Procedures, Common Procedures, and Review Authorities chapters of the Zoning Title to help enhance the efficiency of the review procedures for future multi- family and mixed-use development. These changes aim to streamline the project review process, ultimately facilitating the faster generation of housing. As such, adoption of the proposed Ordinance amendments will facilitate an efficient application process and high- quality residential development in San Carlos and comply with State objectives and law.

The proposed amendments update the Rules of Measurement by clarifying which areas are included or excluded from floor area ratio calculations for residential development.

Proposed amendments also revise standards for building setbacks and transitional step- backs to better support projects in achieving maximum densities. These changes are

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 424

informed by testing on three representative housing sites, with the analysis considering factors such as construction costs, development potential, number of units, and unit sizes.

This process identified standards that may be limiting housing production and highlighted sections of the Municipal Code in need of revision that are included within the proposed amendment.

The 2030 General Plan Land Use Element also includes the following goals, policies and actions:

Policy LU-8.1 “Require all development to feature high quality design that enhances the visual character of San Carlos”,
e Action LU-8.1 “Adopt a form-based zoning code to emphasize building placement, the framing of public space and promoting a pedestrian- oriented environment.”
Policy LU-8.2 “Ensure that new development is sensitive to the character of adjacent structures and the immediate neighborhood”,
Policy LU-8.4 “Promote pedestrian-scaled design through site planning, building design, finish details and landscaping for all types of development by requiring height and locational transitions be- tween buildings of varied levels that are sensitive to the interrelationships of surrounding uses and structures, especially residential.”
e Action LU-8.4 “Develop objective design standards consistent with State law and amend the Zoning Ordinance and create a Planning Division submittal information checklist and application to require materials that accurately and sufficiently demonstrate a project's compliance with new objective design standards.”
Policy LU-8.5 “Optimize architectural quality by encouraging the use of quality materials, particularly as accents and authentic detailing, such as balconies and window trims”,
Policy LU-8.7 “Require new residential development to provide outdoor areas and landscaping or native vegetation, or tree canopy to enhance the surroundings”.

Policy LU-8.10 “On all sides of buildings, require the incorporation of quality architectural design elements for all building fagades and stepping back upper floors in order to reduce bulk and mass and to break up monotonous wall lines”.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 425

o Policy LU-8.11 “Discourage abrupt changes in building scale. A gradual transition between low-rise to mid-rise buildings should be achieved by using the low rise buildings at the edge of the project site. Consider the relationship of buildings to the street, to one another and to adjacent structures and land uses, especially single-family residential.”
o Policy LU-8.12 “Require residential building entrances to be related to the street’; o Policy LU-8.13 “Require parking areas associated with development to be located and designed to minimize visual impact to the greatest extent feasible. This may include locating parking behind buildings street frontage, below grade, or screening through the use of natural landscaping’;
o Policy LU-8.19 “Residential structures shall be designed to be compatible with existing structures in the vicinity, avoid obstructing views from adjacent structures or views of community importance, avoid interference with the right or ability to use solar energy and be consistent with the community design principles”. o Policy LU-8.20 “Require all new residential multi- family residential, commercial and industrial projects subject to design review by the appropriate decision- making body for compliance with site planning, architecture, signing and landscaping criteria prior to approval, as permitted by State law.” Basis of Finding: The proposed amendments address the neighborhood character through objectively regulating architectural design elements while being consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as specified within the General Plan Land Use Element Actions. The proposed zoning amendments addresses the neighborhood character through objectively regulating architectural design elements such building materials and colors, building massing, articulation, required landscaping, corner treatments, among other design features while being consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and actions.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 426

multifamily residential, mixed use, and/or commercial/industrial developments adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods to minimize impacts and compatibility conflicts.”
Basis for Finding: The proposed Ordinance amendments propose to objectively regulate, as required by State Law, building materials, massing, articulation, landscaping, and parking design consistent with the General Plan policies. The proposed amendments also adjust the transitional standards between multi-family and single-family residential districts to create enough buffer areas that minimizes impacts and compatibility conflicts.

Adoption
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the amendments as set forth in Exhibit A of the proposed Ordinance.

Passed and adopted as Resolution of the Planning and Transportation Commission of the City of San Carlos at a regular meeting thereof on the 5th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

AYES, PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONERS:

NOES, PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONERS:

basal flees CHAIR of the Planning and Transportation Commission of the City of San Carlos ATTEST:
nde Wpeclrrd~ Assistant Community Development Director, City of San Carlos

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 427

Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS AMENDING TITLE 18 CHAPTER 18.03 (RULES OF MEASUREMENT), 18.04 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS), 18.05 (MIXED-USE DISTRICTS), 18.06 (COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS),

18.15 (GENERAL SITE REGULATIONS), 18.18 (LANDSCAPING), 18.26 (PLANNING AUTHORITIES), 18.27 (COMMON PROCEDURES), 18.29 (DESIGN REVIEW AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS COMPLIANCE REVIEW), 18.30 (USE PERMITS), AND 18.41 (TERMS AND DEFINITIONS) OF THE SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE.

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

WHEREAS, recent changes to State Law (Government Code Section 65589.5, SB35, SB 423, SB 330, SB9) require that cities adopt and ministerially act on residential development applications based on whether the project complies with Objective Design Standards; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the City adopted the focused General Plan Housing Element identifying policies and actions to accommodate for additional residential units and to eliminate impediments to the creation of more housing; and WHEREAS, the City currently relies on a combination of objective and subjective design standards, implemented through a design review process with staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and sometimes the City Council to regulate the design of applicable housing projects; and
WHEREAS, the City must update its standards for all residential projects to ensure orderly, streamlined development in an effort to be in compliance with State Law and help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of at least 2,735 new housing units; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2023, a City-wide online community survey was published where the community was notified through the City’s website, e-notify mailing list, social media, and City-wide post cards to encourage participation to identify and gather public comments and input on various design aspects pertaining to multi-family and mixed-use residential Objective Design Standards, and where over 420 responses were received; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted three (3) Community Workshops held on October 19, 2022, April 26, 2023, and November 23, 2024, respectively, to introduce the project, identify design elements that are integral to the character of San Carlos, and received specific feedback on massing, articulation, transitional standards, walkability, safety,

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 428

diversity in design, availability of open spaces, green spaces, and neighborhood connectivity; and
WHEREAS, throughout the planning process, staff also conducted meetings and outreach with subject matter experts through two (2) stakeholder meetings with peer- architects and developers held on October 6, 2022 and May 21, 2024 respectively, and received valuable feedback on preliminary draft standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Transpiration Commission conducted two (2) study sessions held on November 20, 2023, and June 17, 2024 to provide policy feedback related to transition standards for projects located adjacent to single-family zones, upper story step backs, landscaping requirements, articulation and massing standards, and parking setbacks; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, a community open house was hosted at the Laureola Park Community Room where staff interacted with the community on a 1 on 1 basis to receive feedback and answer any questions related to the proposed objective design standards; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2025, the City Council conducted a study session to provide direction related to proposed step backs, setbacks and transitions standards for projects located adjacent to single-family zones in addition to proposed objective design standards pertaining but not limited to articulation, massing, landscaping, entrance design; and
WHEREAS, prior to the community workshops, survey, study sessions, community open house, and public hearings, City of San Carlos staff conducted robust community outreach to encourage maximum participation. This included social media posts on San Carlos’ Facebook, NextDoor, Instagram, and Twitter accounts. Announcements about the project and workshops were also made at public meetings including City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission meetings. Public participation opportunities were also promoted through the City of San Carlos’ Spotlight Newsletter, city-wide postcards, Good Living Newsletter, San Carlos’ E-notify email to interested community members, regular updates to the Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards landing page website, and mailed flyers and postcards.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 429

published on April 15, 2025, for the Draft Zoning Code Amendments in the newspaper, distributed to interested parties, posted to the City’s website and announced through e- notify to a list of interested community members and other social media platforms; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code and to provide direction on a preferred approach to encourage retail and commercial uses along El Camino Real and South of Laurel Street outside the boundaries of Downtown Specific Plan, to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with the proposed amendments to Title 18 of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on May 5, 2025 in consideration of a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would help to ensure orderly, streamlined multi-family and mixed-use residential development while being compliant with State Law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission as a result of a Public Hearing held at the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting on May 5, 2025 and has considered the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission for regulations in the San Carlos Municipal Code including Planning and Transportation Commission findings for amendments to Title 18 and reasons for recommendations, the relationship of the proposed ordinance or amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18), 2030 General Plan, and 2023 Housing Element; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the desired outcome of the Ordinance update is to ensure orderly and streamlined multi-family and mixed-use residential development while being compliant with State Law; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the Ordinance update process evaluated current issues and successes with the existing ordinance and explored options for changes based on evidence and best practices in other communities and industry experts; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that preferred options were identified based on increasing clarity, increasing efficiency in review procedures, and increasing effectiveness of the ordinance implementation, and adopts the following amendments to San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18.

SECTION 2: Pursuant to SCMC Section 18.35.080 Criteria for Zoning Amendments, the City Council shall not approve a zoning amendment unless the proposed amendment meets the following criteria:

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 430

A. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Findings.

1. The proposed ordinance amendments are consistent with the General Plan.

The proposed amendments update the Rules of Measurement by clarifying which areas are included or excluded from floor area ratio calculations for residential development.

Proposed amendments also revise standards for building setbacks and transitional step- backs to better support projects in achieving maximum densities. These changes are informed by testing on three representative housing sites, with the analysis considering factors such as construction costs, development potential, number of units, and unit sizes.

This process identified standards that may be limiting housing production and highlighted sections of the Municipal Code in need of revision that are included within the proposed amendment.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 431

The 2030 General Plan Land Use Element also includes the following goals, policies and actions:

Goal LU-8, “Ensure excellence in all development design.” The policies identified to achieve this goal that are consistent with the multi-family and mixed-use objective design standards project includes:
o Policy LU-8.1 “Require all development to feature high quality design that enhances the visual character of San Carlos”,
e Action LU-8.1 “Adopt a form-based zoning code to emphasize building placement, the framing of public space and promoting a pedestrian- oriented environment.”
Policy LU-8.2 “Ensure that new development is sensitive to the character of adjacent structures and the immediate neighborhood”,
Policy LU-8.4 “Promote pedestrian-scaled design through site planning, building design, finish details and landscaping for all types of development by requiring height and locational transitions be- tween buildings of varied levels that are sensitive to the interrelationships of surrounding uses and structures, especially residential.”
e Action LU-8.4 “Develop objective design standards consistent with State law and amend the Zoning Ordinance and create a Planning Division submittal information checklist and application to require materials that accurately and sufficiently demonstrate a project’s compliance with new objective design standards.”
Policy LU-8.5 “Optimize architectural quality by encouraging the use of quality materials, particularly as accents and authentic detailing, such as balconies and window trims”,
Policy LU-8.7 “Require new residential development to provide outdoor areas and landscaping or native vegetation, or tree canopy to enhance the surroundings”, Policy LU-8.10 “On all sides of buildings, require the incorporation of quality architectural design elements for all building fagades and stepping back upper floors in order to reduce bulk and mass and to break up monotonous wall lines”.

Policy LU-8.11 “Discourage abrupt changes in building scale. A gradual transition between low-rise to mid-rise buildings should be achieved by using the low rise buildings at the edge of the project site. Consider the relationship of buildings to the street, to one another and to adjacent structures and land uses, especially single-family residential.”

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 432

o Policy LU-8.12 “Require residential building entrances to be related to the street’, o Policy LU-8.13 “Require parking areas associated with development to be located and designed to minimize visual impact to the greatest extent feasible. This may include locating parking behind buildings street frontage, below grade, or screening through the use of natural landscaping’,
o Policy LU-8.19 “Residential structures shall be designed to be compatible with existing structures in the vicinity, avoid obstructing views from adjacent structures or views of community importance, avoid interference with the right or ability to use solar energy and be consistent with the community design principles”. o Policy LU-8.20 “Require all new residential multi- family residential, commercial and industrial projects subject to design review by the appropriate decision- making body for compliance with site planning, architecture, signing and landscaping criteria prior to approval, as permitted by State law.” Basis of Finding: The proposed amendments address the neighborhood character through objectively regulating architectural design elements while being consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as specified within the General Plan Land Use Element Actions. The proposed zoning amendments addresses the neighborhood character through objectively regulating architectural design elements such building materials and colors, building massing, articulation, required landscaping, corner treatments, among other design features while being consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and actions.

The General Plan 2030 Land Use Element includes the following goal:
e Goal LU-9 stating, “Protect and enhance all residential neighborhoods”, o Policy LU-9.1 “Maintain and enhance neighborhoods to be safe and attractive.” o Policy LU-9.5 “Mitigation measures shall be utilized to the greatest extent feasible for neighborhoods surrounding new pro- posed development. Require buffering, transitional standards, screening, or other measures for new and expanded multifamily residential, mixed use, and/or commercial/industrial developments adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods to minimize impacts and compatibility conflicts.”
Basis for Finding: The proposed Ordinance amendments propose to objectively regulate, as required by State Law, building materials, massing, articulation, landscaping, and

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 433

parking design consistent with the General Plan policies. The proposed amendments also adjust the transitional standards between multi-family and single-family residential districts to create enough buffer areas that minimizes impacts and compatibility conflicts.

SECTION 3: Replacement of Code. San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18 Chapter

18.03 (Rules of Measurement), 18.04 (Residential Districts), 18.05 (Mixed-Use Districts),

18.06 (Commercial Districts), 18.15 (General Site Regulations), 18.18 (Landscaping),

18.26 (Planning Authorities), 18.27 (Common Procedures), 18.29 (Design Review and Objective Design Standards Compliance Review), 18.30 (Use Permits), And 18.41 (Terms and Definitions) is hereby replaced with the language in Exhibit A.

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: That the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable and, if for any reason any sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 434

SECTION 8: 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.

RRRKK
|, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced on the day of 2025 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City council of the City of San Carlos held on the day of , 2025 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
Exhibit B to Ordinance: Proposed Amendments to Title 18 shown in redline

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 435

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 436

Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Objective Design Standards (ODS) Community Outreach Summary and Meeting Minutes
Below is a list of the community outreach and events coordinated by city staff and the consultants for the Mixed-use and Multi -Family Objective Design Standards project that occurred between October 2022 and August 2025. Corresponding summaries and meeting minutes are attached. In addition to these meetings and events, staff also actively collaborated with developers and architects and solicited input and feedback from the public at various stages of the project.

To encourage maximum participation and community awareness, staff conducted robust community outreach prior to all community workshops, surveys, study sessions, and events. This included social media posts on the City’s Facebook, NextDoor, Instagram , and Twitter (X) accounts, targeted postcards, and publications in the City’s Spotlight Newsletter, the Good Living Newsletter and San Carlos’s E-notify (email) communication list.

Table 1: Major Outreach Events for Mixed-Use and Multi-Family ODS Event Name Date
1 Planning and Transportation Commission - Recommendation May 5, 2025 2 City Council Study Session February 10, 2025
3 Community Corner Open House January 30, 2025
4 Community Meeting (Greater East San Carlos Neighborhood) November 13, 2024 5 Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session #2 June 17, 2024 6 Stakeholder Meeting May 21, 2024
7 Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session #1 November 20, 2023 8 Community Workshop April 26, 2023
9 Community Survey March 10, 2023
10 Community Workshop October 19, 2022
11 Stakeholder Meeting October 6, 2022

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 437
May 5, 2025 1
San Carlos City Planning and Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
May 5, 2025 7:00 PM

APPROVED MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

4. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:

Kristen Clements
Ellen Garvey
Janet Castaneda
Twisha Anand
Summer Bundy
Staff Present:

Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Rucha Dande, Principal Planner
Akanksha Chopra, Senior Management Analyst
Laura Richstone, Senior Planner

5. PUBLIC COMMENT – None
MOTION: Close Public Comment
MOVER: Ellen Garvey
SECONDER: Janet Castaneda
AYES: Anand, Bundy, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements
NAYS:

EXCUSED:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Approval of the April 7, 2025 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes.

MOTION: Approve the Minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of April 7, 2025.

MOVER: Kristen Clements
SECONDER: Summer Bundy
Summary Document #1

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 438

May 5, 2025 2
AYES: Anand, Bundy, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements
NAYS:

EXCUSED:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0

7. PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION: Recommendation to change the order on the agenda, move item 7b before item 7a.

MOVER: Ellen Garvey
SECONDER: Janet Castaneda
AYES: Anand, Bundy, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements
NAYS:

EXCUSED:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0
a. Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council to amend Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code to adopt the Multi -family (RM) and Mixed- use (MU) Objective Design Standards (ODS) and provide staff with feedback on approaches to encourage retail and commercial use along El Camino Real and South of Laurel Street outside the boundary of the Downtown Area Specific Plan.

Rucha Dande, Principal Planner and Rick Williams, Partner at Van Meter Williams Pollack presented the item and responded to commissioners’ questions.

Public Comment
Jennifer Rosse ( Zoom) – Co President of the Greater East San Carlos (GESC) expressed concern about developments in 50 -foot zoning districts adjacent to single- family homes potentially reaching 70–100 feet, which could result in buildings that feel out of scale with the existing neighborhood character. She noted that the concern was previously outlined in a letter submitted to the Commission.

Jennifer Rosse also emphasized the need for developers to support pedestrian connectivity and safe routes to schools, especially along Old County Road, by contributing to improved sidewalks and pathways as part of the “East Side Connect” vision.

Chair Clements acknowledged that the Commission received public comments from Jennifer Rosse and the GESC neighborhood, as well as a second comment letter from Elizabeth Rosse.

The Commissioners provided the following feedback and guidance to staff:

MOTION: Close Public Comment
MOVER: Janet Castaneda
SECONDER: Ellen Garvey
AYES: Anand, Bundy, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements
NAYS:

EXCUSED:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 439

May 5, 2025 3

Design Standards, Transition and Buffer Standards

• Supported reducing upper story setbacks from 10 feet to 6 feet, noting that 10 feet is excessive for residential development, especially when combined with other setback requirements. Supported that the visual difference is minimal. • Supported reducing rear setbacks in mixed- use districts from 30 feet to 20 feet for parcels adjacent to RS districts, along with requiring landscaping in the rear setback. • Acknowledged the plan promotes good transitions between new, higher -density development and existing single-family homes.
• Appreciated that the Objective Design Standards ( ODS) are objective yet leave room for design creativity.
• Encouraged continued engagement with the community and incorporation of all feedback received.
• Appreciated the landscaping requirements.
• Believed that the ODS will lead to an increase in housing in San Carlos. • Commended the community and developer outreach process, acknowledged the lengthy and thorough work done by the consulting firm Van Meter Williams Pollack. • Appreciated the high quality, thoughtful nature of the plan, and highlighted the City Council’s strong pro- housing stance and the Commission’s commitment to enabling housing production.
• Supported the plan’s emphasis on matching design articulations to the fine- grain character of smaller lots.
• Appreciated the balance between clear developer direction and flexibility in design styles.
• Emphasized that the primary goal should be housing production that remains contextual to the community.
• Supported a 12-month evaluation period and endorsed the proposed reduction in rear setbacks to 20 feet, paired with a 10 -foot landscaping buffer, which will promote a greater mix and number of housing units.
• Suggested consistent setback policies citywide might be preferable, while also recognizing that staff should consider the specific context of these neighborhoods — particularly when developments about residential backyards.

Development Standards, Process and Strategies related to retail and commercial

• Recommended to provide greater transparency and clearer definitions for the public regarding what constitutes a major versus a minor review with some room for flexibility for Director’s discretion
• Encouraged continued monitoring and evaluation of the ODS as the plan progresses. • Supported the changes to the Floor Area Ration (FAR) and the elimination of it for residential development.
• Supported further investigation into retail nodes and commercial use. • Encouraged that any commercial incentives, such as streamlined processes or waived/reduced fees, be aligned with Council priorities.

Others
• Expressed concern that the City could lose potential businesses if certain requirements—such as transparency or other design elements do not align with specific business needs.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 440

May 5, 2025 4
• Suggested allowing flexibility in retail space design standards to better accommodate different business needs and to attract a broader range of tenants. • Emphasized that setting clear priorities is essential and expressed hope that revenue would not be the top priority, so the focus could instead be on attracting a diverse mix of businesses to create a more vibrant community.
• Stated that it is important to bring in lower cost eateries for young people and lower income groups. It cannot all be upscale.

MOTION: Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council introduce an Ordinance to amend the San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.03 (Rules of Measurement), 18.04 (Residential Districts), 18.05 (Mixed-use Districts), 18.06 (Commercial Districts), 18.15 (General Si te Regulations), 18.18 (Landscaping), 18.26 (Planning Authorities), 18.27 (Common Procedures), 18.29 (Design Review and Objective Design Standards Compliance Review), 18.30 (Use Permits), and 18.41 (Terms and Definitions) to create Objective Design Standar ds for future residential development within the Mixed- use and Multi -family zoning districts, and to explore ways to build in flexibility in the deviation process.

MOVER: Twisha Anand
SECONDER: Janet Castaneda
AYES: Anand, Bundy, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements
NAYS:

EXCUSED:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0
b. Public Hearing on the Proposed General Plan Amendments and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Consideration of Making a Recommendation to the City Council to Certify the EIR and Adopt the 2045 General Plan Reset Project.

Akanksha Chopra, Senior Management Analyst, Steve Noack, Principal at PlaceWorks and Alexis Mena, Associate Principal at PlaceWorks presented the item and responded t o commissioners’ questions.

The Commissioners provided the following feedback and guidance to staff:
• Supported the project and appreciated the thoroughness of the plan. • Acknowledged the identified significant and unavoidable impacts outlined in the report and appreciated the transparency. Emphasized that such openness goes a long way in building community trust.
• Encouraged to provide as much supplemental material as possible for public review, which would help alleviate community concerns.
• Appreciated the responsiveness to agency and public comments.

MOTION: Close Public Hearing
MOVER: Janet Castaneda
SECONDER: Summer Bundy

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 441

May 5, 2025 5
AYES: Anand, Bundy, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements
NAYS:

EXCUSED:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0
MOTION: Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Carlos 2045 General Plan Reset project.

MOVER: Ellen Garvey
SECONDER: Twisha Anand
AYES: Anand, Bundy, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements
NAYS:

EXCUSED:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0
MOTION: Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt amendments to the 2030 City of San Carlos General Plan’s Introduction, Land Use Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Environmental Management Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Noise Element as part of the 2045 General Plan Reset project.

MOVER: Kristen Clements
SECONDER: Janet Castaneda
AYES: Anand, Bundy, Castaneda, Garvey, Clements
NAYS:

EXCUSED:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0

8. REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Report on Recent City Council Actions
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director, shared that the City Council has adopted the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan and recently held their Budget Study Session during the last meeting.
b. Planning and Transportation Commission comments or reports Commissioner Anand shared that she attended the groundbreaking ceremony for the affordable housing project on Cherry Street. She also noted her participation in a micromobility training conducted by First and Last Mile Transportation Solutions.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 442

May 5, 2025 6
Chair Clements shared that the mural titled “Blossoms: An International Friendship” celebrating the city's connection with Omura, Japan, will be unveiled on May 15 at 4 PM on Sister City Lane. She noted that the event is sponsored in part by the San Carlos Community Foundation, the ribbon-cutting marks its completion during the city’s centennial year.

Vice Chair Garvey noted that the artist who created the mural will be hosted by Highland Design, located just two doors down from the mural site.

Commissioner Anand shared that the mural site address is on 1225 San Carlos Avenue.

Chair Clements noted that there are two commission seats open.

Andrea Mardeisch confirmed that the application period is still open and noted that the Council has revised the process to allow current commissioners to remain in their roles a bit longer, if they are willing, in the event that vacant seats have not yet been filled. c. Correspondence - None
d. Planning Staff comments, reports, and updates on current projects Andrea Mardesich gave the following updates.
• The May 19 PTC meeting will be cancelled.
• In the next PTC meeting, Andrea Mardesich will bring a memo to ask the Commission if they want to cancel their July meeting similar to the City Council. • On May 12, Council will consider designs of the Harrington Park, pavilion, restrooms and water feature as part of phase one downtown implementation for the 700 block of Laurel plus Harrington Park

9. ADJOURNMENT
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant
Community Development Director

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 443

February 10, 2025 1
San Carlos City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority Regular Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
February 10, 2025 7:00 PM

MINUTES

ROLL CALL
City Council Present: John Dugan, Councilmember
Sara McDowell, Mayor
Adam Rak, Councilmember
Pranita Venkatesh, Vice Mayor
Neil Layton, Councilmember
Staff Present: Nil Blackburn, Assistant City Manager
Lauren Burd, Recreation Supervisor
Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
Rucha Dande, Principal Planner
Sajuti Haque, Economic Development & Housing Manager
Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Mark Myers, Police Captain
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Laura Richstone, Senior Planner
Gregory Rubens, City Attorney
Al Savay, Community Development Director

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor McDowell called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS
None.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor McDowell led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
None.

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
None.

Summary Document #2

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 444

February 10, 2025 2

6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Present a Proclamation Recognizing February as American Heart Month.

Mayor McDowell presented a proclamation to Molly St. Clair, Senior Development Director at American Heart Association, recognizing American Heart Month.

Ms. St. Clair expressed her gratitude to the Council for passing a strong tobacco retail license and for recognizing American Heart Month.
b. Receive an Annual Report from the San Carlos Library.

Francis Hebert, San Carlos Library Branch Manager, presented statistics and accomplishments from the past year for the San Mateo County Library. He then turned the presentation over to Manny Serrano, the San Carlos Library’s Community Technology Specialist, who focused on San Carlos Library’s accomplishments and community outreach efforts. Mr. Hebert and Mr. Serrano responded to Council questions.

Council requested a status update on the Makerspace Project. Mr. Herbert confirmed it will be provided offline.

7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Layton provided an update on the Airport Roundtable meeting he recently attended, including information on air traffic control staffing at the San Carlos airport.

Mayor McDowell thanked everyone for their participation in the Week of the Family and the Community Foundation of San Carlos’ Gala.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT
Susan Rose, resident and Week of the Family President, provided an update on Week of the Family’s activities and the community’s participation. She thanked their committee, involved foundations and the City for their support.

Sonia Elkes, resident, spoke about the Week of the Family Bike Fair and Fun Ride. She thanked Mayor McDowell and Councilmember Dugan for their participation and acknowledged community members who provided support.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Rak pulled Item d- Facility Use Agreement, from the Consent Calendar for a separate discussion.

MOTION: Adopt City Council Consent Calendar items ‘a’ through ‘c’ and ‘e’ and ‘f’.

MOVER: Layton
SECONDER: Rak
AYES: Rak, Dugan, Layton, Venkatesh, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0
a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.
b. Approve the January 13, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 445

February 10, 2025 3
c. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Two- Year Professional Services Agreement with Flock Group Inc. for Flock Safety Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Cameras/Licenses in the Amount of $147,000 and Authorizing the Approval of the Use of Prior Year Savings from the Law Enforcement Services Agreement with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office in the Amount of $147,000 for this Service. Resolution 2025-007 d. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Facility Use Agreement Between Starbucks Corporation and Tesla Inc. Related to the Ground Lease Agreement between the City of San Carlos and San Carlos Properties, LLC, Pertaining to the City -Owned Property at 505 Skyway Road (APN 046- 250-020) for the Purposes of Installing Eight Electric Vehicle Chargers.

Item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. e. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Primary Grant Agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measures A and/or W Funding. Resolution 2025- 008
f. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for Professional Services with Kingston Media for Video Services for the City Centennial (C2309) in the Amount of $104,500 and Authorizing the Expenditure of Contingency of $10,000 for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $114,500. Resolution 2025-009
9d. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Facility Use Agreement Between Starbucks Corporation and Tesla Inc. Related to the Ground Lease Agreement between the City of San Carlos and San Carlos Properties, LLC, Pertaining to the City-Owned Property at 505 Skyway Road (APN 046-250-020) for the Purposes of Installing Eight Electric Vehicle Chargers.

Councilmember Rak expressed concern about the extent of redactions in the proposed agreement.

City Attorney Greg Rubens and Principal Planner Rucha Dande responded to Council questions.

Council directed staff to revise the agreement, limiting redactions to proprietary information only, and to bring it back for further consideration and approval.

10. STUDY SESSION
a. Receive a Presentation and Provide Staff with Direction on the Objective Design Standards (ODS) for Future Residential Development in the Mixed -Use (MU) and Multi -Family (RM) Zoning Districts.

Principal Planner Rucha Dande opened the item with background on the Objective Design Standards and an overview of their community outreach efforts. She then turned the presentation over to Rick Williams, Principal Architect with VMWP, who presented the key recommended updates.

Ms. Dande, Mr. Williams, Assistant Community Development Director Andrea Mardesich, Planning Manager Lisa Porras and City Manager Jeff Maltbie responded to Council questions and requests for clarification.

Public Comment
- David Tuzman, resident, spoke in support of more housing in the City. - Winston Wyckoff, resident, raised a question about the developments’ impact on neighbors’ solar roofs.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 446

February 10, 2025 4
- Caroline, resident, provided input on the proposed amendments.

At the Mayor’s request, Mr. Williams responded to questions raised during public comments.

Council provided the following feedback to staff:
- Encourage retail and commercial development in the downtown area, along El Camino Real and Laurel Street.
- Include a summary of the State’s density bonus waivers and concessions in future staff reports for orientation.
- Conduct further study on setbacks, including an analysis of different setback distances (15', 20') and their impact on housing unit capacity.
- Consider a 20’ rear setback for projects along East San Carlos Avenue. - Council supports making El Camino Real 100% residential on the first floor, with a preference to mandate activated first-floor uses on Laurel Street outside the specific plan boundary— pending legal review.
- Emphasize ornamentation requirements to enhance articulation and avoid “cookie-cutter” designs.
- Continue incorporating survey data in decision-making. - Council supports eliminating the maximum floor area ratio for residential development.

Council recessed at 9:53 PM and reconvened the meeting at 10:00 PM. b. Receive a Presentation and Provide Direction to Staff on the Design and Layout of Key Features for Improvements to the 700 Block of Laurel Street and Harrington Park (Phase 1 Downtown Implementation Component).

Planning Manager Lisa Porras commenced the item with a review of the project and introduced James Stickley, Principal-in-Charge Consultant, to present on the proposed design layout for the 700 block of Laurel Steet and Harrington Park.

MOTION: At 10:24 PM, Extend the Meeting to 11:15 PM.

MOVER: Rak
SECONDER: Dugan
AYES: Layton, Venkatesh, Rak, Dugan, McDowell
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0
Mr. Stickley, City Manager Jeff Maltbie and City Attorney Greg Rubens responded to Council’s questions.

Public Comment
- Karen Molinari, resident, voiced support for the downtown updates to increase businesses in the downtown.
- C
aroline, resident, spoke in support of having sinks outside of restrooms.

Council provided the following feedback:
- Ensure the stage is large enough to accommodate at least an average-size band. - Emphasize the pavilion as the focal piece, incorporating a natural, organic aesthetic. - Integrate natural elements into the water feature and ensure a fluid design around it. - Begin informing the public about the planned placement of memorial bricks.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 447

February 10, 2025 5
- Retain newspaper boxes in the downtown area.
- Explore the addition of a gateway or structure by the alleyway. - Include a water refill station and/or drinking fountain. - Install diaper changing stations in the restrooms.
- Provide backless seating for flexible seating options and additional seating around the fountain.
- A dd bike parking on the alley side of Harrington Park. - Ensure the space remains accessible and navigable, even during performances and large gatherings.

11. AGENDA SETTING
None.

12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:07 PM.

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 448

San Carlos RM/MU ODS
Community Meeting - Meeting Notes
November 13, 2024 @ 7:00pm via Zoom
Team Attendees
City of San Carlos Rucha Dande
Good City Company Nick Hamilton, Lisa Costa-Sanders
VMWP John Doyle, Rick Williams, Jia Xu
Notes

1. Sam Herzberg asked several questions. The first is about strategies for the City of San Carlos to promote condos and townhouses. The second is about long -term issues (trash, noise, setbacks for large buildings) existed since the East Side General Plan and Zoni ng update. Third is about the size of landscape buffer trees.

Response: The proposed ODS will be applicable to townhomes in RM districts and are proposed to be easy to use for developers and residents thus encouraging townhouse development type. Current zoning min and max density requirements do make it challenging f or larger townhomes to be built while smaller townhomes are generally encouraged. ODS does not proposed to discourage townhome development. Buffer trees will be 25’ on center to allow trees to have enough room to mature.

2. Scot brought up concerns that with trees 25’ on center to be mature over 10 -20 years, the privacy of single-family properties will be undermined. Scot suggested that a penalty could be introduced, for example if 80% of property should be screened from sing le family houses in 5 years and 100% should be screened in 10 years. There need to be standards to protect single family homes behind multi-family developments.

Response: The consultant team will consult with the City Arborist and city staff to come up with an appropriate screening strategy.

Summary Document #3

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 449

3. Christina lives in a single-family home adjacent to MU-NB-120 zone. The industrial area in MU-NB-120 will be changed to multi -family residential area. She wanted to know if the section discussed here will apply to that area, and if there is a separate meeting that will discuss the design standards for this area. She mentioned that she was in the Northeast Area Specific Plan meeting last week and was told to come to this meeting to talk about design standards.

Response: There is an easement zone buffer that cannot be built on that is between the single-family homes and the future mixed-use districts in the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

When the Northeast Area Specific Plan will be adopted, there will be standard s for setbacks and landscaping in that area. We are working together to ensure the standards are consistent. We can provide info on future meetings for Northeast Area Specific Plan.

City is currently doing research on the limitations on the easement withi n that interface area and they may or may not restrict development.

4. Joe Gotelli voiced concerns over parking in the south end of Laurel. The neighborhood is already dealing with commercial overflow, with the added density from multi -family developments, how is the city dealing with the parking problem? Joe asked under what circumstances are developers able to get around with these standards and how much they can stray from these standards. Joe also had comments on the type of trees for street vs for privacy. In the end, Joe asked another question about how many parking spot s are required under the current code for a 100-unit development.

Response: The ODS does not change current parking standards. There are ways developers can get around parking standards which is governed by the State Law. For example, developers can apply for waivers and concessions for projects proposing below market rate housing units to benefit from the State Density Bonus Law.

Next Planning Commission meeting on Monday (Nov 18) will have a study session about parking ordinance reform. It is encouraged for residents with questions about future parking standards to attend this meeting.

5. Jennifer Rosse mentioned the importance of having guidelines to ensure there’s actually screening happening between single-family properties and tall multi-family buildings. She asked if any resident groups were met with to develop these draft standards. And she had the following requests for the design standards. The 35’ height limit should be ensured along Old County Road. MU -NB-120 area should also be covered in the ODS, rather than

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 450

being a side process. The standards should be consolidated into one place and be easy to access.

Response: The project’s outreach process began in 2022. Staff conducted a city -wide survey and multiple planning commission study sessions. Staff did not meet directly with any residents before this ongoing community meeting which is focused towards the residents of the Greater East San Carlos neighborhood. Staff is happy to set up working sessions to answer any questions moving forward.

6. John Zeh has a 50’ wide 7,700 sf lot and he wanted to build a single-family house with ADU on the adjoining parcel. He wanted to know if there was a possibility of getting around the minimum density requirement.

Response: Staff will reach out to John separately to further discuss this issue.

7. Caroline lives on Montgomery Street. She confirmed if only 1.7% of residences are affected by the setback change for new construction abutting their property. She strongly suggests not changing the setback rule as the current setback is already not enough. She said that privacy for single-family home residents would be non-existent and it would hurt residents more than it would benefit anyone else.

Response: We are still accepting feedback and comments. It’s possible the rear setback could be larger than 15’ -0, and there are other recommendations that staff can bring forward such as not allowing balconies in the rear for future development adjacent to the single-family zoning districts.

8. Ken Hayes from Hayes Group Architects asked questions about parking. Is the requirement for parking facility access from “side street or alley when possible” flexible? The language is subjective and discretionary. It’s better if it’s flexible rather than to prescribe.

Response: It’s typical for cities to have the desire for parking access from side streets or alleys. The city wants the front of the building to be on El Camino Real or Laurel and be commercial-oriented rather. We will look into refining the ODS for objective language.

9. Patty Marsters mentioned the 35’ height limit on East El Camino Real. The building shown in the picture is too large. She raised concern that max height is not guaranteed because there are ways to get around that build higher, ie. density bonus law. Reside nts had problems with height for a long time.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 451

Response: ODS doesn’t proposed to change any height limits in current zoning. 1 0. Christina raised concerns about the disconnection between the Northeast Area Specific Plan and San Carlos ODS. Clarity is needed for these areas.

Response: A separate meeting could be arranged to answer the questions. 1 1. Anna Axiaq has lived on Hall Street for 17 years. She seconded concerns about setbacks and heights. She asked about the possibility of planting bigger and faster- growing trees.

And she agreed that privacy of single-family properties along Montgomery Street should be protected.

Response: We will talk with arborists to come up with solutions to address screening.

12. Dimitri mentioned the past agreements about 35’ max height, significant setbacks, and a 10’ green buffer zone along East San Carlos Ave. and Old County Road. He voiced frustration over discrepancies between discussions and documentation, and the city’s history with planting trees. He was frustrated by the online materials posted in draft form – makes the draft ODS inaccessible for viewers and should be posted without markups.

Response: Staff mentioned the maximum height limit is not proposed to be changed similarly the landscape requirements are not proposed to be reduced. For other items encouraged to reach out to [email protected]. 1 3. Jennifer Rosse raised concerns again that it’s worrisome that developers’ perspective is taken into account before residents. She thinks the city should listen more to residents’ comments, care more about this community, and keep characters in the neighborhood.

14. Eric Vignola lives on Montgomery Street. His concerns are aligned with previous comments. He said shading and sunlight exposure should be taken into consideration.

15. Caroline also raised concern over sunlight shading. She asked again why requireme nts need to be changed to only 1% of residents and why not find the 1% somewhere else. 1 6. Answers in the chat box:

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 452

Table 18.18.050-B92) Buffer Yards contains the regulation that requires 10 ft next to single family. This is in the Landscape Standards of San Carlos Zoning Ordinance.

Please contact [email protected] so we can clarify the proposed development standards for the new housing contemplated in the northeast area. And please sign up here to follow the process https://www.sancarlosnortheastplan.com/

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 453

June 17, 2024 1
San Carlos City Planning and Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
June 17, 2024 7:00 PM

APPROVED MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER – Call to order at 7:00 pm

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS - None

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:

Ellen Garvey (Acting Chair)
Janet Castaneda
David Roof
Commissioners Absent
Jim Iacoponi, Chair
Kristen Clements, Vice Chair
Staff Present:

Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Rucha Dande, Principal Planner
Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner
Lisa Costa Sanders, Consultant Principal Planner
Greg Rubens, City Attorney

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a Approval of the June 3, 2024 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Meeting Minutes.

MOTION: Approve the Minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of June 3, 2024.

MOVER: Ellen Garvey
SECONDER: Janet Castaneda
AYES: Roof, Garvey, Castaneda
NAYS:

ABSENT:

None
Kristen Clements, Jim Iacoponi
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2

6. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 642 Quarry Road (APN:046-041-038) – Public Hearing to Consider approving the Design Review Modification, to modify the design of an approved but not yet built life science research and development buildings.

Summary Document #4

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 454

June 17, 2024 2
Lisa Costa Sanders , Consultant Principal Planner and Applicant Rex Crabb from OTJ Architects presented the item.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions.

City staff and Consultant Team addressed the Commission's inquiries.

Public Comment
Nels Delander (in-person), representative of Carpenters Local 217, emphasized that workers on this project should receive fair wages, proper training through apprenticeships, and healthcare benefits.

Debbie Baldocchi (via Zoom), a San Carlos resident, sought the Commissioners' perspectives on the parking lot structure before and after the proposed design changes.

Commission Comment
Commissioner Garvey invited the applicant to respond to the caller’s question regarding the art wall on parking lot structure.

The Commission was supportive of the design changes and liked the simplified design and planter boxes.

MOTION: Close Public Comment
MOVER: Janet Castaneda
SECONDER: David Roof
AYES: Roof, Castaneda, Garvey
NAYS:

ABSENT:

None
Kristen Clements, Jim Iacoponi
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2
MOTION: Approve the request for Design Review Modification, for the construction of construction of two research and development life science buildings, one 215,022 square feet and one 192,650 square feet, (both buildings with six floors), and one parking garage with nine floors above grade and one subsurface level at 642 Quarry Road based on the findings and for the reasons incorporated in the staff report and subsequent attachments.

MOVER: David Roof
SECONDER: Janet Castaneda
AYES: Roof, Castaneda, Garvey
NAYS:

ABSENT:

None
Kristen Clements, Jim Iacoponi
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2
Commissioner Garvey stated that The Planning and Transportation Commission’s action will be final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the date of action. The deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 27, 2024.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 455

June 17, 2024 3
b. Scoping Meeting for the 2045 General Plan Reset Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Akanksha Chopra, Associate Planner and Terri McCracken, Consultant Associate Principal from PlaceWorks presented the item.

Public Comment
Debbie Baldocchi (via Zoom) expressed her concerns about the numerous life science developments and requested that the EIR address hazardous materials, including biohazards, water quality and soil. She emphasized the need for the C ity to consider the energy and water usage and the risks associated with the concentrated use of biosafety labs.

Greg Rubens clarified that the public comment period was for the evening only. He stated that there is still the public comment period for the scoping of the EIR and the public still has the opportunity to communicate with staff and provide input.

C
ommissioners asked clarifying questions.

Commissioner Garvey requested that the EIR thoroughly evaluate developments near creeks , especially in the Northeast area.

Commissioner Roof emphasized the need for review of w ildfire related impacts with respect to potential congestion and evacuation from potential new development in San Carlos.

City staff and consultant addressed the Commission's inquiries.

7. NEW BUSINESS
a. C
onsider Authorizing a Planning and Transportation Commission Summer Recess and Cancellation of the July 1, 2024 and July 15, 2024 Regular Meetings.

Public Comment
Debbie Baldocchi (via Zoom) thanked the Commission for their hard work throughout the year and supported the motion.

MOTION: Close Public Comment
MOVER: Ellen Garvey
SECONDER: Janet Castaneda
AYES: Roof, Castaneda, Garvey
NAYS:

ABSENT:

None
Kristen Clements, Jim Iacoponi
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 456

June 17, 2024 4

8. STUDY SESSION

a. Study Session on Objective Design Standards for Multifamily (RM) and Mixed use (MU) Development Types.

Rucha Dande, Principal Planner and Rick Williams, Consultant Principal Architect and Urban Designer from Van Meter Williams Pollack presented the item.

Public Comment

Debbie Baldocchi (via Zoom) commented that the Multi-family Objective Design Standards process seems to be undoing the height restrictions, setbacks, and step backs established for single-family homes in the Housing Element. She urged City Staff to be meticulous when making required findings, particularly concerning sites with pre -existing restrictions, such as 1785 San Carlos Avenue due to its proximity to the creek.

Debbie Baldocchi also mentioned that the Greater East Side San Carlos neighborhood spoke in great numbers about step backs and setbacks for multifamily buildings facing their single- family homes. She asked if all their input would be disregarded and replaced by new standards that are less favorable to single-family homeowners.

Lisa Porras, Planning Manager addressed the public comment on the Housing Element.

Rick Williams followed up on the public comment

Commission Comment

Commissioners asked clarifying questions.

Commissioner Roof emphasized the need for proposed changes and implications to be openly discussed with the public.

Commissioner Garvey echoed Commissioner Roof’s comment, stating the importance of making information available to the community for review and comment. She emphasized the need to invite the community to stay engaged with the subject through various outreach tools.

Commissioner Castaneda mentioned that while the market suggests a demand for larger units, there is also a trend in many areas towards smaller units. She urged City Staff to keep this in mind.

City staff and consultant addressed the Commission's inquiries.

MOTION: Approve a summer recess and authorizes cancellation of the July 1, 2024 and July 15, 2024 Regular Meetings.

MOVER: Janet Castaneda
SECONDER: Ellen Garvey
AYES: Roof, Castaneda, Garvey
NAYS:

ABSENT:

None
Kristen Clements, Jim Iacoponi
RESULT: Motion Passed 3 – 0 – 2

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 457

June 17, 2024 5

9. REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Report on Recent City Council Actions
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director shared that the City Council provided feedback to staff on the Downtown Streetscape Plan and authorized to move forward with some technical studies. She also shared that the Council approved the mid-year budget. b. Planning and Transportation Commission comments or reports Commissioner Garvey noted that the evening was Commissioner Roof’s last meeting and thanked him for his service.
c. Correspondence - None
d. Planning Staff comments, reports, and updates on current projects Andrea Mardesich provided the following updates.
• There will be no meetings in July.
• Staff is determining if there is a quorum for the August 5, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting.
• Thanked Commissioner Roof for his 6 years of service in PTC and Residential Design Review Committee.

10. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Debbie Baldocchi (via Zoom) thanked Commissioner Roof for representing the community.

11. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 pm
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant
Community Development Director

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 458

July 2, 2024
San Carlos Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Objective Design Standards Preliminary Recommendations for Mixed-Use and Multi-
Family ODS after PTC Working Session
This memo includes a summary of the recent Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) working session, a preliminary list of recommendations for the refinement of the Multifamily ODS and zoning code, and a list of questions to the City for further input as the project moves into its later stages. A series of next steps are included at the end of this memo as well. The various recommendations included build upon VMWP’s work with the City from the following:
• Analysis and evaluation of the existing zoning code
• Review of the previous draft of Multifamily ODS along with stakeholder and city commentary
• Preliminary test-fits conducted on three representative downtown sites using current zoning standards
• Insights from previous and recent stakeholder meetings • Input received from the June 17th PTC study session
• Staff input from regular project meetings including analysis of recent projects in downtown San Carlos and community feedback
What We Heard (PTC Working Session - June 17, 2024)
Concern for Multifamily ODS Negating Previous Zoning Controls:
● Will the new ODS change height limits, setbacks, and stepbacks established in the Housi ng Element? If constraints to achieving Housing Element numbers are found in projects, then the City can amend its zoning ordinance to maximize housing in San Carlos ● Want certainty about zoning controls especially near single family areas, less concern along ECR ● Dramatic changes in height limits, setbacks, and stepbacks are not anticipated ● Important to have this process be open and transparent for community especially if certai n controls like heights are increased
FAR as a Limiting Factor for Certain Development Sites:
● Height limits will not be increased substantively, as they are not a significant limiting factor ● FAR may not be the optimal zoning control to limit building envelope size especially on small sites, might still be considered to apply on larger sites
● Idea of a sliding scale applied to FAR limits depending on site size and location was receiv ed favorably by the PTC

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 459

Unit Types and the Market:
● Desire to allow for variety of units including small units, which PTC mentioned is a viable development type
● Do not let the ODS dictate unit sizes, should allow for both small units and family mixes State Density Bonus Exceptions:
● Important to reference in the ODS, but not spell out as it keeps changing ● City website can keep State Density Bonus law updated ● Full disclosure in the zoning code on associated height bonuses allowed beyond the zoning height limit
Height Limits:
● Overall building height is not a limiting factor to development and will not likely change significantly in the zoning
● There may be nuanced height increases or language changes such as changing rear height limit from 30’ to 3 stories to allow for ground floors greater than 10’ Parking:
● Define the term “podium parking” in the zoning if possible ● Important to provide flexibility in parking as automobile use may change over time ● Parking requirements are not a zoning development constraint on sites within a half mile of major transit as the state law requires no parking in those areas (AB 2097) Stepbacks:
● PTC agrees with reducing amount of stepbacks and the 10’-deep stepbacks from the previous draft ODS
● Consider factoring in site location in regard to stepback requirements ● VMWP to consider optimal fire access strategies and provide fire access section diagrams illustrating ladder angle with optimal stepbacks
Ground Floor Uses:
● PTC likes idea of allowing other active uses such as workspaces, fitness rooms, resident commons, lobbies, etc. beyond just retail for ground floor ● Provide list of allowable active ground floor uses
● Active space better than empty retail space
Building Design:
● ODS should not try to cover every development scenario since there is an alternate design application path without ODS through the PTC, more subjective, but can potentially allow for more unconventional design approaches, providing a pressure-relief valve from the ODS document ● PTC likes the diversity of building styles throughout San Carlos, do not want homogeneity, understand that a variety of buildings from object buildings to background buildings is what makes a place successful
● PTC likes referencing traditional styles and materials in contemporary ways ● ODS should provide guidance on achieving consistency within each development rather than arbitrary variation that may result in confusing design ● ODS should define various architectural element requirements rather than style Preliminary Recommendations

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 460

Density and Unit Types:
● Ensure that building design controls and required density ranges allow for both small units an d family mixes
● Reference the State Density Bonus in the ODS, and direct users to the City’s website with current SDB requirements and its application to development in San Carlos ● Consider including SDB height bonuses allowed beyond the zoning height limit in the ODS FAR (Optional Recommendations):
● Consider removing above-grade podium parking from FAR calculations in order to allow more housing
● Consider removing the FAR limit altogether from residential zoning districts ● Consider applying a sliding scale to FAR limits depending on site size and location (higher for smaller sites and lower for larger sites)
Parking:
● Define the term “podium parking” in the zoning
● Create language that provides flexibility in parking requirements ● Consider removing parking minimums as the market is the main factor informing parking counts Building Height Limits:
● Adjust language related to rear setbacks and stepbacks to allow 3 stories instead of 30’ in order t o accommodate ground floors greater than 10’
● Consider changing 5-story height limits to 6-story height limits to capitalize on Type III construction benefits
● Use overall building height and number of stories rather than specific story heights Stepbacks:
● Reduce any 10’ minimum stepbacks to ±6’
Ground floor uses:
● Create a list of allowable active ground floor uses acceptable in lieu of retail ● Reduce any 15’ ground floor height minimums to 12’ or 13’ minimum Building Design:
● ODS does not need to cover every development scenario since there is an alternate desig n application path
● Do not dictate building style, rather define various important architectural elements ● Provide guidance on achieving consistency within each development rather than arbitrary variatio n that may result in confusing design
● Focus key design elements and more stringent material standards on public street-facing facades Next steps:
• Finalize and test the recommendations (such as the potential for a sliding scale FAR) through refined test-fits on the same three sites tested earlier in the project • Develop a preliminary architectural element list and standards for staff review • Begin drafting ODS language and diagrams for inclusion in the zoning code

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 461

San Carlos Objective Design Standards for MU / RM Zones Stakeholder Roundtable - Meeting Notes
May 21, 2024 @ 10:00am via Zoom
Team Attendees
City of San Carlos Rucha Dande, Deanna Skaggs
Good City Company Nick Hamilton, Lisa Costa Sanders
VMWP John Doyle, Rick Williams, Jia Xu
Developers Jonathan Stone (Prometheus Real Estate Group), Bob Sauvagean (RYS Architects), Nizam Ahmed (RYS Architects, Richard Norris (SummerHill)
Notes
State Density Bonus:
● Clarify how SDB ties into the ODS at least in a paragraph ● Describe waivers, concessions and the differences (waivers unlimited re. design standards, only 1-4 concessions)
● Concern that unlimited waivers effectively negate the ODS, projects with 10+ waivers were cited
● Do not quote SDB as it changes over time
● Larger sites benefit more from density bonus
Flexibility in the ODS:
● Cast a wide net in language and topics in the ODS to account for various development types ● Flexibility important to allow good development and accommodate future differences in the market (ie. parking demand / parking requirements)
● Needs to provide for a range of unit types
Development Market:
● Typical larger developers go for larger sites and at least 1:1 parking ratio, possibly less if close to transit
● Smaller investors / developers go for smaller sites using larger units or townhomes Density:
● On very small sites, density minimum difficult to achieve beyond small studios Summary Document #5

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 462

● Small buildings with unit count above a certain threshold can trigger multiple stairs and elevators making building less cost-effective
Height:
● Most affordable developers use density bonus to achieve viable height beyond zoning limit ● Zoning code heights should also list heights allowed by density bonus ● Fire departments might suggest lower tree heights, certain tree species to maintain ladder access for medium / tall buildings (could be covered in ODS) FAR:
● Typical larger developers go for larger sites and at least 1:1 parking ratio, possibly less if clos e to transit
● Podium parking counted as FAR is inhibiting
● FAR difficult to achieve on small sites - if used as a metric, consider applying FAR as a sliding scale depending on site size
Parking:
● Leave flexibility in parking requirements - future parking demand may change, always site- dependent
● Parking heavily dictates the building footprint - needs careful consideration in the ODS ● Development projects in the past that have 2:1 near transit have underutilized parking spaces ● Condo projects need at least 1:1 parking ratio
Stepbacks:
● More costly to lay out units with multiple stepbacks - lack of stacking, varying unit types ● 5’ more appealing and viable than 10’ stepbacks
● Wedding cake stepback effect can preclude otherwise good design ● Very small sites (1/10th acre or less) are severely inhibited by 4th floor stepbacks Mixed-Use:
● Commercial use is challenging to fit into housing, especially as currently tough to underwrit e “token retail”
● Consider counting office as active frontage on ground floor ● Active frontages can be provided using resident common space, lobbies, etc., not necessarily retail space
● Concern for 15’ minimum ground floor height - added cost just for a token retail space ● Additional commercial parking requirements and trash requirements take up valuable space Building Design:
● Careful to not limit good design with overly prescriptive standards - maintain flexibility ● Variety of standards describing building elements should be provided ● Account for elements such as street-facing courtyards that satisfy the design intent of breaking up the massing, but don’t necessary fit into a traditional category in the ODS ● Main concern should be street-facing public facades - don’t ask for too much, ie. requiring more expensive recessed windows in the courtyards
● Less prescriptive on changing roof forms - expensive and can make for incohesive facade ● Material standards can vary from more durable ground-floor materials to other upper floor materials, ie. foam, aluminum
● Building projections limited to 10’ width prove challenging for a project that might have living room bay windows - ODS should accommodate wider projections

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 463

Next Steps
● Articulate analysis and recommendations based on Stakeholder meeting, test-fits, zoning analysis, previous ODS analysis
● Begin prepping material for PTC (Planning and Transportation Committee) meeting ● PTC on June 17, but material needs to be completed between June 3-12 ● Next team check-in on Tuesday, May 28

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 464

November 20, 2023 1
San Carlos City Planning and Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
November 20, 2023 7:00 PM

MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER – Call to order at 7:02pm

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS - None

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:

Jim Iacoponi, Chair
Kristen Clements, Vice Chair
Ellen Garvey
Janet Castaneda
David Roof
Comm
issioners Absent: None
Staf
f Present:

Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
Rucha Dande, Senior Planner
Ralph Robinson, Consultant, Associate Planner

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Approval of the November 6, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Meeting Minutes will be postponed to the next PTC Meeting.

6. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 549 and 575 Prospect Street (APNs: 050-034-150; 050-034-120) – Public Hearing to consider approving the Design Review, Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Protected Tree Removal Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map to construct two new four-unit townhouse buildings.

Ralph Robinson, Consultant Associate Planner, and the applicant, Huan Fang, Project Manager of the property, presented the item.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions.

Commissioner Roof wanted to know the type of screening for the trash enclosure between the building and the street. He shared his concern that it may be unsightly from the street level.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know what features of the design would inhibit no ise from traveling between neighbors and if there is any landscaping that would help absorb the noise.

She also wanted to know if the trees will be screening most of the buildings.

Summary Document #6

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 465

November 20, 2023 2
Commissioner Garvey wanted to know if there is other lighting besides the LED lights. She also wanted to know if the buildings have solar on the roof or will be solar ready.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know where the front doors are located. Also, he referenced the 575 Prospect property and commented that he did not expect to see a cement panel as he viewed cement as an unfinished façade.

Commissioner Roof asked about the tree protection zone related to the redwood tree on 575 Prospect.

Commissioner Castaneda wanted to know how close the properties are from the rear to the 549 Prospect property line. She also wanted to know if there is any landscaping in the rear.

Chair Iacoponi wanted to know what color is painted on the cement façade on 575 Prospect property.

Public Comment
Robert Stein (in person) resident of 565 Prospect wanted to know the type and height of fencing that would be put in place by the project. He also shared his concern about the 150 -foot redwood tree behind the property that might get damaged during grading. Lastly, he shared his concern that there is no lightning on the streets.

James Layton (in person) resident of 543 Prospect wanted to make sure the left side of the 549 Prospect property has the required setback. He shared that he is concerned about the noise and a neighborly fence may not address the noise, and wanted to know if there are other options to reduce the noise. Lastly, he shared his concern about lighting and the palm tree on the south side of the property.

Saul (Zoom) resident of 557 Prospect is concerned that the project’s balconies and garages are facing his bedroom. He also shared his concern that there w ould be a lack of parking on the street. Lastly Saul shared that the new developments would block the sun for his solar panels and block the sun for the three small homes next to the developments.

Ostap Korkuna (Zoom) resident of 578 Cedar Street shared that he would like to have access to the tree projection plan to make sure it is followed in the best possible way.

Commissioner Comment
Commissioner Roof was supportive of the project. He noted that RM59 allows taller buildings to be inside a neighborhood next to single family homes, so these types of situations are inevitable. Additionally, he shared his concern with the trash enclosure and that the protection of the redwood tree was not called out more specifically.

MOTION: Close Public Comment
MOVER: Ellen Garvey
SECONDER: David Roof
AYES: Castaneda, Garvey, Roof, Clements, Iacoponi
NAYS:

ABSENT:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 466

November 20, 2023 3
Commissioner Castaneda is in favor of the project but shared similar concerns as Commissioner Roof, specifically the redwood tree. She also shared the same concerns of the public comment on the side fence and wondered if it could be taller.

Commissioner Castaneda suggested to Staff that in the future when there is development of similar configuration next to single family homes to have balconies and garages facing the street and not overlooking the properties next door.

Commissioner Garvey shared her various likings of the project such as lighting, setbacks met, the design and replacement trees that have canopy. She echoed her fellow commissioners for Staff and applicant to make sure the redwood tree mentioned is protected.

Vice Chair Clements commended and appreciated the neighbors’ comments. She shared that this is a good location for a higher density project as it is only a 12 -minute walk to downtown and Caltrain. She shared her appreciation for the down slope parking an d one parking space being available. Vice Chair Clements agreed with Robert Stein that taller fencing would seem more appropriate in the interface and in the future look into LED streetlights.

Chair Iacoponi shared that he liked the idea of one parking space for each unit. He suggested including the neighbors during the preconstruction meeting to review the tree and tree protection plan.

The Commission supported adding a condition to make the preconstruction meeting open to any concerned neighbors.

Chair Iacoponi shared his concern on balcony lights shining on neighbors at night and stated that further enhancement is required between Staff and the applicant for improving the trash enclosure and spacing of that area.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know the fence height and material used for 579 Prospect. She suggested the fence be as high as possible to increase privacy.

Lisa Porras, Planning Manager summarized the Condition of Approval requested by the Commission.

MOTION: Grant approval for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Protected Tree Removal Permit to allow the construction of one new building with four townhouses at 549 Prospect Street (APN 050-034-150) for the reasons incorporated in the staff report and with the conditions in the Draft Conditional Use Permit/Code Compliance Certificate and Draft Vesting Tentative Map Certificate with the two additional conditions; raise the perimeter fence to the maximum height allowed and revise trash enclosure design at direction of Staff to reduce visibility from the street.

MOVER: David Roof
SECONDER: Kristen Clements
AYES: Castaneda, Garvey, Roof, Clements, Iacoponi
NAYS:

ABSENT:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0
MOTION: Grant approval for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Protected Tree Removal Permit to allow the construction of one new building with four townhouses at 575 Prospect Street (APN 050-034-150) for the reasons incorporated in the st aff report and with the conditions in the Draft

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 467

November 20, 2023 4
Conditional Use Permit with amendments regarding preconstruction meeting and lattice/Code Compliance Certificate, and Draft Vesting Tentative Map Certificate with two additional conditions; interested neighbors will be invited to the preconstruction meeting to review the protection plan for the redwood tree on the neighboring property and the height of the perimeter fence is to be raised to the maximum allowed height.

MOVER: Jim Iacoponi
SECONDER: Kristen Clements
AYES: Castaneda, Garvey, Roof, Clements, Iacoponi
NAYS:

ABSENT:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0
Chair Iacoponi stated that the Planning and Transportation Commission’s decision will be final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the date of action. He stated that the deadline to file an appeal is at 5pm Thursday November 30th 2023.

7. ST

UDY SESSION
a. S
tudy Session on Draft Objective Design Standards (ODS) for Multi-family (RM) and Mixed-use (
MU) Development Types.

Rucha Dande, Senior Planner and Rishi Dhody, Project Manager from MIG presented the item.

Mukul Malhotra, Principal from MIG was also in attendance.

C
ommissioners asked clarifying questions.

Vice Chair Clements wanted to know the logic behind having one articulation standard for multi - family and a different standard for mixed-use. She shared her frame of mind on cost implications versus what looks good.

Commissioner Castaneda had a question on the process related to neighbor/ community comments. She felt that even though applicants meet the ODS and no change is required there is still benefit to having the public comments passed on.

Commissioner Roof wanted to know if the discretionary entitlements would go through the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and wanted to know how the ODS will help gain time savings in the review process.

Commissioner Garvey commented that she hoped there would be room on the roof for solar panels.

C
hair Iacoponi had questions on the proposed reduced setback.

Commissioner Roof wanted to know if the proposed changes be incorporated in the PTC review process. He also had a question on projects leveraging the density bonus concession to build additional height. Lastly, Commissioner Roof wanted to know who reviews the concessions.

Vice Chair Clements had questions about the step back changes. She shared that the step backs would affect the building envelope and in turn affect the number of units being built. Vice Chair Clements commented that the City needs to be thoughtful about not damaging basic feasibility when trying to create additional distance from buildings.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 468

November 20, 2023 5

Commissioner Garvey had a question about roof top open space requirements for buildings with over 100 units. In addition, she wanted to know how big a 200 feet maximum length of a single building is and if there are any in San Carlos with that length.

Commissioner Roof wanted to know if the standards for articulation have been applied by other cities and do they produce the outcome the City would want to see.

Commissioner Castaneda proposed that when a step back is provided, that should account as part of an articulation and massing, and there is no need for another requirement in addition to the existing step back.

Rucha Dande, Senior Planner and the Consultant team clarified the Commissioners’ questions.

Public Comment

David Tuzman (in- person) suggested removing massing requirement, eliminati ng the front setbacks, and lastly, he shared that the ODS is an opportunity to reduce design review timeline.

Commissioner Comment

Chair Iacoponi thanked the public for sharing their feedback.

Commissioner Garvey shared that she appreciated the renderings and photographs in the packet which helped illustrate all the points. She further shared her appreciations of the benefits of the landscaping requirement.

Commissioner Roof shared that he is overall supportive of the ODS. He commented that in the new compliance review process, the public comment has no bearing and that seemed ingenuine.

Lastly, he wanted clarification on the tree height requirement in a single frontage.

Commissioner Castaneda shared that she is happy to see that the review process will be shortened. She added that it is important for public comments to be passed on because developers may read it. Commissioner Castanada commented that she wanted to reduc e the number of required colors and elements to allow for more choice and designs.

Commissioner Castaneda stated that balconies should face the street and not their neighbors whenever possible.

Vice Chair Clements shared that the massing change requirement could be lessened slightly so it is not so busy in the small lots. She added that from a cost perspective having a large menu of articulation options is preferred. Vice Chair Clements stated she was unclear why there is a difference in distance between mixed-use and multi-family. Lastly, she shared her appreciation of various proposed standards.

Chair Iacoponi echoed the public comment and recommended making the plane change optional and allow another visual way to break up the homogeneity. He also shared his various likings of MOTION: Close Public Comment
MOVER: Kristen Clements
SECONDER: Jim Iacoponi
AYES: Castaneda, Garvey, Roof, Clements, Iacoponi
NAYS:

ABSENT:

None
None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0 – 0

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 469

November 20, 2023 6
the ODS. Lastly, Chair Iacoponi asked Staff to consider showing the public how their comments received from the survey were factored in the recommendations and if not , why not factored in.

Chair Iacoponi also suggested staff to present top five theme of comments for multi -family and similarly for mixed-use development types.

Vice Chair Clements commented that certain locations in the City are appropriate for Zero Lot Line developments such as along El Camino.

Rucha Dande, Senior Planner stated that she has all the feedback she needed and clarified a few points.

8. REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Report on Recent City Council Actions
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager, shared that at the last City Council meeting the Single Family ODS were formally adopted. She also shared that the Council voted to add some acreage to some of the City’s existing parks.
b. Planning and Transportation Commission comments or reports Chair Iacoponi wished the City Staff a Happy Thanksgiving. c. Correspondence – None
d. Planning Staff comments, reports, and updates on current projects Lisa Porras gave the following updates.

The next Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting is on December 4, with one agenda item going forward, 99 Devonshire.

Currently there is no item on the agenda for the December 18 meeting and the meeting could be cancelled.

The January 2 meeting will be cancelled.

The first meeting for the PTC will be on Tuesday, January 16.

There are two civic engagement events planned for the Downtown Specific Plan, the first is the virtual workshop on December 6 from 6 pm to 7:30 pm and on December 9, the City will host an in -person workshop in the former Living Room space in downtown. The in-person event will be from 10 am to 3 pm with one presentation starting at 10:30am and another one at 1:30 pm.

9. PUBLIC COMMENTS – None
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 10:00pm
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 470

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Community Workshop #3
Meeting Summary, April 26, 2023
1 Summary Document #7

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 471

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY 2
Introduction
The third community workshop occurred on April 26, 2023 from 6:00 - 7:30 PM. • The virtual workshop was held via Zoom and included an interactive discussion. • 3 people attended.
• The meeting was recorded and posted on the project webpage:
www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 472

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Overview
The purpose of the Community Workshop was to provide an overview of the project goals, share the project process, share the emerging objective design standards, and have an interactive discussion about the character of San Carlos related to Multi-Family and Mixed- Use residential development.
• The City team included:
– Andrea Mardesich
– Rucha Dande
– Meghan Riddlespurger
– Lisa Porras
– Megan Wooley-Ousdahl
• The consultant team from MIG included:
– Mukul Malhotra
– Rishi Dhody
– CJ Davis
The following pages summarize what the community shared. 3 12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 473

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Development Standards – Transitional Standards
5 • MIG presented additional standards to
support the current transitional
standards in the Housing Element.
• Support for the ideas of having trees
• Review if there are any conflicting
standards with the Housing Element
Plan.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 474

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Development Standards – Open Space
6 • MIG presented additional standards for
o
pen spaces to support the current
transitional standards in the Housing
Element.
• Support for open spaces, and
courtyards that are open to the public.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 475

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Site Planning – Site Design
7 The workshop attendees were asked the
following questions: What do you like about
the different site planning elements that
improve the interface with adjoining public
street? And are there other elements that
should be considered?
• Limit the amount of curb cuts to one for
driveways in multi-family developments to
create more space for on-street parking.
• Create more flexibility for porch sizes.
• Avoid cookie cutter designs.
• Place entrances to garages behind
buildings.
• Provide a buffered landscape with trees
every 15 feet.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 476

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Site Planning – Site Design (Continued)
8 • Place stoops higher to allow for privacy.
• Avoid garage fronting on the street and
place it behind the building.
• Allow for units on the ground floor
instead of parking.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 477

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Building Design – Massing & Articulation
9 The workshop attendees were asked the
following questions: What do you like about
the different elements that help break down
the mass of the building? And are there other
elements that should be considered?
• Review examples from other cities:
– San Mateo’s ODS.
– Transit Village.
• Limit the number of materials and colors
that can be used to a maximum of 3.
• Consider monochrome color styles as
appropriate.
• Support for the change in massing.
• Support for the use of trellis to create
shade.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 478

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Building Design– Mixed-Use building – Ground Floor Interface 10 The workshop attendees were asked the
following questions: What do you like about the
different street facing building design elements
that improve the interface with adjoining public
street? And are there other elements that
should be considered?
• Encourage options to widen the sidewalks
to cater for increase in density.
• Avoid blocking buildings with planter walls.
• Make communities more inviting,
welcoming, and open to each other, but
still address privacy and security.
• Encourage more open spaces.
• Look at Burlingame, Castro Street, and
Mountain View for good examples.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 479

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Other Comments
11 • Create more objective standards.
• Create less prescriptive standards.
• Limit the size of big buildings.
• D
efine the minimum set of standards
that encourages good design.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 480

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Questions and Answers
12 12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 481

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Next Steps
13 • Planning Commission Study Session #1 – Jun 27, 2023 • Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council – Sep, 2023 • City Council Adoption – Fall 2023
Project Website - www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards City contact - [email protected]

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 482

1 OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Response summary and analysis
of results from 420 participants

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards
March 20, 2023
Summary Document #8

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 483

2 RESPONDER

DEMOGRAPHICS
Currently, you _______ in San Carlos (check all that apply):

If you live in San Carlos, what type of home do you live in?

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 484

3 What is your background or familiarity in residential building/site design, urban planning, or architecture? (check all that apply):

Background in art and art history
Economist with knowledge of cutting edge academic
research on housing and urban topics
Formerly worked in real estate rehabilitation and
development
General Residential Building Contractor 34 years
Construction Project Manager
Built a new home in San Carlos and see all the ADUs
coming up
Owns multiple homes in San Carlos and has
renovated or remodeled nearly all.

Attorney with some real estate background
Homeowner with lots of remodel experience
I am a civil & environmental engineer
Worked with an architect to approve a 2nd story
addition. Was approved, but i didnt go through with it.

We worked with our designers and builders to build
a new home here in 2015. We are also designing on
the north coast with intent to build. We have been
involved in combatting egregious development here
in our neighborhood.

I worked in construction of residential homes/
included design
Land use attorney
Retired Fire Division Chief Officer
structural design professional, residential
construction
Victim of planning department (1999)
Commerical Real Estate Operations (Shopping
Centers - Construction, Design Cirteria, Operating
Management, ESG, and Sourcing)
I’m not a design professional but work for an urban
design firm
Other responses:

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 485

4 In your current home, do you:

How long have you lived in San Carlos?

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 486

5 What are your favorite community amenities in
the city? (check all that apply):

Other responses:

Museum
small town atmosphere
dog friendly areas (more areas needed)
Bike paths
Family oriented neighborhood feel
Hometown Days
I used to love Laurel St., but with COVID
and the street cut off now, I am not hap-
py with it since I have limited mobility
Hometown Days
Art&Wine Festival
Farmer's Market
neighbors
Public Safety - Sheriff's Office
Sensevof community
dog parks & trails
the library is very important to me
Athletic fields
dog parks
trails and parks for dogs
small town community feel and
cohesiveness

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 487

6 What San Carlos neighborhood
do you live in?

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 488

7 RESPONDER

ANALYSIS
The Objective Design Standards survey was opened to the public in the last week of January 2023 and closed March 10, 2023. In total, 420 responses were received.

The most represented response group was 20-year+ San Carlos residents who own and live in detached single-family residences. Over 2/3 of the survey respondents have lived in San Carlos for at least 6 years.

While most questions resulted in responses with clear majorities, respondents represented neighborhoods across San Carlos relatively equally. The most represented neighborhoods by reponse rate were White Oaks, Downtown/ Near Downtown, and South Cordes.

The majority of respondents live and spend leisure time in San Carlos, and nearly 1/4 work in the city. Respondents indicated that they enjoy a wide variety of community amenities, with nearly every respondent selecting multiple favorites. Most respondents said that Downtown and Laurel Street are a favorite feature, followed by San Carlos’ convenient location in the Bay Area, and the city’s many public parks.

Experts and technicians of urban planning, architecture, construction, and related fields responded to the survey, representing a wide variety of professions that deal with design standards at each point in the process of residential development.

However, the majority of respondents indicated that they are non-practicing hobbyists without experience or much familiarity specific to regulation of residential design standards.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 489

58 MIXED USE
Mixed use zoning districts allow
varying levels of residential density
mixed with commercial. Mixed use
developments usually take the
form of walkable street-oriented
buildings containing ground-level
retail or commercial uses, with
housing on the floors above. Other
building forms are also possible.

Mixed use zoning in San Carlos
is located along and adjacent
to central corridors well served
by public transportation: Laurel
Street, El Camino Real, and San
Carlos Avenue. Clustering housing
near public transit hubs reduces
reliance on cars and promotes
more foot traffic in the City core.

Mixed use zoning makes up 5.3%
of the total land area of San Carlos,
but accommodates more housing than low density zoning districts.

Parcel boundaries are approximated
Non-Residential
Mixed Use
Multifamily
Single Family
City of San Carlos
Residential Zoning Districts
Crestview Dr
Eaton Av
e
Brittan Av
e
Elm St
Melendy DrClub Dr
Be
verly Dr
Alameda de las Pulgas
Holly St
Industrial Rd
El Camino Real
Ho
war
d A
ve
Old County Rd
San Carlos Av
e
Cordilleras Ave
Cedar St
Bayshore Fwy
Arguelo Park
Burton Park
Big Canyon Park
Eaton Park
Highland Park
Heather Park
Crestv
iew Park

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 490

59 How appealing do you consider the design of the
development shown in the following image, where 1
means least appealing and 5 means most appealing?

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 491

60 absolutely none
assume underground parking
Balconies on various floors. Roof top plantings. Apparent ground level business or some other nonresidential activity.

Big windows
Density !
Don’t know the site context.
don’t like it at all
Don’t mind this modern architecture and like mix of roof-top balcony/ deck and individual balconies.

For downtown mixed-use this is very efficient and provides a lot of needed housing
For non residential areas it’s ok
Glad that it’s in a commercial area, not on the west of El Camino area.
good visibility into the ground floor retail is appealing hard to tell from the picture, but I’m assuming that public parking is under the building
I am presuming that there is at least one underground parking space per unit.

I appreciate how many units are likely in the building
I don’t find it appealing. It fits well in a more urban area. I also don’t think the schools can sustain a big population growth. We already have to switch during elementary school which is unusual, we have no school bus service thus clogging roads at pickup, etc, etc. it is a handsome building for a dense urban setting.

It looks like a lot of families could live there, that’s great! just basic design, nothing exciting, providing places for people to live, with few exciting features, like balconies
Large box
like the accessibility
look at all those homes! beautiful
Looks like under ground/building parking.

Lots of glass
lots of housing
Max bldg on lot. Needs setback, landscaping. cannot see adjacent blogs.
mixed materials
mixed use- built in retail higher density. i lived in a place like this in SF. Loved the building
mixed use businesses below residences
mixed use is smart as long as it is close to downtown.
modern design & city life
Modern looking building, should not be any higher.

More modern design works better for mixed and commercial use buildings
NA
Nice airy feel.

Nice colors
Nice new construction
None. Looks industrial.

Nothing
Nothing is appealing
only appealing aspect is the units; we need them
Shops on the first floor, very dense housing.

The building has no character in the design
The facade is interesting, with the upper story setbacks and lots of windows. The ground floor facade is different from higher floors - visual interest.

There isn’t much to like about this building
there’s nothing appealing about this building
This is a stack and pack complex that has no place in our community This is just your basic apartment building. Google design is okay because who gives a heck, it’s an apartment building. All apartment buildings look dumb after 20 years. The only thing I would do is remove one floor or make it less bulky. Right now it looks like the merchandise mart in chicago.

This is really ugly and severe. Looks like a barracade wall.

This is unappealing
This was a piece of garbage before, and it’s a piece of garbage now.

Note that they actually did cut this building, but they inexplicably cut it on the diagonal. What the hell is this? One of those 1980s paintings of the women who look like they’re made out of neon?

THIS WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT ON EAST SIDE VS
STUPID BIOLABS!!!!!
Too big, cold looking
too boxy
Ugly box, industrial
Ugly urban. Terrible design
upper floor setback is nice, with greenery showing; public/retail space on first floor is nice

MOST APPEALING CHARACTERISTICS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 492

61 A bit too blocky
add balconies
additional Commercial continuity on the ground floor
Allow only in a highly urbanized area because its a wall of building. big City architecture, too tall, limit it to 3 stories
building facade is cold and modern would not match San Carlos Building is too tall.
curious about parking
Design way too busy
Dislike the blank wall with no windows on the right side ground floor.

Could use more street trees, or street furniture at the ground level.

Doesn’t belong in our city
ensure sufficient parking for residents and businesses; cap height at 4 stories
ensure that all units have access to 2 parking spaces
fenstration looks commercial; not residential; the ground floor is not human scale, the ground floor has parking along one side of it - not good or engaging

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NO MORE BIOLABS, BUILD SOME
HOUSING!!!!!
Girth
Ground floor retail is not the best use/design now
Height is too tall; four stories maximum.

Horrible in every way
I am presuming there is underground parking.

I assume this has below grade or internal parking
I don’t like the glass/steel design - not appropriate for San Carlos I would fix every goddamn thing about this I would put it on Wheels and truck it out to Redwood City or maybe fremont, or maybe sunnyvale. For some strange reason, I cannot click on setbacks, so I would also extend the sidewalks out 10 ft.

I wouldn’t build it.

Is this an office building or supposed to be where people live? Very plain, basic, doesn’t look inviting.
it is too big and tall for San Carlos; we are losing our identity it is too big for san carlos
it needs a pull-in driveway for uber rides and deliveries Kind of sterile, blocky
Like corner location and design.

Limit the height
looks like there is a dead wall at sidewalk level on the right? i.e., no windows, doors, etc. should strive to minimize that.

Looks rather gargantuan. If it was two properties split in half, might be more palatable. Hope it has dedicated bike parking in the garage.

Make it less bulky. Maybe two apartment buildings with a small Gap in the middle, or one of those apartment buildings that have a centralized Lobby and maybe a 10 to 15 ft gap between the buildings make it less of a massive block of building. Use less glass especially at the floor of every level. Need more articulation at street level with shorter distances between openings for pedestrians. More landscaping.

Make sure there is option to park Bike and micromibility devices indoors, and there are built in ramps along edges of steps to push up strollers, bikes and micromobility riding wheels
more landscaped outdoor space on at least 2 sides
More of the front ground floor should be appealing to pedestrians. Half the front, here, is a wall or garage. Not interesting to walk past.

More street trees
More usable outdoor space.

Need to insure 2 parking spaces per unit off street
needs street parking for neighbors and landscaping
Needs to communicate with the outside world
No amenities to those outside - seating, grass, anything.

Not allow it. It doesn’t look like residential on the top.

Not in San Carlos character
Not interested in such modern, high density housing
Other building materials
San Carlos should have a 3-4 story max!!!, should get smaller as go up not the other way around, needs more ltrees!
Setback from street and better landscaping. More articulation of top of building to avoid sense of long flat roof. Reduce or relocate large garage entrance. It kills street life and overpowers the ground level facade.

Smaller scale, too many cold looking windows
The exterior looks like any other cookie cutter complex. Doesn’t fit in with the small town concept of San Carlos.
the ground floor lobby/retail looks wasteful
This building is ugly. The articulation is poor. The first floor appears to be squashed. Where do you park?
too big for San Carlos, does not fit into the environment Too big! No parking not identified; ugly
Too large. We do not need or want high density housing
Too tall. This isn’t Manhattan.
ugly
Ugly
Uninteresting geometric design. Where is the parking? Similar to many new San Carlos development the is disproportionate to street width, we live in a moderate climate but the windows don’t appear to open so residents would need to use energy to get the fresh air a window could provide for free

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 493

62 3 story limit, some setback; zero set back is not exciting.

Not interested to see this in San Carlos!
6 stories is too high for San Carlos. I would request a 4 story limit for all areas in San Carlos
600 ft. Setback from single family homes.

A box with no design elements or redeeming
architecture. Simply a functional structure that looks like it was designed to achieve minimum cost.
a nice looking mixed structure
Add building setback with public green space
Add more green. Less floors…
Adding a little setback and modest landscaping would
help this design for me. I think it’s pretty good for what it is. The amount of glass makes it feel lighter (not as heavy) but it’s a little bland, sterile.

Adequate underground rainwater removal system,
underground utilities
Appreciate the airiness of the structure; doesn’t look
hulking or like a fortress despite its size. Ground floor looks very inviting
Attractively modern appearance
Basically no landscaping, no sign of solar, and no sign of parking - is it underground? Otherwise, beautiful modern building would fit in nicely in San Carlos, as long as they are not all side by side.

Beautiful
Boring, but could be worse.

Building height is too high. Lack of setbacks on upper
floors creates too much visual mass. Lack of articulation creates blocky, high mass feel. Repetitive design
elements on each floor makes this feel like a cheap
apartment block. Should require increasing setbacks
for third floor and above (with setbacks increasing for each additional floor). Should require varied design
elements and articulation on each floor to give building more custom look with units accentuated versus one
monolithic block.

Building is blocky, but glass ground floor invites you in building is too blockish.

Building looks bland
clear entry? signage - is that retail on the bottom?
Again- new buildings should have a drop off driveway for uber and deliveries
Depends on where this is set. This is an extremely large building. We also need to consider traffic congestion
when looking at adding such large structures
Design should not just be a box
do not like the design
Don’t build it
Don’t care for the blocky window design, but do like the use of different materials to soften the look. Do like the rooftop setback and what looks like a terrace garden
Far too high-density--only appropriate adjacent to
CalTrain with fewer stories, more open space and
landscaping and integrated (underground) parking.

DON’T REPLICATE REDWOOD CITY OVER-
DEVELOPMENT!
Feels really sterile, please add some ornamentation. Add a breezeway leading to a central courtyard. No one will use those balconies.

For a building of its size (it feels big for San Carlos, in my opinion), I find the articulation works pretty well (combining both articulation in space as well as material utilization). However, for a building of its size, it would be nice to have more sidewalk space and greenery/
landscaping compared to the size of the street next to it.

Lower height would also be nice (cap at 3 stories) along with smaller overall footprint.

Glad the colors are fairly muted.

Good for urban corridors only. If compatible with similar adjacent structures in height ad scope.

Good for urban, not for San Carlos. Blocky, looms over
street
Good use of space
great for by train station! or near HWY 101; often lower retail goes empty!
have parking for commercial use customers
Have to make sure it has bike parking in the garage.

Want to see bike lanes in front of it. Like the accessibility for wheelchair / mobility challenged. Would like to see more green in the landscaping. Would like to break the
structure in half - too much continuous wall.

High density - lacks setbacks - parking straightforward - varied exterior surface is nice
higher building height would be better
Holy crap, this is a monstrosity. (This is where you say, “Tell me how you really feel, Kate. ”) There are a couple things I think about when I look at this building. 1. From far away, it’s boring. 2. As a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk, it feels boring, too. The sidewalk feels very exposed. There’s no landscaping to speak of. Three
wimpy trees for that entire building? Travesty. Give me some planters. No outside
seating. The shop
window is nice, but
only if the shop
does something
awesome
with it -- and
there are no
guarantees
that that will

ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 494

63 happen.

The garage doors are an ominous black hole of doom...

Why is there no decent lighting or architectural interest there? It doesn’t have to be that way...

Hope the ground floor retail space is occupied and
thriving, that is the challenge.

How can this be affordable?
i can’t see common landscaping here. is there a
courtyard? Is there parking under. If this is close to
El Camino or even within 1/2 a mile of it, i would say
it’s close to dense public transit and skip the parking requirements. It feels like parking requirements often
kill dense multi-family units. i’ve seen studies about LA about how parking requirements reduce the number of
units by 20%. I would imagine we’d attract many more
developers and improve traffic at local businesses on
Laurel street if we had dense units like this.

I design and build many projects like this. This design works very well in downtown core areas where the
massing allows integrating into the community. The
amount of housing this can provide is welcome. The
articulation is well down. Cities need to understand that the margins on rental are not large so every requirement can limit what gets built. Mixed-use should not be a
requirement, but an option.

I know we have to build high density housing and this
building accomplishes that. Where structures of this
height are planned it should not be allowed next to a
single family home or cause a neighbor to have their
house fully shaded. This type of housing belongs along
El Camino, Industrial and Old County road areas and no
further than the east side of Laurel Street. There is a high density building at the corner of White Oak and Walnut
Streets. This is the maximum height a high density
building should be allowed in relationship to single family homes. But, it needs modifications. The city planning
commission should have made two changes though, one,
required more parking onsite and required more second/
third setback to prevent shading to the single family
homes next to the tall building.

I like that several trees were fit in front as well as what looks like greenery built into the upper story. I like the design and mix of materials across the building. I like that there are several balconies built in. I like the ground-floor glass.

I like the density but it does look flat and blocky.

Breaking the mass vertically would help. Glad there are some trees. Street level design could be improved for
pedestrian interest.

I like the mix of ground floor retail with living space above. This design, however, leaves half the ground
floor as a wall or garage or something blank. This greatly reduces the appeal to the people walking by.

I like the
modern look
with various,
but tonally-linked
building surfaces, I love
the outdoor patios, both from an aesthetic and functional point of view, I like the rooftop area, and love the rooftop plantings.

I love the modern look, but not at the cost of building one of these in the middle of the Laureola neighborhood. It doesn’t match the neighborhood. If housing density is
such an issue, stop building Life Science centers and
build more residential housing that looks like this.

I prefer a more historic design vernacular, but this is a good version of a modern design for our town. I assume
there is underground parking.

I put this as a “3” because it’s really modernist. I like that but am also aware that there is some good mid-century
architecture here in the Bay that should remain dominant in my opinion.

I think this structure is a bit sterile looking; and it’s quite large. If I think about new construction of this kind of housing, I think it would be best located east of ECR,
since it is so out of scale and character with current
structures
Ideal: No dwelling units on the bottom floor, incorporated basement parking, small mom & pop shops such as
cafes and restaurants, require a little more of a setback so outdoor seating and planting of green native plants is possible.

If it provides more affordable housing, it is fine.

Increase setback from street to increase pedestrian
interaction with potential cafes and restaurants.

Insure ADA compliance and good sound proofing of
units
Is there underground parking? Add solar panels, green
house roof gardens, water catchments and storage.
“It is a glass box. Too modern and no homey style. Its just a box.
“
It is a simple design with a variation of surface treatments to break up the monotony between the balconies. If the
balconies were off-set and the floorplans varied from a cookie-cutter floor plan the visual appeal would rise up a few notches.

It is important to offer the pedestrian a pleasant sidewalk experience. The idea is to increase pedestrian mobility in more dense areas.

It’s a giant box with a decent amount of glass.

It’s ugly. Just a large box.

ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 495

64 It’d be nice to know of the “block” is hollow in the center- a courtyard, light filled?
It’s a big block, though attractively done with varied
surfaces on the facade. It would be nice to have some
sort of set-back area, like a cutout on the corner with a plaza and seating, so it wasn’t just a big block.
“It’s a giant Lego brick with windows. Can’t tell parking situation or communal space offerings. Not enough
trees around means no privacy from street.

Best part is that it has balconies. Every unit built in CA should have balconies. No residents on first floor is
smart. ”
It’s a little bland looking and a little run-of-the-mill....

It’s fine depending on site context.

It’s just a big building.

It’s too big and “corporate” looking, doesn’t fit the vibe of san carlos, has no caracter, needs more plant/trees. should have off street parking for 2+ cars.

Lacking trees or other green space because building
is too close to sidewalks. Even though it’s a huge box, the use of different materials helps a bit. Showing a
corner lot is biassing the overall look of this building.

Assume parking is underground. My assumption is also
not enough parking for the residents. Safe to assume
that even if located near train that residents will have multiple personal vehicles.

Less lego blocks, more design
let’s not start looking like redwood city
Life inside a ‘box’ - not welcoming
Looks isolated from its environment.

Looks like all the other newer apartment complexes.

Looks like retail on the ground floor with apartments
above. Nice modern look.

Looks ok. I like the under building parking to keep cars off the street.

Looks too flat vertically. Nice that it has windowed
spaces on ground floor.

Looks very block like without much style.

Lots of a ritual room to mask what is actually a very
big box. Needs to be less monolithic and look less
“corporate”
Lower height improve building articulations and
setbacks
Make sure parking spaces are enough.

Make the building even taller so we can house more
people!
Make the building heighten to allow for more efficient
use of land.

Modern multi family dwellings help preserve
neighborhood character while increasing diversity
modern soul-less design, good for offices/warehouses/
apt complexes
More drought tolerant landscaping, and a less boxy
appearance would improve the building. Provide off
street parking.

More green scaping with trees between building and
street and / or wider sidewalks to enable outdoor
seating for shops/restaurants
More greenspace (trees, public parklet) preferred
more landscaped space on at least 1-2 sides
Need more of this
Needs break up of surfaces and heights.
needs more landscaping; too tall
Needs more space for pedestrians and kids at ground
level. Maybe recess the ground-level floor, so it’s further from the street.

Needs some square footage allocated to landscaping
or green space
No building over 3 stories
Not a cookie cutter design. Interesting lines, balconies, garage, retail are all pluses.

Not clear where the parking area is. The building looks like a glass box - no character.

Not suitable near single family homes
Only in old county way or downtown. Must have
sufficient parking. For those new condos built by
train station, people are parking on the street where
the left turn to holly is. This is a major no and creates congestion.

Parking should definitely be underground or hidden
from the street view, so this is great. Make sure
developers do this, even if underground parking is more costly than on-street parking. I also like the combination of uses and the “articulation” which puts a lot of window out onto the street. However, the building is too tall and seems too boxy and modern to fit within San Carlos or
other small towns. It is practically encroaching on the street and I’m surprised there is even a sidewalk outside it. At the very least it should be more set back, or, better yet, limited to 2 stories if it were put into San Carlos.

ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 496

65 And please add some landscaping!
Parts of this building are too flat, like a jail building, too much of a square box, too tall
Plans should have been amended during the initial talks with the bldg dept
Pleasant looking.

Please don’t build these. They will completely destroy
the cultural landscape of the city and ruin everything
that makes San Carlos special.

Pretty much a box that is very uninteresting.

Put these only on big streets in el cerrito. New builds can capture and retain water onsite.

Reducing to 3 or 4 stories instead of 5 would be better.

These look like the monstrosities in RWC.

Remember that Gulag in North Korea that that
contractor and that’s so called architect were being
locked up in? These guys too. And I say guys because
no self-respecting woman would ever design a piece of
junk like this
Remove some of the bulk by making a space in
the middle of the building, like what they do in San
francisco, where large buildings are effectively cut
in half with the gap between them with a centralized
connected lobby. Such bulk is out of proportion with the city in general
Require all new construction of this kind to achieve
a minimum standard of LEED Platinum. Look at the
scorecard and use that to set you desing standards...

LEED is the path to ensuring community preservation,
transporation, etc.

See above.

Severe design accents its huge size. Not a plus.

Simple design but seems functional. Balconies for each
unit is great and looks like there might be a rooftop
garden or patio. Like businesses being on the first floor.

Could use more trees around it to help it blend in more.

Buildings this big don’t feel special and always have
people moving in/out. No sense of community within.

Since I wouldn’t build it, I have no further comments.

Since most of the “mixed use” buildings in San Carlos
have vacant retail space at the bottom, I think that’s a clear message, it just doesn’t work for our town.

Smaller in height and size
smaller with charactor; San Carlos is not and should be acting like a big city; we are small and need to act like it - similar to Menlo Park
start over.

Take off two of the storeys.

Tear it down
The
building
is nice, but I
wouldn’t want
too much of this in San Carlos
The Building is quite wide. That may not be a problem
but there is this tendency to build these super wide
buildings covering entire city blocks with many
hundreds of units in them. I think it would be more
appealing to break up the building into two separate
ones with room for the same number of people. That
creates more diversity of style and results in fewer
shopping mall sized apartment behemoths.

The building needs to have a bit more character. The
style of Hacienda Gardens fits better than this modern
design.

The facade has a lot of visual interest. You almost forget it’s a big box.

The ground floor is not human scale- divide into smaller storefronts at the bottom and add more architectural
character and articulation.

The kinds of multi-layered facades are springing up like weeds in all of our slightly progressive cities. It’s appeal was interesting 20 years ago but it really looks like a first-year architect’s design.

The other downtown Mixt used to have more of a
Spanish look to them, or at least modern farmhouse
The southern California 1+4 type design allows for high density with low construction costs. It just seems cheap and bland w/o any character. I appreciate that we need
high density housing, but I think we should push for
something better than this. This is an impersonal and
generic design that has no character.

The surface areas are too uniform, despite efforts. Five+ stories creates a “closed in” feeling around it. There is minimal landscaping and shallow setback.

The whole bldg set back from the road, with
landscaping in between.
these types of structures look cheaply made - while
they look OK now in 15-20 years they will look awful
and outdated
This building is too boxy and has no charm to it. First floor should be made available to retail. It needs
significant landscaping and greenery and trees.

This building is ugly. Start over completely.

This building would not fit into a neighborhood in San
Carlos. It needs trees, shrubs, set backs from the street.

It is too high and would look down on the small houses
of San Carlos causing a lack of privacy.

This does not fit with the aesthetic of our town at all.

This example maximizes FAR but is too massive for San

ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 497

66 ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS
Carlos. SC just started getting into four story buildings.

This one is six including what looks like a penthouse
level.

This is a massive box, with insufficient parking for
tenants.

This is better than a box with windows, but not by
much.

This is quite large and I hope is not next to a sfr
neighborhood. The design is simple yet slightly boring.

Appreciate the balconies for each unit, but glass railing is a terrible choice for safety, privacy and cleaning.

More landscaping around it would help disguise it’s
size and give some privacy from the street. Hope the
roof has some communal outdoor space. Hope there’s
at least one parking space per bedroom and per unit.

This looks like a department store.

This looks like a standard live/work building. Would
encourage expanded commercial frontage and
presence around the structure to add to street
activation. Not very well lit outside of window frontage areas.

This looks too large for most of San Carlos.

This sort of structure will always look like an office
building. Not much soul. Without a landscape context
it’s boxy character is especially offensive. It shows little sensitivity to the neighborhood. If the indoor space on street level is a warm and inviting public space, that
would help (library/cafe)
this too big for san carlos
This town is looking like a small city that’s lost it’s charm Tolerably bland. Not enough information on the site
to understand the context. Please provide more site
context including the surrounding block, #of units and
parking spaces, etc.
too flat
too large
Too large for San Carlos but looks nice
Too large, no warmth, no relation with surroundings no
landscaping
too many developments are being built with little or no parking. no matter how much you wish people would
use public transportation, it just isn’t feasible
Too many larger buildings in this once charming town
Too many stories and towers over side walk. Color
combination is not appealing.

Too modern of a design for a San Carlos multi family
building. A more articulated and traditional design e.g.

Wheeler Plaza would be much better (but see answer
below).

Too stark No trees or garden planters
Ugh
very modern, more appropriate for an bigger city setting We have too many structures like this now….you are
making us into a big city
Would generally like to see something to help the
neighborhood. Benches, retail in bottom (depending
on location), health club,
something.

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 498
67 How appealing do you consider the design of the
development shown in the following image, where 1
means least appealing and 5 means most appealing?

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 499

68 A structure this size can only be on El Camino or within 1 block of downtown Laurel St.

AGAIN, NO MORE BIOLABS, ENTIRE EAST SIDE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN HOUSING!!!
Architecture is more appealing to the eye
assume underground parking
Awful
balconies on lower floors is nicely done
Beautiful design
Better than the last one, but not by much.
better than the previous
Big windows
Do not know site context.

For downtown mixed-use this is very efficient and provides a lot of needed housing
Great mix of materials.

Hard to show relationship to neighbors
Hate all the mixed materials and colors
I don’t find it appealing. It fits well in a more urban area. I also don’t think the schools can sustain a big population growth. We already have to switch during elementary
school which is unusual, we have no school bus service
thus clogging roads at pickup, etc, etc.

It looks like a lot of families could live there!
mixed materials
mixed use, pedestrian scale of some of the articulation along the street (even tho’ it appears disjointed).
more interesting tiered facade than the previous
NA
Nice building - too tall!
Nice looking apartments.

No trees?
none!
Not a lot to say about this one, big corner lot with no and not that interesting of architecture.

Nothing
nothing is appealing
Nothing is appealing about this
Oh! Go away go away go away go away. This is like one
of those nightmares in the movies where you wake up and it turns out you’re still asleep. And then the slasher comes at you. Then you wake up and you think you’re done. But it’s still a dream, so then the slasher comes after. Then you wake up. And you think you’re up. But you’re really still in another slasher movie dream. And then you wake up. And
then this time it’s real and the sladher gets you.

Retail in bottom floor
That be a cluster-f*ck
The design is interesting but too tall.

The red brick work is nice.

This one looks better
Too large
Ugh! This screams MILPITAS! Why would anyone even
consider building such garbage and trash in this city? It’s not a Google home, it’s just stupid. It’s sort of like if Homer Simpson tried to build a Google home.
ugly and too boxy
variety in the grey & white part helps visually break up the mass
Variety of materials and colors on the facade. Easy to find parking.

Visually interesting

MOST APPEALING CHARACTERISTICS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 500

69 1st floor retail only an asset if business are relevant to residents.

Current mixed use building retail space in San Carlos has high vacancy rate. Much more parking needed for business, esp. on the curb.
a hodge podge of materials and poor design
again, it’s hard to tell, but try to minimize dead walls at street level All of the above. This is truly uglys.

Also ugh, though not quite as bad
Architects need to try again
as mentioned- it needs a drop off driveway for uber and deliveries and a bigger setback
Bike parking, table or benches
Boxy, but has some nice brickwork for curb appeal.

City dweller
Color scheme. I don’t get the one used. This building is too tall. Zero landscaping.
don’t see the parking
ensure that all units have access to 2 parking spaces
Generally love brick but don’t like the design mix of this one.

Ground floor retail is not the best use/design now
ground floor uses the brick - no brick on upper stories; its too choppy; the design focuses on vertical breaks. Should have horizontal breaks showing differences in stories. Too much is going on here. Simplicity is the key. Look at Paris!
Height is too tall; four stories maximum.

Hey I heard City Council voted for more BioLabs,...NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!! Where the heck are all the BioLabs workers going to live?!?!? Entire Kelley Moore site could be housing or at least mixed use. The entire East side could have been an amazing mixed use new addition to the city vs endless BioLabs,...total planning/zoning fail.

I assume this has below grade or internal parking
I don’t like the architecture, esp. the brick.

I find the mixture of styles and articulation on this building to be unnecessary and noisy. I think
I hope there are ground floor shops and restaurants in this design I wish this wasn’t on at such a major traffic intersection. not very pedestrian friendly
I wouldn’t build it in San Carlos.

In such a structure, there is no relationship to the neighborhood.

If you notice, this looks like it’s built in the middle of nowhere. Two expressways between two soul less South Bay communities. Yuck! Less tall, not such divergent mis-matched colors and construction. looks like a traffic nightmare
looks like the biggest building around taking up whole block could be opportunities for walkways through to the other side. But looks like cars are prioritized and walking not so much.

More defined streetscape.

More usable outdoor space
needs traffic calming. 30mph streets shouldn’t exist for safety of bikes and peds.

None.
not an efficient use of space as the first example
Odd looking and not a consistent appearance.

Only allow in highly urbanized area. Wall of building
Outdoor spaces lacking
Overly busy with the brick, gray tower and walls, and white windows Parking not indicated. Same potential issues as previously indicated Please stop trolling me with these awful designs! Once again, put this damn thing on Wheels and truck it either to Fremont or Daly City or milpitas! Maybe San jose, but they would probably vomit it back up and send it back to you.

Proportion / color too heavy. Do like variation. In materials. San Carlos should stay with wheeler plaza and el camino Mediterranean styles .

Need more landscaping . Small outdoor communal space for residents. reduce the size
reduce to 5 stories
San Carlos should have a 3-4 story max!!!, more trees, get rid of the red brick!
Setback from street and better landscaping. More articulation of top of building to avoid sense of long flat roof
Smaller footprint
Street trees!
Tear it down
That is an aesthetically unappealing hodge podge.

The ground floor retail (is it retail?) is so recessed that businesses won’t be identifiable to passersby without large additional signage.

These types of building sneed to be separate from single family homes.

This is copycat architecture.

This stroad is disgusting - want a bicycle lane, a raised crosswalk, a bus stop in front. Street lights make a surprising amount of light pollution - prefer roundabout. Want bicycle parking (garage) and bike lane.

Too big. No more than 3 total stories
too much density
Too tall, no landscaping.
too urban
Top of building is nice, but bottom structures look weird Towers over other structures: too big; too close to sidewalk; no landscaping; ugly
Way too complex visual impact. Mixed materials - too many What a goofy, inconsistent design!
Where’s the parkiing? Underneath? I hope there’s enough. It is BIG.

That’s a lot of traffic, people, etc in one spot but very efficient.

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 501

70 *ideally*, we’d have taller buildings on smaller parcels, which would naturally create more variety and mitigate the “fast casual architecture” vibe. but that’s not really something to be done through the design standards. this one is certainly better than nothing. let’s try to encourage variety by avoiding overly prescriptive design standards.
5 stories is too high for San Carlos. I would request a 4 story limit for all areas in San Carlos
600 ft. Setback from single family homes.
7 stories getting very tall for this area. Although different use of materials (nice brick) I don’t appreciate the overall look of this building. If it’s for residential use, I would like to see more balconies for residents to have some outside space. The building set back is right at the sidewalk which doesn’t leave room for trees or other green space. Doesn’t really fit into the historic feel of downtown San Carlos. Yet, unfortunately, this design isn’t modern enough to look futuristic or innovative so it just reads boxy and/or cookie cutter. This is second least favorite design.

A little tall for my preference, but may be necessary to accommodate growth.

A little to high-rise for San Carlos. No greenery.

A mishmash of blocks. Why the brick? It doesn’t really make sense.

I feel like this design will get dated fast. There’s no cohesive style to the building.

Add green space
Add more floors.

Adequate underground rainwater removal system, underground utilities
Again depends on setting - I like the first option better than this one already typed too much sorry.
also awful.

Alter the design
Another box building.

Another Lego block structure, at least this one uses 3-4 colors of Legos. If people are going to imitate Danish design, they should at least study in Denmark where it’s done well.

Another modern box. All square corners and little landscaping.

Architecturally more appealing the previous large building. Color pallet is more appealing. San Carlos should look a buildings in other areas of the world such a Singapore where plants (landscaping) are incorporated into the exterior of the budling. This would visually improve the building , provide calming spaces for people living in high density buildings and help in a small way with climate change. Overall a significant improvement to the massive building that looked more like “public housing structures” in other areas of the USA.

Architecture is too busy
Awful
Back to the drawing board
Better and like the mixed use, but still feels too big for the town. should have off street parking for 2+ cars.

Better but still not great. Still need more visual interest.

Big box. Zero landscaping. We Need Trees!
Bigger living spaces means more traffic, congestion and water usage
Blend the different levels and not have auch contracting materials and colors. Very busy. No landscaping. Needs green - balconies or roof.

Building is boxy and sterile. It has no charm. It needs significant landscaping and greenery and trees
Building looks cheaply made and not in character with other San Carlos structures
Business floor at the bottom
Change out red brick for stone/tile/wood veneer, too tall Clumsy facing.

Could benefit from developed landscaping, and a lower height.

Different articulation of lower two floors from upper floors plus setback on upper floors helps break up mass nicely. Varied design elements, particularly having some prominent windows and variance in design horizontally and vertically creates more visual diversify.

Don’t build it
Even though the articulation is decent, what makes this building extremely unappealing is that this building looks like two different buildings smooshed into one: one part is the brown section on the bottom; and the other part is the dark grey/white section on the top.

These two sections don’t match at all and it looks weird.

Generally pleasing
good example of unattractive modern design; Hovers over sidewalk Great
higher building height would be better
Horrible uninspired “modern” design. Not sure where something like this would belong.

I don’t like how heavy it appears on the bottom of the building.

I like the mixed use that doesn’t look gigantic.

I like the variety of levels and materials.

I like this more than the previous one because it’s not as monolithic.

It has variety and tries to mimic classic mid-century.

I would like to see much more greenery and ideally trees fit in. I don’t love the boxy white design, and especially not with what looks like red brick fascade.

I would tear the goddamn thing down and start all over
I wouldn’t build it in San Carlos.

Ideal: No dwelling units on the bottom floor, incorporated basement parking, small mom & pop shops such as cafes and restaurants, require a little more of a setback so outdoor seating and planting of green native plants is possible.

If it’s facing a stroad a more generous setback is needed; and landscaping that feels more protective, this would be an unpleasant place to walk.

In my opinion, this just feel too big for San Carlos; I can’t think of anything in our city that has this kind of scale (Trestles is close, but it’s only 3 stories and the buildings are broken up into smaller units with a lot more articulation - overall, I wasn’t a big fan of Trestles

ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 502

71 but I feel it works better than this approach for San Carlos). This building takes up the entire block and there is no public or open space aside from the very narrow sidewalk. This design feels like what is happening in Redwood City - it’s losing the human scale and feeling of accessibility along El Camino (just south of Jefferson).

In San Carlos, limit to 3 stories. Maybe a pent house on the top in addition to 3 stories. This is a more interesting layout, architecture. introduce design elements so it doesn’t look like a block--this is relevant to all these pictures.

Is ok if it has underground parking.

Is there any landscaping or outdoor space(s)? Dynamic in design but poor in function if there aren’t any outdoor spaces. I again like there being businesses on the first floor. Buildings this big don’t feel special and always have people moving in/out. No sense of community within.

It is missing a functional rooftop with terraces and landscaping.

It’s a little more dynamic in design with the layering. Slightly smaller windows allow for some needed privacy. Can’t tell parking situation or communal space offerings. No trees around means no privacy from street. No balconies brought the overall score lower. No residents on the first floor is smart.

It’s a mess - looks thrown together
It’s just another big building - out of character with San Carlos.

It’s more interesting than the example above it although it seems a bit chaotic. Unclear where parking might be. It feels like it looms over the street a little less - I’m a bit influenced by the image.

Speeding cars, large road, it appears there’s not much around i’ve seen this in SF. The staggered height. It promotes daylight.

Kudos to the design for having a lot of street-facing windows...and possibly balconies, on the second floor? That is great and I’d keep that. However, beyond that, again this design seems “out-of-place” in the neighborhood and would fit even less in San Carlos. There is no landscaping/screening to comment on, which is an indication this should be fixed. At the same time, the parking is invisible... which I’d like to think is a sign that it is underground or out-of-sight, but hard to comment without labels.

Looks like all the other apartment complexes developed 10 years ago.

Lower height improve building articulations and setbacks Make sure there is option to park Bike and micromibility devices indoors, and there are built in ramps along edges of steps to push up strollers, bikes and micromobility riding wheels
Mixed materials are nice, six stories is tall, building extends too long - maybe a break in the wall?
Mixture of materials is jarringly unattractive. As depicted, it looks as if it is sitting on a busy road not near walkable attractions. Can’t see anyone wanting to live in a building like that.

More landscaping, less high, incorporating more setbacks with patios and gardens. Again this looks like a block- no style More space allocated for outdoor access for dwellings plus some green space
Needs more green space for humans. Maybe make it taller, so it leaves more space for walking and playgrounds at street level.

Needs parking for visitors and residents. Building is unattractive (yes, that is subjective)
Nice
Nice looking apartments. Fine for mixed use Zoning. Should Be allowed and encouraged along El Camino and San Carlos Ave and Laurel and Old County. Fill in the main thoroughfares as much as possible.

No
No changes. This is a bit modern for San Carlos but could still work in the downtown area. Appears to be a high quality design.

No high density housing
NO MORE BIOLABS!!!!! Build affordable housing on the empty space opening up all over the East side.

No.
none
Not all multi unit buildings need ground level retail. San Carlos has a lot of vacant retail and office space already. We need residential units much more than more commercial space.
not clear where parking is or what’s around it. But street trees at a minimum sb added
Not clear where the designated parking area is.

Not suitable near single family homes
Oh! Where to start? I’m really at a loss to figure out where to start.

Maybe I’ll start like Richard nixon. I was born in the house that my father built.

Owner developer need a lot of help/direction before getting approval for this venture
Provide off street parking. Add drought tolerant landscaping.

Really like the articulation!
Reasonable break up of the visual mass both vertically and horizontally. No trees to soften the street level appearance. Some variation of the roofline but still pretty flat. Street level appearance is fine but would be better with sunshades to attract pedestrian traffic.
require adequate off-street parking based on bedrooms
Same as before: Hope the ground floor retail space is occupied and thriving, that is the challenge.

Same comment as above
San Carlos has lost its charm with so many large new buildings see above
See above. Not sure where the space for this will be, but it should match the neighborhood that it’s going to.

See pedestrian experience, above.

Seems like a structure that could benefit from green screening plants that climb the walls, and could look especially nice on the masonry.

Send it to Bakmut and let the Ruskies have at it.... OMG! Should have trees in front to help reduce heat island issues Similar comments to above
Similar thoughts to previous building
style is eye catching and unique, not just a boxy block The brick facade is trying to make this
structure look less cheap, but it’s
just a mess of rectangles.This
look is going to age poorly.

It’s an impersonal design
that doesn’t fit with the
local history. This is the

ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 503

72 multi-use equivalent of a strip mall.

The Building is quite wide. That may not be a problem but there is this tendency to build these super wide buildings covering entire city blocks with many hundreds of units in them. I think it would be more appealing to break up the building into two separate ones with room for the same number of people. That creates more diversity of style and results in fewer shopping mall sized apartment behemoths.

There is also nothing next to the building. It would be an eye sore by itself
The design is too linear, and I question whether the corner is useful space. Are those residences? If so how efficient would the heating and cooling be with those huge windows and high ceilings?
The exterior design is a bit old. But this is still a building built in recent years.

The general effect is it is visually trying too hard. I have no idea how you’d articulate that in your standards. Also, it is too close to the street - it needs intermediate landscaping.

The mass of this building is broken up into the brick foreground and the grey and white background. Looks more interesting, as well as having some variety on the textures on the grey and white blocks.

The outside facade doesn’t seem to fit the City of San Carlos The trim colors make this huge development look too busy.

There are aspects of the design of this building that I like, but it it too tall. It seems to be all about density to the exclusion of balance of the design. For instance, there could be more massing of the structure on the corner and reduced height away from the corner.

Think the building would look better if the areas above the red brick were balconies or terraces. A bit more greenery around the building would be nice. And the white areas are bit too boxy and modern.

This building looks one story taller that the prior one; however, the articulations and setbacks on the structure make it seem slightly less massive. As with the prior building (and the next), some setbacks or a public space to break up the block would be nice.

This building looks unbalanced to me.

This complex is not much better than the previous box and in some ways worse: chunkier, more awkward in its design. At least its facades are sort of graduated in height, which is a tiny relief.

This is a massive box, with insufficient parking for tenants.

This is also large and I hope is not next to a sfr neighborhood.

Really like the brick covered/bottom design and style. Above that it’s blah. Every unit needs a balcony, more trees surrounding the building to help hide it’s monstrous size and a communal rooftop patio/garden/pet space. Hope there’s at least one parking space per bedroom and per unit.

This is another big box made better with setbacks and articulation.

Wish there were
More trees or planters — stark on street level.

This is just as appealing as the one above. Blending different design elements into a downtown area look much better than a “cookie cutter” type downtown that looks like a master development. This building articulates, not only the building facades, but also heights, windows, setbacks, and decks.

This stroad is disgusting - want a bicycle lane, a raised crosswalk (so cars drive over a speed bump that is the crosswalk), a bus stop in front. Street lights make a surprising amount of light pollution - prefer roundabout.

Want bicycle parking (garage)
and bike lane.

This structure would also be best
suited for east of ECR because of its
size. The architectural design does make it
less sterile looking, especially when compared with the previous structure
Too big and blocky. Meh
Too big, ugly design and what are those rust-colored
structures?....looks like a fortress...very bad.
too big, unattractive configuration
Too blocky, dense, infilled. Too close to street
too large
Too many colors, feels chaotic. The articulation also feels random and chaotic.
too massive for san carlos
Too massive for San Carlos. Ugly building that has no set backs, trees and landscaping.

Too tall and massive, it takes up a whole block.

Too tall and unfit for San Carlos
too tall; kind of ugly design; needs more greenery
Ugly building.

Ugly color combo. Looks busy. An eyesore.

Upper floors are stepped back/articulated which is good, but ground floor could be more inviting
usually those are very unlike other ones nearby
wider sidewalks with trees would be nice
a little monstrous but ok
Very corporate. Would be nice to use finishes that look like they weren’t purchased from “Home Depot”
very urban
Virtually identical to almost all multi-family residential complexes in our region and across U.S. metro areas. Nothing distinguishes the building. It is a box with flourishes glued on to give it texture and variation. The building lacks what I consider to be an essential feature: decks / balconies to provide outdoor access for every unit.

We are not Redwood City... please don’t fill up the space near downtown with tall buildings.

What an absolutely disjointed mess. Monotonous (again) for the pedestrian. Sidewalk feels acceptably large and buffered from the street. In some ways, the facade is trying to be interesting, but it just ends up looking confused. The material changes don’t mesh very well. The differing heights on the brick portions of the facade are weird. The tall stacked corner unit, which probably should be a focal point, loses its emphasis because of the dark material choice. This sort of building just makes me sad.

What are the brown structures - very disconcerting.

Where are the trees to cover the sidewalks? Where is the color in the lanscape? Looks very Urban.
where’s the parking? ugly building. too high
Wide streets isolate the building - what is its relationship to the neighborhood?

ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 504

73 How appealing do you consider the design of the
development shown in the following image, where 1
means least appealing and 5 means most appealing?

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 505

74 Addition of housing
As mentioned before it kind of works. But I hate the fact that the architect thinks he’s Frank Lloyd wright. But he’s really not, he’s Frank Lloyd wrong
assume underground parking
Bike parking
Boring no character
Building materials
Color schemes. But building itself is very plain, noOutdoor access/porches. Landscaping. Solar.
corner balconies act as a setback, upper floor in lighter tone decreases large massing
Even worse than the last
Finally seeing some bike parking
ground floor looks good. the form and consistent use of materials on base is good
Ground floor retail
Hey should we build another Biolab or housing with this once in a lifetime opportunity at these gigantic industrial sites opening up on the East side? Well the City, State, Nation has a crisis with housing all all kinds so,...lets build another BioLab I don’t find it appealing. It fits well in a more urban area. I also don’t think the schools can sustain a big population growth.

We already have to switch during elementary school which is unusual, we have no school bus service thus clogging roads at pickup, etc, etc.

I like the mixed use retail on the bottom
I love the mixed use. Townhomes and apartments above and business at street level.

I shouldn’t have to worry about banging into building when I get out of my car. Could this get possibly any closer? Further, it’s a bit on the bulky side, maybe remove one floor and trim it down. Or as previously mentioned, splitting it in two. However, it should be noted that except for the size and the bulk and the being exactly two and a half feet from the street, the design is relatively Pleasant and would last quite a while before looking stupid. It’s kind of like if Oracle Park were an apartment building.

It serves a purpose in an urban environment
just another box
Large city bldg. not very attractive but it works-utilitarian like the corner deck articulation
mixed use. retail at the bottom
NA
Nice massing, strong presence, good use of the lot. I like the corner balconies.
no characteristics that I find appealing
None
not appealing
Nothing
Please do not build this in San Carlos!
presence of retail on the ground floor
previous is better, more varied, this is back to bland
Proximity to theCVS
Retail in bottom; bike parking
Smaller building, better scale.

Straightforward multi-unit, multi-story building. Not overly complicated, unlike previous structure
Target, big box commerce, and drug stores will increase theft.

The colors are more muted and blended than previous.
the mid-level signage is visually fun.

The mixture of exterior materials and the scale of this building helps with its appeal.
the storefronts are actually useful; most buildings like this have empty stores or businesses I’d never visit
The tripartite façade provides some pedestrian scale at the street level. Retail level awnings are a great opportunity for accent colors, which this building needs.

There is some variety of materials.

This type of building does not belong in San Carlos.
too high and no character
Totally dislike it.

Ugly box all the way to sidewalk, no pedestrian space.

MOST APPEALING CHARACTERISTICS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 506

75 4 floors would be easier for
walking (or biking) all the time. Looks like it is in a bigger city with no open space.

A structure like this can only be on Laurel St, Industrial, Old County or El Camino
Advertising
As mentioned before I would cut back the bulk in the height, and I would take away the Architects degree. And send them to Idaho to work with all those Google guys who are working remotely. Those that didn’t move to San Carlos and build those god-awful Google homes.

Back to the drawing board; needs a complete re-do
Bigger windows. An open public space.
change red brick veneer, setback levels, this is too boxy, add trees
City style
Continuity of materials and colors- all stucco or stone/stucco same color
do homes and businesses really go together? are shops
required to close by 10pm?
does not represent san carlos small town feeling
ensure that all units have access to 2 parking spaces
ensure the windows can be opened to allow in fresh air
Ground floor retail is not the best use/design now
Height is too tall; four stories maximum.

I would take a chainsaw and cut this goddamn building in half.

Improve architectural interest.
include real balconies and access for sunlight
It is not necessary to build something like this in San Carlos.

It’s too tall and blocky.
just plain awful, might as well be in bad part of Queens Living above a Target? I don’t think so
Looks like it belongs in a big city. The commercial level is unattractive, and should have window elevations more in keeping with the residential floors
make much smaller
Needs communal spaces
Needs parking for visitors and residents. Building is
unattractive (yes, that is subjective)
needs street trees; why have the upper story pop with a different color; should be same throughout with scoring to identify horizontal story demarcation
None.

Not in favor of this mixed use west of El Camino in San Carlos.

We have enough over sized bldgs on the west side.

Not well lit.

OK
raised crosswalk, protected bike parking in the garage. bike lane
Reduce/limit signage to retail level only
Revised zoning to allow high density new housing on the East side vs more ridiculous Biolabs. I’m sure the current residents on the East side would like having,...let’s see, a local elementary school perhaps or a new park? Nah,...another Biolab for sure.

Same answer as above….terrible idea
set back upper floor a bit.

Solar Only allow in highly urbanized areas. Wall of building...

Street level spaces are very bland structurally
Street trees!
style & color look very urban (more than San Carlos is for sure) Tear it down
The same negatives as previously stated. A minor
improvement in visual interest.
the store signs are so blatant.

This building has zero landscaping.

This like other examples in survey are hopeless - start over! too big - no nearby parking
too big city’s
Too boxy
Too tall, right on the street, no landscaping
Too urban
too urban
Ugly, towers over other buildings; looks squished
where’s the parking? building design is not welcoming
wider sidewalks with benches and trees
wish it was taller
Would be nice to have setbacks large enough to landscape or use for outdoor dining or displays. Add articulation to flat roof.

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 507

76 5 stories is too high for San Carlos. I would request a 4 story limit for all areas in San Carlos
A little to high-rise for San Carlos. No greenery.

Add balconies for residents and a roof-top garden with
seating
add zeroscaping
Addition of balconies
Adequate underground rainwater removal system,
underground utilities
Again, another candidate for the east side of ECR; I do like the idea of mixed use, with retail on the lower floor. Given the congestion on the east west corridors (Holly, Brittany, Howard) having convenient shops in larger residential
structures would be critical.

Again, feels too much like a big city downtown. should have off street parking for 2+ cars.

Again, it has no garden. No setback is very much a block with no style.
already typed too much sorry.

Also looks like a massive city building, very unappealing Appreciate retail space on the bottom floor and residential above, but this looks like a bad box design. Again, lacking green space and/or trees. This is the design I like the least.

Not a fan and really hope San Carlos can avoid adding
more of these to our city.

Awful
Back to the drawing board; needs a complete re-do.

Carmel has terrific standards; emulate those as the whole town “fits” together
Basic inoffensive structure that’s not trying to make a dramatic statement. It would be nice if there was more of setback to allow larger sidewalks.

Blocky, boring, unappealing.

Boring
Boring big box. Seriously, their only concessions to design were to add a corner balcony and change the materials
on a couple floors?!? I could design this -- and I’m no architect. Also, this feels very urban to me, not really San Carlos’ vibe. I like the utility of ground floor retail, but does it really have to LOOK so utilitarian. Ugh. There’s no landscape elements, other than the bike racks... which are great, but not enough. The lighting is light polluting. The sidewalk is so tiny between the building and the street that it’s practically claustrophobic.

Boxy, where is parking, hopefully we can avoid big box
chains (except for Trader Joes), not aesthetically pleasing.

Building is blocky and corner ground floor is not inviting or good for pedestrians
Building is quite unattractive.Ground floor style is not in line with upper floors. Mixed use gives a messy / big-city look.

By no, you must certainly be seeing a theme. Yes, I’m a crotchety old 60 year old, but so what? In my day, buildings were nice, or so we thought. And
guess what, I actually lived next
door to North Dewolf. When your
neighbor’s Furnishings are in the San
Carlos history museum, you have full
time and full-fledged City cred. Talk to
me sometime and I will tell you about the
only memory he had from World War II was that
they replaced terracotta sewers with steel sewers
Cut in half! Cut the outer 5 ft! Maybe trim off the top floor.

Don’t build it here.
driveway or lane for deliveries and uber. Don’t want to see chain stores on Laurel Street
Even though this building is also a giant box, it seems better integrated into the municipal surroundings. The
commercial businesses at street level make it seem
more natural, weirdly. The traditional brick also helps this structure look more like an original multi-unit apartment building in a historical city than the others in this section of the survey.

Far too high-density--only appropriate adjacent to CalTrain with fewer stories, more open space and landscaping and integrated (underground) parking. DON’T REPLICATE
REDWOOD CITY OVER-DEVELOPMENT!
Feels like it is too close to the street, more setback? Feels too boxy
Fits the high density street corner location but maxes the site. Very urban with ground floor retail which designers like but sometimes is not liked by the market, who want easy access and parking - and residents above prefer peace
and quiet.
flat fasade, no definition, very unappealing.

For what it is, it is good. I like the height of the first floor in relation to the floors in the middle. And the top floor’s color harkens to the first floor’s color - very nice. All examples are just too close to the street.

Ground floor retail is awesome
Higher
higher building height would be better
I do not think that each category should have the same
design items. For example, a multi use building such as this would not be expected to have a setback, unless the street allowed for a parkway between the sidewalk and the street. This building is more appropriate for San Carlos, minus the signage which should be less obvious.

I hate “now leasing” banners, let’s outlaw those.

I like having the Target Store so convenient.

I like retail coverage of (almost) the entire ground floor. The materials used are good quality. The design is cohesive and appealing. The corner balconies give some nice variety.

I’d like some more landscaping. Perhaps a few planters
and some street trees.

I like that it’s smaller than the first two both in height and

ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 508

77 quantity of units.

The brick makes it
feel like it’s been there forever. Business on the bottom is a plus.

No outdoor space(s) is a big negative.

I wouldn’t want a target in San Carlos.

It is only OK - nothing special.

It’s ugly, looms over the street, and has no screening or landscaping at all. Yuck.

It’s just a boring square building, looks like a cheap hotel. We can do better than this.

It’s ok if it has underground parking.

It’s too blocky and lacks enough space for pedestrians along the street.
lacks any character
Like mixed-use in general but building designs should
accommodate restaurants and social spaces in preference to retail for the most part
Limit the building height
Looks like a huge, cheap square. Need greater setback from sidewalk, and setbacks on 3rd floor and above. Need varied design elements for lower versus upper floors to deemphasize upper floors as well as to break up visual mass.

Looks like an updated version of depressing Bronx Apartment Building. The faux railing balconies look like a cheap way to imply space without delivering anything beyond what must be a terrifying view from your open livingroom window.

Looks like it belongs on Howard St., mid market in SF
Looks like it would be in the Tenderloin, not San Carlos!!! Looks like plain low-income housing, unfriendly.

Love retail ground level
Lower by one floor for our town.

Lower height improve building articulations and setbacks Lower height, more interesting articulation, greater setbacks, develop a landscaping plan.

Make is less like a gigantic block.

Make sure there is option to park Bike and micromibility devices indoors, and there are built in ramps along edges of steps to push up strollers, bikes and micromobility riding wheels Minimize the signage at retail level, very ugly; San cross should have 3-4 story max!!
Mixed use - but is it too loud for the tenants
Mixed use is acceptable on El Camino nowhere else
Mixed use is fine, but no Target, and not so large
More classic design style. Appealing to have a store like Target on bottom. Can’t tell what parking situation is. No landscaping and no balconies mean it could feel claustrophobic and detached from the world. Easily improved with balconies, some green space and a rooftop garden/patio.

Needs more setback - almost no
sidewalk; would be great to add
landscaping, trees for screening,
and more space for people on
the ground besides what little is left
just to navigate around the structure.

Overall, the size feels more appropriate
to San Carlos than the other designs presented, though (and it would be nice to cap the height at 3 stories).

No apparent off street parking and no access to green space or outdoor access for dwellings
No commercial signs that would shine into units.

No issues
No landscaping, no green anything, too close to street. Trees hello
not appealing
Not clear where the designated parking area is.

Not great
Not suitable near single family homes
Not sure where parking would be if there is a Target or some retailer as large as Target downstairs.

Not very inviting.

Nothing for San Carlos
Ooh, Target downstairs? Handy!
Pedestrian environment is sterile.

Plain and forgettable. Adequate for commercial mix updated existing structure/location
Poor design, very little thought put into this. Would not fit in with San Carlos at all.

Poorly designed
Provide off street parking and drought tolerant landscaping.

Really like the corner balconies.

Red awning/windows and sign counter the intended style.

Imagine the sign on at night too. If you lived next to the sign you would be irritated by it.

Retail below is ok but it is still a square box.

Same comment as above
See pedestrian experience, above.

Seems like some landscaping and lighting would warm this building up but its design is overall very nice.

Should have trees to reduce heat island effects
signage is garish. Too much and too bright.

Stop building Biolabs and start building new housing, schools, parks on the East side.

Street trees would greatly help, between road and sidewalk.

Terrible
The architectural style is bland but I do like the concept of mixed- use with living space above retail.

ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 509

78 The balconies break up the big box feeling. Would be nice if there was more greenery, trees along the street. And terraces would be nice.

The brick and other more traditional touches make the
building fit in better
The building again is ugly and looks like every other new mixed use building. The developers was trying to get the most bang for their buck. The architecture is generic and soulless.
the building is ‘top heavy’, therefore looms over the street The facade is too flat and blocky. No trees to soften the street level appearance. The roofline is too flat. More street level interest would help such as sun shades.

The full bike rack tells me that this is a safe place for people who will and bike. The sidewalks are pretty small though, and there is a clear lack of greenery. The building is a boring cube, but it’s fine.

The only benefit this has compared to previous designs
is that the whole project seems to be “smaller”...so it is a little easier to imagine it in a neighborhood or city like San Carlos. However, it is still much too large (keep it to 2-3 stories max!). I don’t like the fake balconies on the left side, although if these were real balconies that would help with the articulation point. Again, there is no screening/ landscaping which should be mandatory...and would also
help with the setback issue by forcing there to be some green space.

The residential levels don’t seem to blend in well with the bottom floor retail.

The structure looks like a boring early 20th century
Manhattan building with a few updates.

The wall with the leasing sign isn’t evenly balanced with the other visible side. Needs more greenery.

These look like tenements.

This building is designed for a larger city.

This building is very blocky and barely disguised. Some landscaping or setbacks would help.

This building looks to be pressed too fully to the perimeter, up against the sidewalks. There should be more visibility for pedestrians at the corner. There should be space for greenery mixed in.

This design it too “boxy” and does not have enough
articulation or changes of design elements.

This is a concrete box. Ugly. It needs significant
landscaping and greenery and trees.

This is a massive box, with insufficient parking for tenants.

This is better than the previous two. The contrasting colors around windows give it more visual interest and makes it feel less monolithic.

This is for a big city, not a small town
This is too urban of a design for San Carlos.

This looks decent, could be in Boston for instance.

Hard to beat red brick
This looks like a street corner in a run down part of San Francisco
This might as well be a blocky midcentury apartment
building, to which they have made superficial attempts at visual interest. Easy but unremarkable.

This one has no character. Boxy and looks like a dormitory but at least it has thriving retail.

This one is good for density but i sort of feel like many would fight this because it kills daylight. Some of the tapered buildings are a good transition into cities like ours.

Honestly YIMBY if somebody wants to build it power to
them. Build more housing.

This one is not bad. I wish it had more articulation, but it is miles better than the chaos of the last building. I don’t love it, but I would be fine with it.

This one looks much more manageable in size and
design. Again, every unit needs it’s own balcony, more
trees surrounding and a rooftop communal garden/patio/
pet space. Hope there’s at least one parking space per
bedroom and per unit.
too big; doesn’t fit with San Carlos charm
too blocky in style. too unoriginal...many buildings look like this these days.
too large
too massive for san carlos
Too massive for San Carlos. Needs trees to soften the
large building. Too many floors and would not fit into San Carlos city.
too urban
ugly design; no greenery - San Carlos buildings need some green
Using the ground floor for businesses is a good idea.

Street parking is not the answer here.

Very nice throwback to brick buildings of the past.

Very nice use of masonry finishes. No ugly fire escapes Very ordinary building
Want to see more green, want a raised crosswalk (so cars drive over speed bump that is the crosswalk). Want to see a bike lane in front.

Way too urban for SC. Where are the trees? Where is the parking?
Where appropriate as it downtown San Carlos the
inclusion of retail in the building structure is very
appropriate. This would keep the street more alive as
well as provide shopping for specific items residents of the building may want to buy. I would suggest one story shorter would cut down on the overall mass. This type of structure should never be allowed to be next door to residential town house or single family home, in fact all of the high density multi-family structures (massive ones) should be restricted from sharing lot lines with THs and SFHs.

Where is the landscaping or community space for tenants to enjoy the outside? What does this offer the community besides more commercial retail? How does this support
Social Impact and the Commmunity?

ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 510
79 How appealing do you consider the design of the
development shown in the following image, where 1
means least appealing and 5 means most appealing?

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 511

80 Amenities, balconies, outdoor space.
architectural style
architecture
At least the faux adobe has some cultural ties to our region.

Attractive design; bright/clean looking
balconies and patios
Beautiful design
Better than previous design, but still not appealing to me.

California-Spanish architecture
consistent and interesting style - not an architectural hodgepodge Consistent architectural style.
crosswalk is moving in the right direction, at least it’s different texture / color, but would be better if it was raised. like seeing some green.

Enough sidewalk space allows for outdoor dining or relaxation.

Good height to street width relationship.
ground floor uses good; but no demarcation of ground level/first story.

Why arent you asking about windows and fenestration - these are key aspects of good building design.

Historic look of the exterior. The arches are nice.

I feel like this more complicated facades allow bigger units and more variety. You can appeal to somebody who wants more space but doesn’t necessarily need/want a single family home. Super kudos (as always) for the added in ground floor retail.

I left it before, and I love it now. If I love it so much, why don’t I marry it? Well then, I think I will
I like the varied engagement at street level, trees, etc.

It looks like it belongs in San Carlos
It’s more visually consistent with my image of San Carlos.

Know this bldg parking garage exit is NO deep enough
looks like wheeler plaza but with more plants and affordable units.

Looks the best for downtown out of the otters above.
lots of visual variety. looks like there’s enough room to have outdoor dining under some of the archways. has any landscaping at all. much better, looks like we’re in California
much more appealing design
NA
Nicely done!
No preferences
No preferences, Looks like Wheeler plaza = great as long as, rumors Google bought out the whole thing are not true,...likely only a few affordable units,...Bummer.
none
Of the high density units, this is the most attractive
Overall design fits the history of the bay area better than modern designs
Proportion good.

Really nice articulation. It makes me think that the interiors are not just boxes.

Seems like each unit may have more privacy?
Some communication with neighbors and outdoors
Spanish style architecture
Spanish style very attractive
Street level appeal and apparent street level businesses. style
Style
style fits with San Carlos downtown area
The building fits with the character of San Carlos
The design helps softens the height issue
The Spanish style is appealing but the building is quite large.

This design is more in line with the town of San Carlos and it’s charm This has a somewhat Spanish look and fits in better
This is an interesting building with nice details, nice greenery surrounding all area, no hideous signage
This looks like something current in San Carlos.
tile roof is nice because so much of the roof surface shows Trees, interesting, classic
Well this is a little busy, it is a very classic design that fits super well within the original design of San carlos. Original design is important, because Decades of families moved here precisely because of designs like this. Even if people don’t live in a home like this, they like driving by and pretending they are in San Diego or some Mexico or something like that. Also notice that it is essentially only three stories tall.

MOST APPEALING CHARACTERISTICS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 512

81 “calming” of some of the elevations, a bit too hectic again, too dense
An open public space
Can only be within 2 blocks of downtown or on
Industrial or Old County Rd.

Could be taller and more dense
ensure that all units have access to 2 parking spaces
ensure there is ground-floor retail
Get rid of the retail on the ground level
Great ratio of affordable units,...if City funded/owned = units for local Fire, Police, Teachers, Admins like new bldg behind Bianchini’s market
I assume this has below grade or internal parking
I like it. Spanish style seems to be better at “humanizing” building than some other styles
I wouldn’t change a heck of a lot. At some point you
have to give in and say yeah go ahead and make big
buildings. But at least you can make them look nice.

On the topic of big buildings, you know those two big
apartment buildings being built on San Carlos and
Chestnut or whatever I’ve never been able to remember
the names of those stupid tree streets. The mission style one and the one that looks like a stupid Google home
on steroids. Guess which one will look incredibly stupid in 5 to 10 years
Inadequate driveway emtance depth-arriving and
departing.

Keep residential separate from commercial.
keep up the good work, this is what we need
need wider sidewalks
no changes
No changes.

No parking
none. I like it the way it is
OK
Okay for multistory
pedestrian safety
so much articulation and facade space wasted instead
of living space and more units
Solar!!
Solar. Only allow in highly urbanized area. Wall of
building.

Tear it down
This picture gives no information about neighboring
structures.

Too large
Too large of a complex
too urban
want the crosswalk to go one step further and be raised, so cars drive over a speedbump that is the crosswalk.
don’t see bike parking or bike lane. prefer roundabout
instead of streetlight for light pollution.

Where is the parking?
Where is the parking?
Where is the solar, where is the parking?

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 513

82 ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS
Adequate underground rainwater removal system,
underground utilities
All looking like affordable housing
already typed too much sorry.

Appreciate that builder picked an architectural style and tried to be true to that style. I’d still like to see more set back to allow for larger trees. Also appreciate the building height of this building (not being more than 4 stories) so that it fits more naturally into the existing structures. It looks less like a box when compared with the other presented in this survey.

By far my favorite design for multi-family dwellings. Looks like it belongs on San Carlos Ave along side of the historic Drake building.

At least its not legos, but it’s very white. A not very great imitation of Spanish architecture
Authentic design to San Carlos; same with landscaping;
looks like it “fits”
Bell or beeper that goes of is truly annoying especially lat evening until morning esp for neighborhood
Bigger setbacks allow for outdoor dining, activity on the street
City council needs to be stopped/voted out to get housing build on East side vs more Biolabs
Classic design with interest. Balconies and mature trees help add function and curb appeal. Trees also help screen from the street. Stores on bottom give security to residents. Can’t tell what the parking situation is. Chimneys/fireplaces add great charm.

Cool “California Mission” sorts of echoes to me- appealing Cosmetic adjustments
Could be taller
Does a good job of visually breaking up a large building to make it appear to be several individual units. Third floor and above should be setback from first two floors. Great variance and use of multiple design elements (mixed materials, outdoor spaces, varied window size/shape, balconies, and unique setbacks for balcony spaces).

Don’t like faux mediterranean design
Finally an example that matches the vibe of the city. Multi-unit housing styles should match the style and charm of the city:
craftsman, Spanish-style, mission-style, modern farmhouse, modern minimalism, 1940’s/1950’s suburban. Please no
more 1980’s ticky-tack or cubic nightmares like the new hotel across from CVS on El Camino.

Fits in very well with other SC structures
For high density, it’s OK.

Get rid of the retail on the ground level; doesn’t seem to work for San Carlos
Good design
Good use sidewalk landscaping to complement structure
Great but a little gaudy
Great design with great articulation of massing vertically and horizontally. The variations at the top of the facade do a great job of varying the massing. Good street level engagement with open tables, trees, and sun shades.

Has a more character, still needs more trees/plants. should have off street parking for 2+ cars.
higher building height would be better
Hood for busy streets with
mixed use
I can’t see any off-
street parking, that
should be mandated.

Otherwise it looks
great.

I like how different
parts are multiple
levels. Makes it look
less gigantic.

I like that this is more
historic, with arches, and
not like a gigantic block
baricade
I like the idea of coordinating with the Richardson
Romanesque Revival architecture of our train station for our downtown buildings, and this is the closest of the options shown. I would prefer sandstone to white stucco.

I like the mission style and trees. A 4th story would be good.

I like the outdoor terraces, the various rooflines, and that the design references local styles from the last 3 centuries I like the styling on this building. It’s much more interesting than the glass boxes.

I love the trees and like the setbacks. I don’t love the style (is it contemporary spanish?)
I love this. It would fit in somewhere like Madrid or something.

I really appreciate the effort to design something that honors the Spanish style characteristic of California’s architectural history.

I simply don’t like the architectural style of the arches and think it could/should be taller
I would build it taller, more units.

I would change existing multi-story developments in San Carlos to match the one above, but in no way should existing single-floor lots be expanded to multi-story developments even if they do look like the ones above. I do like the screening and setback which allows for tables (maybe for people sitting outside of the ground-floor retail?) and the Spanish-style architecture fits with San Carlos’ image and history.

Ideal: No dwelling units on the bottom floor, incorporated basement parking, small mom & pop shops such as cafes
and restaurants, require a little more of a setback so outdoor seating and planting of green native plants is possible.

It has an old California look reflects the history of the state. I think it looks fine
It is big, but white color and design suggest traditional Spanish mission style, good for San Carlos.

Its mission inspired which has a historical connection.

However, all of these larger complexes ruin the view for single-family homes.
like the mixed-use, greenery, interesting architecture.

Looks like a clean, but welcoming mixed use space.

Looks like a thriving community mix of retail and living space.

Love the architecture design keeping with what San Carlos looked like years ago
love the spanish revival style of new architecture
Love the unifying color and humanizing curves. Looks like

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 514

83 housing, not an office building.

Lower height improve building
articulations and setbacks
Lower profile, contoured height, windows and archways are appealing to the streetscape
Make sure there is option to park Bike and micromibility devices indoors, and there are built in ramps along edges of steps to push up strollers, bikes and micromobility riding wheels Missionary style—Very characteristic of the history of San Carlos
more in line with San Carlos architecture and style
More thoughtful design than putting up a giant box with hundreds of rooms. Looks like a welcoming place to live, shop and eat. Fits in with the style of downtown San Carlos better than what was recently built at the transit village and along San Carlos Ave. Hope there’s at least one parking space per bedroom and per unit along with a balcony per unit. Good amount of surrounding landscaping. Also looks private enough to live above all the hustle of what’s happening below.

Needs off street parking
Nice
Nice design
Nice landscape , attractive building. Provide off street parking.

Nice looking building
None
None remember that old apartment building near the old folks home on San Carlos boulevard? The one that looked like it was somewhere in Spain or Mexico or San Diego or something like that except that it looked like it was riddled with termites and dry rot? That place was awesome, and this is well in that spirit Not a huge fan of the psuedo-spanish style, but this is well done.

Not clear where the designated parking area is.

Not really. You got to give him at some point and if I’m going to give in to something, I may as well give it to something that pays tribute to the history of San Carlos
Not very efficient use of the land. More boxy building would allow more units.

Now we’re talking! This has so much more variation and visual interest. It’s the kind of structure that looks like it belongs in a specific place, rather than a generic box with windows.

Obviously, this is a large building, but they’ve done a good job keeping faithful to a consistent architectural style, with the tile roofs, balconies, chimneys, and awnings. I like the retail on the ground floor and the landscaping. The only change I’d make is to move the retail to the sidewalk instead of hiding it under the arches. I think hiding it this way, makes it hard to find/discover the businesses within.

Of all the large residential structures
shown, this one appeals to me
most because it harkens back
to the architectural styles
popular in SC. It is also
more visually interesting
than the blocky structures
shown above.

Of the designs presented,
this feels like it fits best
with San Carlos to me. The
building is only 3 stories tall, with a lot of articulation, so that it doesn’t feel imposing. Another key difference in this image, though, is that the size of the street is also not overwhelming (it’s very small compared to the other designs shown), and therefore maintains a human scale and a feeling of accessibility and walkability (as indicated by the figures added to the image foreground to help point this out, I assume!).

Oh, thank God. A building I wouldn’t mind living near. Good architectural detailing, a pedestrian-friendly ground floor. It’s clearly big, but it doesn’t feel monotonous or like the architect phoned it in. Would be an asset to the community.

Overly complex mission/spanish-style design. Curved chimney unattractive. Looks like pastiche of mission/spanish, italian, et al designs
Palm trees are dumb. High maintenance and not locally native.

Not sure about those curvy thing? Fireplaces?
positives: more interesting design, not too tall, good amount of green
Really beautiful use of setbacks and varied style elements from a design style that is native to SC.
require adequate off-street parking based on bedrooms
see above, otherwise this is acceptable
See answer two above.

See pedestrian experience, above.
seems great, what’s not to love.

Size is too large for my taste. Needs some relief
Spanish style seems to be better at “humanizing” a larger building than some other styles. Transit Village and the building across from City Hall are good examples of well scaled and appealing buildings.

Styling is nice, reminiscent of historical architectures in San Carlos. Needs more space and landscaping. Only appropriate for downtown areas.

Stylistic design, plenty of landscaping. Not much shown for site or parking etc. How can people provide input on those attributes when there is no information provided?
Stylistically attractive and interesting
TAKE A LOOK AT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentlands,_ Gaithersburg,_Maryland A new commercial mixed use area
should feel like it was developed naturally. See this website of an example of how it was done well aesthetically. The facades feel like a unified design. It looks like it was a number of smaller homes and shops that were built separate from each other in the same era even though it was an entirely planned development. The result is a “pedestrian small town feel to the entire community” No big ugly looming commercial concrete boxes for the most part. It looks like a street of colonial townhomes even though it is commercial in nature.

Terrible
The dynamic angles and different window sizes makes it look well-planned, charming and create privacy. Well inserted balconies and restaurants/business on the bottom. Doesn’t look out of place. Lots of trees around are appealing.

The exterior design of this property is the most esthetically appealing, of all the downtown properties that received approval. I wish more of this type of design was approved for

ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 515

84 ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS
Laurel Street. The rest of what I have seen are massive box buildings that have no relationship to each other or what our original city had intended. BORING.

The only improvement I’d make is the large white wall space on the right side of the building. If the developer was trying to build in screening, it’s nice that they thought of this, but it just looks odd and unappealing to have a large white space.

The roof is wasted space that could be used for solar panels.

Solar panels should be planned everywhere to create car charging stations, at least. Rooftop food gardens should also be a part of our future urban culture.

The simple color scheme is appealing. Building crenelation is also appealing. Not sure where to park here or if the building has parking.

The small white towers with triangles on top are unnecessary.

Too much!
the Spanish design suits our downtown area. Beautiful!
The Spanish Mission style fits well with the history and surrounding structures. It’s warm and welcoming. A greater amount of setback would be useful to allow outside dining without impeding sidewalk pedestrian flow.

The style fits into the “Spanish influence” of the historical background of San Carlos
This appears to be a good mix of traditional Spanish style with modern “feel “
This architecture is far more appealing than all of the others, it has style and looks more organic. The height is also smaller, 3 to 4 floors rather than 5.

This building has some architectural interest. It has a common Californian look but more updated. It is interesting and pleasing.

This building is better because it is more interesting but it is still too massive for San Carlos. Too many floors.
this design fits esthetically with San Carlos
This design is very well done with so many boxes checked.

Articulation of facades and height, desks, etc. Not every developer will be able to build something like this, however.

This design is very expensive to complete.

This development looks great…a model project for San
Carlos
This downtown is looking more like Redwood City with its oversized buildings
This Hacienda style is better. It fits the style of homes in San Carlos
This is a beautiful building, great landscaping, good height, just needs underground parking.

This is a very nice building. Doesn’t read “residential” in architectural style but looks like it could house a good number of units. I like the mix of awnings, window styles, and other minor articulation elements and details.
this is lovely actually, thanks for this one
This is nice looking, interesting articulation, assuming parking is underground, could be taller if necessary, storefronts nicely decorated with arches. Looks nice.

This is really lovely. The Juliet balconies and the actual balconies combination is great. The various roof lines, trees along the street and other details are wonderful. Great use of the space and it LOOKS
good. Not your typical box
building.

This is so much better and
more in keeping with the style of
architecture in San Carlos
This is the best design for high density
housing as long as it does not share a lot line with a SFH or TH. This type of building is a good design for San Carlos Ave and the east side of Laurel street and El Camino. The Spanish design works well with the community feel of San Carlos. Per my previous comment, greenery used on the
exterior of the building would be a vast improvement.

This is the historic style, done well. The building my is very elaborate and that is fun. Generous greenery and walkability make this an appealing place to live.

This is traditional, so in that way not that interesting; however, it takes good aspects of traditional architecture, and I appreciate that. There’s a lot of articulation and visual variety and interest. The arches along the street level make the building feel more open to the street, and the trees are very nice. A public space would be the best thing to add.

This last one is great! It reflects San Carlos is roots in the Spanish style. The architecture and landscaping is visually interesting. A+
This one is the best (isn’t it already in San Carlos?) The architecture is attractive but not too fussy. The trees on the parkway are nice and the stores don’t have garish signage.

Very cool building. Like the details, interest created by the lines.

Very creative design, would fit perfectly in downtown San Carlos
Very nice, but again, how much space are we talking about to make a structure like this work for the surrounding area? Very nice. Lots of visual interest and space for people walking.

Want a raised crosswalk, want bike parking (garage /
sheltered / protected from theft), want bike lane. Like the landscaping / greenery. Prefer roundabout instead of streetlight for light pollution and idling pollution. Old spanish aesthetic isn’t personally my preference.

Well, this is the Wheeler Plaza building of course, which I see all the time. It’s fit in very well in the downtown.

Where is the parking? Where can you wait for delivery or uber ?
where’s the parking?
While I always wish for architecture to progress rather than repeat, what’s nice about this traditional design is the articulation. There’s movement, rhythm, and relationship at street level via the arches. The trees and shrubs soften it.

Would be nice to increase setback a little
Would be okay in commercial area but not near single family homes
Yes, love the classic design and the variety in levels and living areas.

You have my answer.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 516

85 MUL TIFAMIL Y
Multifamily zoning districts
allow much greater numbers
of housing units per acre
than single family zoning
districts. Developments in
multifamily districts typically
take the form of entirely
residential multi-story
buildings sometimes oriented
around open space areas or
shared amenities.

Most multifamily zoning in
San Carlos can be found
along and adjacent to Laurel
Street, El Camino Real, and
San Carlos Avenue.

Multifamily zoning makes
up 5% of the total land area
of San Carlos, but it can
accommodate more housing
than low density zoning districts. Denser concentrations of housing in a smaller area means many more units can be served by fewer utilities (water, sewer, waste collection, etc.).

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 517

86 How appealing do you consider the design of the
development shown in the following image, where 1
means least appealing and 5 means most appealing?

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 518

87 Again do not know site context.
density
Good mix of elevation, design colors and balconies.

Hideous to even consider
I think the parking bulb-outs make this feel like a safe street to walk on.
it looks like a lot of families could live there!
love the street-level units with doors that open to the sidewalk
NA
natural colors-keep it limited to three colors, interesting details and depth of different areas
Nice looking building that instantly tells you these are people’s homes and not offices.

Nice townhome needs more setback
no character…just more boxes
t would be helpful to know how many units are here.

The style here is no style,...generic block,...if this had retail on the bottom, much better
No! No! No! No! No! No! No!
none
Not a bad design for multi tenant
Nothing is appealing.

Nothing; it’s ugly
OK
Pretty common looking - so so.

Reduce articulation. Too much going on for such a small development
Stop it! Stop at! Stop it! Stop it! You’re burning out my eyes, now I’ve got to go spend a lot of money and see
an ophthalmologist. I think it’s burned my retinas. I am going to sue you for eye damage
This ugly design will look so dated in 10 years
Varying color scheme helps the otherwise boring
facades

MOST APPEALING CHARACTERISTICS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 519

88 Against multi family housing
architecture
Benches
boxy, boring design; large developer type project look
Build it taller, more units.
building next door looks only one story. wouldn’t like
heavy metal awnings to fall on anyone.

Color
Color scheme could be better. Replace the tan with
something else.
ensure that all units have access to 2 parking spaces
entries are not attractive
Hide the a/c units
I assume this has below grade or internal parking
I don’t love what look like sidewalk-level heat pumps?
can those go somewhere else?
I wouldn’t build it.

Improve streetscape
It feels very cramped on the property. Too close to
street, too narrow sidewalk. Flat facade.
its modern mishmosh vomit - no actual architectural
style
its too chopped up. Simplicity. Too scared of density
creates chopped up ugly buildings.

Massing is incohesive, design seems unintentional.
more trees, keep door colors the same as one of the
other colors already used
Needs a little more space for effective landscaping.

Perhaps when landscaping matures, it will be OK.
needs negative space- a little park area
needs porches and benches
No apparent common spaces
Obligatory expensive cars parked outside everywhere
as the least expensive one of these units in San Carlos would likely be ~$3K/month for a Studio,...you know,... for the Biolab workers
Parking?
Repetition of similar designs, style
Seems fussy, although at least horizontal bands are
consistent across entire structure
shape is too irregular - seems haphazard design
Solar
Start all over
Tear it down
Terrible colors. Need to go with another style entirely. All of these choices look the same
tetris game went wrong with this one
the carpark should have a bike lane adjacent to the
houses, with no curb to hop the bike over. want bike
garage here.
there is too much going on with this building. The
different heights and layouts. Trying to be modern
without a good aesthetic
This is horrible and design is ugly
This is unbalanced
Too boxy
too urban
Ugly
Ugly, doesn’t fit San Carlos aesthetic; needs parking
Unsure of security and privacy of ground floor units.
use more Mediterranean materials; less stark
Utilities are in the front of the building and by the
entrances.

What a piece of garbage. Send it back to milpitas.

Where is the parking?
Where is the parking?
Where will I start? No, this isn’t a rhetorical question, I’m actually asking you, where do I start?
wider doorways and walkways

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 520

89 “low watering” landscaping
3-stories maximum for multi-family. More space and
landscaping. Onsite (underground) parking needed. Use
architecture and styling that fits in better.

Adequate underground rainwater removal system
Again - just looks like a cheaply made modern structure that will not stand the test of time and does not fit with other SC structures
all ‘systems’ (AC units, mailboxes etc.) are on the face of the building which is struggling to look like a unified building as it is.
“All three designs are from same vendor with little distinction so hard to compare them meaningfully.

Designs do not seem structurally friendly to solar installation which is a meaningful concern and likely to be required/ regulated”
already typed too much sorry.

Are there any outdoor spaces? A few balconies but hope
they all have one if there’s no outdoor space. Looks like hotel and not like a home. Bottom units are too close to the sidewalk/street.

Articulation could be better. Whatever structure is on the near corner is ugly and should be elsewhere or hidden
better. The corner is where people interact with two
connecting communities and should not have a blank walk bldg needs to be set back a lot. needs landscaping.

Change widows to exterior doors with balconies. Add a
parking garage with 2.5 spaces per unit to accommodate
residents and guests.

Close to the sidewalk with minimal landscape
Concern about parking.

Consider a screening or partial wall around ground floor.

Could be taller to allow for more units. Should add more trees
Could be worse... The mechanical should be hidden.

Passersby shouldn’t look at AC units -- and they’re noisy.

I’m assuming that black box are the mailboxes. Too big.

Should be distributed among the units. They have an
attempt at good articulation going, but they didn’t take it far enough. Especially that double-stack on the middle of the left side. No building should ever be painted baby shit brown. That color should be outlawed. All parents probably get PTSD just looking at the building. There should be
planting between the sidewalk and the street, just to make the sidewalk a little more inviting. And, there should be more trees. One’s not enough.

Create more outdoor space
Create outdoor space and
housing people can gain
equity and grow into;
not a condo like in a
big city
curious about
parking? Really don’t
like that there’s no
trees, green space and
very few balconies. Not sure what style you’d call this. Looks over built and out of scale for the site.

Desperately needs some air and curves, plant bougainvillea or something.

Don’t build it
Don’t like the design; 3 stories only if mixed use or
commercial
Even more green space - with tiny privacy wall - in front of each unit
Even though I generally like some articulation, this building seems to have just a little bit too much.

Fancy
Front of building with patios is nice, but patios should be raised above sidewalk. Street side of building has to many visible utilities
Good break up of massing vertically and horizontally.

Good design but it does not fit as well as Spanish design building. The modern design doe not fit well with the
community theme and could be improved dramatically. Just think if years ago planners required commercial building and high density housing to have a Spanish theme, more along the lines of the Drake building (a bit more modernized), can you imagine what a wonderful place downtown SC would be on both Laurel and San Carlos Avenues? San Carlos would definitely been top peninsula attraction. A good example of a vibrant downtown would be Santa Cruz.
higher building height would be better
Holy crap! I don’t think there’s enough ink in the world to say.

On the other hand, this is a phone with a digital screen, so I don’t think has anything to do with this
I can’t tell how the parking is configured, but should strive to minimize land area (and street real estate) devoted to parking. fewer spots, if any. underground would be nice. :) very common in Europe.

I feel like I’m saying the same thing with all of these. Parking and match to the neighborhood
I find the articulation to be excessive. I think a more natural or traditional architectural style would create a more appealing building.

I like the consistency and transitional/contemporary look of this.

I like the multiple decks and variation in color and design. “I notice these examples are all from the same builder, whereas the others are not. If this architectural style is going to be the basis for your design guidelines this of a huge missed opportunity to have something nicer, because frankly, the example on this page are awful. I want as much multifamily housing as we can fit into the area, but if it looks like this, I will be sad.

Specifically about this: Chaotic articulation. Too many different design elements; there are at least 10 different window designs. There are four different doors. There
are seven different style of eaves/awnings. There are five different roof heights. Air conditioners are strewn around unthoughtfully. ”
I want to give this a 5 but it’s just too bulky.

ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 521

90 SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
I wood track down the architect or so-called architect in the contractor who built this monstrosity, and send them to the North Korean gulag oh come on what the hell is
i work near units like these in bay meadows. it feels like a vibrant community. it’s hip and up and coming.

I wouldn’t build it.

Ideal: No dwelling units on the bottom floor, incorporated basement parking, small mom & pop shops such as cafes
and restaurants, require a little more of a setback so outdoor seating and planting of green native plants is possible.

IF in an urban corridor like El Camino, great or downtown but not in single family zoned areas!!
Improve with bike racks, outside play space for kids
is there off street parking?
It feels dense. Maybe a bit more set back would help or deeper balconies, more depth in design. Again, where is the parking, why don’t we see any solar?
It looks like blocks on top of blocks and is unappealing color.

Landscaping could soften the look and provide screening. it needs parking for guests, uber and deliveries
It’s boxy, plain and well ugly.

It’s a mess. I wouldn’t know what it was if I had been told It’s hard to evaluate “Location and configuration of parking”, and “Relationship to neighboring structures” in a number of examples since not enough of either is shown to make a value judgement so I tend to leave those alone.

It’s kind of busy looking, but does get multiple levels in without looking huge.

It’s OK if there is off street parking.

Just another high density building.

Kind of hulking and mismatched design. Services (air
conditioning, mail boxes, etc.) right on the street are ugly.

Landscaping is boring. More mature trees are needed.

Less articulation than other examples. Looks crowded.
“Location of mail box location should not be right on the street A mandatory interior lobby location or screened from street view would be better as a standard”
Looks blocky and massive
Looks great
Looks like a hotel, not a home. Lots of design going on but not much function. Where are the balconies? Where is the communal outdoor space? Hope there’s at least one parking space per bedroom and per unit. Bottom units look like
anyone could walk right in from the street. Natural tones are appreciated.

Looks like all the other townhomes in Redwood City.

Looks like El Camino just North of Whipple... attractive Looks like it would be scary at night, would need a lot of outside lighting; units at the front look to close to the street... seems unsafe, unprotected.

Looks like this is from Redwood Shores so it would fit into the strip multi-family design scheme. This doesnt belong in San Carlos but fits into others geographically.

Move electrical and HVAC utilities from the front entrances Multi family units increase traffic and noise. I like the small town feel of San Carlos
Need parking, landscaping and trees.

Need to go with another style entirely. All of these choices look the same
Needs more landscaping and off street parking
Needs more setback - sidewalk feels very narrow and
entryways feel too close to the street. Adding more greenery and landscaping would help. Articulation is OK but building feels “chunky” compared to the other designs on this page. needs parking
Nice low rise modern development. Would fit in well at the edge of downtown.

No
No parking
no strong opinion; nice variation of shapes and shades
Not aesthetically pleasing. Unbalanced. Odd shape. Built to the edge of the property. Crowded. Too many people packed into too small area.
not bad.

Not clear where the designated parking area is.

Not sure about parking but like the lighting actually, which highlights the details and dimensional qualities of the building.

Also seems to offer sense of separation between units which suggest greater privacy.

Quality use of a constricted lot to maximize character
townhomes.

Remove air conditioners to less visible area. (roof) Horizontal balcony too prominent
remove parking from street frontage
require adequate off-street parking based on bedrooms
retail lower/residence upper
see above, plus some balconies
See pedestrian experience, above.

Setback from sidewalk should be greater. Tree wells should be required along entire length of building to provide
screening. Good use of articulation and setbacks to
deemphasize third floor and make entryways more prominent.

Setback is not enough and encroaches on the sidewalks. This is commuter dormitory. It’s a bunch of ugly boxes.

Should not be near single family homes
Start all over
Sterile pedestrian environment.

ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 522

91 Still flat roofed boxes.

Stop building so many big new bu
Street trees would greatly help.

That be some ugly sh*t. These aren’t real places are they? The building is ugly and looks like someone randomly piled blocks. The color is bad, multiple shades of brown are boring and ugly.

The building is well-designed in terms of windows/various features towards the street, but it is much too tall and much too big for the lot. Have the building be set back more to allow for better landscaping/screening, perhaps some benches or tables.

The building looks nice not boring, but I would build it taller.

The car park should have a bike lane closest to the houses, and dedicated bike parking.

The faux balcony design element makes it look “cheap” and simultaneously recogonizing how nice it would be to have a balcony there, but no, not for you! Figure out another way to break up the faces of the building.

The front doors are too close to the street. Very little room for trees and other landscaping. Monolithic look is not neighbor- friendly.

The landscape is attractive, however, deeper set back
would provide room for more landscaping. Provide off street parking.

This building is disgraceful to be on this survey
This building provides enough setbacks and positioning to make it an interesting structure. It’s modern but fits today’s environment. I would like to see more townhouse types of homes, instead of just condos.

This design is boxy, but at least it’s not a single 4 sided cube, there’s some variation in the shape. The color scheme is also very handsome. However the fake non-balconies and fake window divisions make it look cheap.

This design looks like dormitories.

This is better with a less block like structure at the top.

Still needs to be further from the street with additional landscaping and patios
This is still pretty blocky -- scant articulation -- and the colors are drab. Basically no setbacks and basically no landscaping. Blah.

This is ugly. Monotonous. Barely disguised blockiness, and the colors are dull, and there’s no setback for front entrances -- feels very exposed. At least the parking is hidden
somewhere.

This is unbalanced.

Boxy. Ugly. The
articulation makes
no sense. Also needs more trees.

This looks like a parking garage. Don’t like the style
This structure has little architectural style and looks like a box This structure is quite blocky and without much visual
interest.

This structure looks a bit dead, and has a strange massing and mix of materials. Ground level does not feel friendly to pedestrians or occupants. It looks like this is next to a surface parking lot which is a poor use of the lot. Tiny trees.

Too blocky with too many different materials and colors. The horizontal railings look severe.

Too boxy & too busy
Too close to street.

Too little green space. Too much concrete. Too fortress-like because it lacks pedestrian passageways.

Too many design elements
Too many different surfaces with not enough context. No historical building-style references, bland.

Too massive for San Carlos. Ugly architecture and no trees and greenery.

Too much design going on. Not enough balconies. Security of bottom floor units in question. Little to no landscaping is a missed opportunity for screening and curb appeal. Overall height is no overwhelming. Can’t tell if there’s parking.

Too tall and too monolithic. It’s an imposing monstrosity of a building with few appealing features.

Ugh. Big, blocky and modern
Ugly and too close to street
unappealing; looks like a hospital, not a residential building Units look like they have some privacy. Could be improved with more greenery. Like the uniform look but not cookie cutter.

Well done multi-family design. The screening needs to be more mature from the start. The articulation is excellent. It appears that the mailboxes are right out from which I would prefer to be internal. The height and brow articulations are well done. Some of the higher large window could use some screening if located next to a single family residence.

While this is better than a box, like previous photos, it still feels boxy. The mailbox location and look makes it seem very industrial, not residential.

With proper setbacks this is a good buffer from single family to high density housing.

Would like to see more setback and “front yard” type feel. should have off street parking for 2+ cars.

Yuck!! Doesn’t belong in San Carlos!!

ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 523

92 How appealing do you consider the design of the
development shown in the following image, where 1
means least appealing and 5 means most appealing?

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 524

93 a bike boulevard makes for easy access by bike, and
nice seperation from car traffic.

Color
Development appears walkable.

Doesn’t appear as massive as some of the others.

Has a better look for multi family housing.

Hi, I’m a block,...there used to be a neighborhood here, but because my city built Biolabs instead of homes
on available land, this ugly monstrosity is now where a bunch of single family homes used to be because the
single family homes became unaffordable for everyone
when all the high paid Biolab workers moved in a drove
up prices in San Carlos even further.

I am not sure what type of development this is.

Interesting details and varied levels
Interesting smaller proportions,. Communal space
outdoors?
It appears that the parking is to the side
It has more contour lines than a box type of construction It looks like a lot of families should be there
it’s new and clean and looks like most windows get sun
like that the building won’t look like one giant monolith NA
nice separation between units - allows more light; nice variety
No
none
Nothing; back to the drawing board
Oh come on! Now you’re just trolling me! This weird
ass garbage looks that it was built by somebody with
multiple personalities. It is the Sybil of structures. And you remember what her sadistic mother did to her? It’s
sort of like that
Remember that stuff about the slasher nightmare? This
is kind of it. I thought I had woken up, but apparently not.

Here comes the slasher.

Same as last comment.

Screening
Slightly better but looks like container ship boxes.

Some-what open airy feeling to the design
the open space and landscaping is nice while allowing
greater density
This is an innovative, airy, attractive design.

Ugly
Ugly and non conforming

MOST APPEALING CHARACTERISTICS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 525

94 A little too busy for me. It does help visitors find their way around
A terrible mix of styles and lines. Visually noisy and will not age well.

Addresses the concerns of the design above
Again, parking!
Asian style very not on character
bike garage access from this boulevard would be great
Build it taller, more units.

Can’t comment since I don’t know what it is.
decide on all-over design compatability.
ensure that all units have access to 2 parking spaces
Everything; back to the drawing board
get rid of the red color
has a prefab look to it, but this makes it likely affordable Has a very flat feel in the roof lines, the pink section doesn’t match the other two sections
I don’t love the corridor design
I like the attempt at differentiating the 3 structures within the complex but don’t like the varying rooflines. Does not appear well screened between buildings.

Improved streetscape
include off-street parking
It looks like it was just thrown together
it needs parking for guests, uber and deliveries
Jesus H, what the hell is this?
Just hire KB, Lennar, Tripointe to come in and bulldoze San Carlos and turn it into Las Vegas sprawl. Faster,
Less expensive for the City,...more housing for Biolab
workers.

Kind of okay
Landscaping is boring. No mature trees shown.

Left and middle buildings need different paint colors.

Looks like a bunch of different looks were stuck together to hide that it’s one building. Busy as a result.
looks like a hotel
More continuity of style from one unit to next
more space in between and more outside space; more
parking
more trees please
Much too busy. Too much articulation for a small project No information provided on parking
Not so high
parking, parking...
require adequate off-street parking based on bedrooms
Seems like there’s a lot of empty space that could be
filled
Solar
Swing set and basketball hoop
the 3rd story on the unit in the middle is disproportionate to structure
There’s no intuitive indication of where to park and the three very different architectural styles is confusing and unattractive.

This is appalling
too busy
Too generic
too urban
use more Mediterranean materials; less stark
Visually messy. Terrible colors
Where is parking located?
Wider doorways and walkways
You know the giant foot at the beginning of my Monty
python? The one that crushes the guy? I would take that giant foot and I would crush these

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 526

95 ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS
Add benches, bike racks or kids play space
Add more height if it is in am already multi-family. Keep it limited to 2 stories if it is being built on a lot that used to be zoned for single family.

Additional open space between the units
Adequate underground rainwater removal system
already typed too much sorry.

Asymmetrical, ugly.

Better on the set back, should have off street parking for 2+ cars.
better use of this space; sometimes attached is better, than having a view of someones window right across; not my
favorite design.
bike garage access from this boulevard would be great
Building on right does not fit concept. Street trees are needed.

Can only be in downtown area. Structures like absolutely this cannot be built in R-1, single family residential
neighborhoods.

Can’t comment.

Didn’t I just tell you that question mark maybe I would have a volcano explode and leave a mound of volcanic ash on these, so that people 2,000 years from now can dig it up and think it’s Pompeii
Does not belong here
esthetically appealing design
Good
Good used of varied design/architecture for different units to create the feel of a single family neighborhood. Appropriate height with third floor minimized and setback, and not present on most of development. Nice use of articulation to make each unit look unique and separate. Great sidewalk setback with space for landscaping.

I can’t see any off-street parking in the photo, that should be required
I can’t tell if we are looking at one or three different buildings.

Very chaotic look. But nice landscaping
I don’t like how the development looks inconsistent -
unappealing visually. Chunky.

I find the building articulation and inconsistent setbacks to be excessive. I think following a more traditional architectural style would create a more appealing building. Sticking to the peak building height without returning to the first story would look more appealing.

I like that there isn’t much visible parking or garage space.

I like the structure on the right side, but the other two look like offices. Landscaping and setback are nice but needs more trees/vegetation for screening and warmth. Hope the windows between buildings aren’t lined up to look into each other’s bathrooms/bedrooms/etc.

I like the variety evoking multiple structures to fit the neighborhood
I love this project.

Ideal: No
dwelling
units on the
bottom floor,
incorporated
basement parking,
small mom & pop shops
such as cafes and restaurants, require a little more of a setback so outdoor seating and planting of green native plants is possible.

In my opinion, this is a bit better than the design before it since there is a little more space between buildings and “room to breathe” for pedestrians or even drivers. However, the height could be reduced and the building could be set back more. Essentially, the design seems to have 3-story homes and of course we would have a 3-story monstrous
home be more set back than the design above. Parking is not visible which I take would mean it is behind and tucked between buildings, etc., which is great.

Interior walkways, between buildings, seem narrow and
unsafe
is there off street parking?
It feels a little sterile, but it very well might look fabulous in a few years when the landscaping takes hold and grows. Also, I don’t love the center unit popping up to its third story in a manner that seems unbalanced with the left-hand only 2 stories and the right-hand gabled roofs. I would prefer to see the heights and design styles more coordinated.

It’s OK if there is off street parking.

Jarring to the eye. Blocky
like it.

Like the windows between units, could be taller to allow for more units
Like unit variations, but it’s on verge of being a hot mess.

Consistent landscaping would knit it together
Like: color, variety, articulation and visual interest. Separations between structures help too -- not so blocky.

Looks “busy” - not sure about mixing flat and angled and colors
Looks like all the other townhomes in Redwood City.

Looks like the structure would have good light in the units, clever idea.
looks more warm and inviting than most multi family unit buildings
Lose the boxy top floor structure. Redesign to achieve more consistency vs. the disintegrated current design.

Mixture of architectural styles is not appealing

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 527

96 More trees and screening.

Multi family homes should not be where single family homes are. Should only allow for two stories, like a house unless located in downtown area.

Need to go with another style entirely. All of these choices look the same
Need to understand site context.
needs benches and other places to gather
needs parking
Needs parking and a little too spread out.

Needs parking, on-property parking, trees.

Nice privacy between neighbors with higher windows letting light in but keeping privacy, different living areas breaking up the indoor and outdoor spaces. Good use of space.

Nice to have a little green space in front of each unit. Again, reoccurring theme - not enough trees and not enough space allocated for larger trees. Trees increase property value and provide many valuable habitats for wildlife. Can appreciate that the building designs are varied so that it doesn’t just look like a stucco box. If the intent is mixed styles living harmoniously together, then would even like to see other building materials mixed in- teak siding and shingles etc.

No
No
No changes. It’s a fun design and very appealing
No overarching comprehensive design aesthetic. Clashing designs.
none
Not clear where the designated parking area is.

Not so much setback on second floor.

Not sure where the parking is?
Of the various plans presented in this section, this one stands out as having the most appeal to me because there is greater visual variety in the structure.

Parking unclear from photo
Parking. Landscaping. Trees. But the variety and setback between buildings adds to its appeal.

Possibly a bit too busy a design trying to make individual units look separate
Residential should be capped at 2 stories
Rooflines are incongruous, pitched roof that is linked to flat roofs looks terrible.

Same as other responses - cheap looking structure that does not fit other SC architecture
Same comments as above. Articulation is chaotic, complex has no sense of visual cohesion. 15 different window designs. 3 different roofs. Materials look cheap, especially the line on the left hand building. The tiny windows would make the interiors awful. The paint colors don’t go together.

Same. Not
for SC
See answer from previous 5 structures lol
See pedestrian experience, above.
start from scratch here, sorry
Start over
Still too boxy
That box in the middle top sticks up/out. Not coherent w/ neighboring structures
That box thing on top is .... too boxy.

The building looks awkward, too many different styles
The change in design of the roof lines helps. I am not a fan of the colors, but that should not be a city or community option.

This is a less dense multi-family so it works well in a community like San Carlos. Minimizing the 3rd story is appealing. Some of the higher large window could use some screening if located next to a single family residence.

The units have some character. They tie together well. The articulation is good. The sidewalk is buffered by planting. It’s interesting, thoughtful design. It feels modern, but not too terribly trendy. The materials choices and changes are good. I like the passageways between units. I’d live there.

San Carlos City CouncilSeptember 8, 2025

San Carlos City Council
September 8, 2025