San Carlos City Council
September 8, 2025

The variety of the units is nice and has more character.

There appears to be more landscaping here then in the
previous example and it looks attractive. Provide off street parking.

These structures next to each other seem unbalanced
compared to building one or two larger structures on the site, but the smaller scale intention is appreciated, and mix of styles works well for that purpose.

These type of tall, tightly packed structures appeal to me less than a single building.

Think the left building is a bit boxy, but new paint colors would fix that for me. Also, a roof top terrace/community shared space would look nice and add some greenery to the building. think we need to make our multi family at least 2 storeys and this seems mixed 2 and 3 level
This building seems to be having an identity crisis. It’s trying to look like multiple different designs as the same time and failing at all of them.

This high density building would keep San Carlos as the community we all like to live in. The setback is great and I assume parking has been added so each unit has two spaces.

Again trying to stay away from looking to modern is key. Color palette on this building is pleasing to the eye.

This is a little better. Space between buildings. The peaked roof on the right is great. the flat roofs are boring.

This is big but has relief and variety. Varying colors and textures, lots of little things going on here but it’s not too much.

This is hideous
This is just a jumbled mess. It looks like it was designed by a

ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 528

97 ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS
builder, not an architect.

This is much better than the first. Dividing it into multiple buildings makes it more open and less closed off to the surrounding neighborhood. Front doors are set back farther from the street.

This is much better, nice use of depth and space in the design.

This is much better. More visual interest to the buildings, more setbacks, and landscaping that, when mature, should help a lot.

This looks like it was meant to be three separate buildings that somehow got squashed together.

This looks like medical or office buildings. Zero warmth or charm. It is an improvement from a large, box-like building.

Landscape will grow nicely and provide more privacy.

The idea was there with separating the buildings but the design leaves much to be desired. Hope there’s at least one parking space per bedroom and per unit.

This multi unit building is actually quite appealing. The open walkways, the variation in heights and roof shapes and the thoughtful windows somehow work together. It feels much more “humane” than the other buildings in this section of the survey.
“This one’s better. I like how the buildings are different from one another. It’s still the architecture is still a little bit to generic for my taste. It’s also missing larger trees for screening.

It’s going to take decades for those little trees to grow and mature. ”
Those huge windows up top resemble the Eye of Sauron.

Too busy
Too busy - too many different colors
Too busy with too many elements. Clash in design
Too many conflicting architectural details and colors. Busy eyesore. Very little greenery or vegetation.

Too modern, too blocky, too many horizontal planes, and too many mis-matched styles and colors.

Too much wasted space in the setbacks. Good lighting
spaces for windows instead of electric lights.
“Two floor construction seems less imposing than the 3
story above.
“
Ugly! Too modern, sticks out like a sore thumb. Does not complement San Carlos aesthetic
Unsure of security and privacy of ground floor units.

Consider fencing, gate or partial wall around property.

Very attractive design. I see that there is potentially lots of light and visual interest.

Very cool. Suggests the structure of a single family home while offering multiple units and sense of separation. The lighting and landscaping is great.

Very high quality design. Not too modern. Not a fan of the tan but that’s minor.

Very nice. Welcoming and walkable.
“what a mess of an architecture style - big windows, small windows, narrow, wide
bunch of colors
so many surfaces and angles
so noisy
“”front yard”” is as bare as Mars”
Where is parking? This is nice architecture because there is space between units, but that defeats the multifamily condensed housing purpose.

Where is the parking?
why must these all be so random looking? It’s like a
Franken-home
Windows that are within 20 feet of each other equals
zero privacy or noise cancellation. Overall height is no overwhelming. Can’t tell if there’s parking. Setback allows for more landscaping which creates curb appeal, privacy and a place for pets to use.

With the setback, landscaping, and articulation, the building feels quite welcoming and approachable.

Would not be suitable in neighborhoods with single family homes
Yuck!

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 529

98 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. 530

99 3 story ok
abundant fenestration
Big windows
Building design is VERY boxy. Many squares, very ‘busy’ design
curious about parking?
doesn’t fit San Carlos
God help you if you come home drunk from the Biolab
and try to figure out which home is yours.

Ground floor with street-facing entries creates sense of residential use. Like the matching gables.

It looks like a lot of families could live there
lots of windows
Love design of this building but hard to tell about
relationship to neighboring building to the right.

NA
nice large balconies
none
One of the best for apartments
Same as last, but this should NOT be considered for
replacement of single family houses.

The design has a great deal of visual interest - not flat face; lots of windows. I lide the extensions of the roofs, over terraces or rooms? (Left and right side of the
building
The tripartite design articulating the three levels is very comfortable.

This one is better than others presented
Ugly
What is it?
While this building is a bit busy, if they said we had to build something or I would get ejected from the town, I would take something like this
You know, I said I thought I like this before, but I have changed my mind. Biltmore those mission style things.

I do not want to see this. If you want, you can buy me
some very fancy sunglasses that I can put on when I
walk past

MOST APPEALING CHARACTERISTICS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 531

100
Build a design more in keeping with the area history.
building looks like it’s too big for the land it sits on Deny permit
don’t like the way the road comes up to the sidewalk.
need dedicated bike infrastructure in this case. also want bike garage
ensure that all units have access to 2 parking spaces
green space
I assume this has below grade or internal parking
I can’t take it anymore...... too much hard to like stufff I don’t see any onsite parking ... a must!
It is a stacked design lacking some articulation
Look! Looks like some kid stacked up a bunch of blocks.

However, it’s sort of works. So meh, I guess so
Looks like multi level which is not senior citizen friendly.

Need to go with another style entirely. All of these
choices look the same
None.

Not so high
parking, people do drive and will continue to drive cars Parking?
Reduce articulation. Too much going on for such a small development
require adequate off-street parking based on bedrooms
Scale it down. Looks like too much of everything
Solar. Allow only in highly urbanized areas.
the base should be one color/material. the upper stories then have a different color perhaps the same throughout the upper stories; with articulation used horizontally, scoring, architectural motifs etc.

The front windows turn every resident into a reality show.

The main problem with all these designs is affordability/ density. Single or pre kid partnered professionals typically prefer condos over townhomes, when ready for kids they
typically want a house. Building higher density multi floor condos n East side and keeping lot sizes/home small in
the West side and allowing owners to subdivide bigger
lots on West side to build more single family homes,
(SB9) would help.

The metal roofing used at the awnings seems out-of-
place. Not sure if it is used elsewhere on the building exterior.

There is something about this design that is “in your face” a bit. It could be the step-back of each level.

This building is massive and the design is boring. The
design on either side of the central axis is the same.

This is inoffensive but boring.

This project is too too heavy. The prior one makes it more appealing than this one. Of course, the number of units would probably dictate the size.
too urban
use more Mediterranean materials; less stark; create
shade
What is it?
Where is the parking?
Wider doorways and walkways
Wider sidewalk
Yuck, I am starting to wonder if my aesthetic skills are slipping, how did I ever say I like this piece of nonsense?

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 532

101
A good example of how to use space without being too
monolithic or bulky.

Add more landscaping and provide off street parking.

Adequate underground rainwater removal system
Again, this one’s just OK. It needs better landscaping and larger trees for screening.

All of these large buildings need to be separate from single family home areas and have ample parking regardless of their association with mass transit which is rarely utilized.

Also attractive!
Also kind of okay
Always like to see trees (I see 2 tiny ones which of course will grow). Blocky design but offers some porches and sense of separation.

Better streetscape
bldg too close to front of lot. add landscaping
Boxy. Unappealing.

Buildings should be limitied to no more than 2 stories beyond Laurel Street and El Camino. You lose sitelines, views, and taller buildings cast shadows into pederstrian areas.

Can only be in downtown area. Structures like absolutely this cannot be built in R-1, single family residential
neighborhoods.

Could be taller to allow for more units
Does not belong here. If that were near me I would move don’t like the way the road comes up to the sidewalk. need dedicated bike infrastructure in this case. also want bike garage
don’t understand this layout. Am I looking across their parking lot, off the public street to the left?
First floor should be slightly raised above sidewalk for privacy Great design and function. The set backs for the bottom unit front doors create more privacy and security. Color choices break up the look in a good way. Landscaping is small, but at least it’s there. Love that each unit has a balcony. Hope there’s at least one parking space per bedroom and per unit.

Has nice muted colors, and nice peaked roofs at the top.

Nice inviting porches and decks.
higher building height would be better
I am not an architect, builder, etc,...I am passionate about California building more housing. I am familiar with many zoning topics as I recently read the San Carlos Zoning rules as I looked into splitting my lot to build two homes as my kids are now adults living in San Diego. It blows my mind that San Carlos has wasted the once in a lifetime opportunity to build housing on all the industrial sites that opened up on the East side. An entire second downtown with housing, parks, homes, schools could have been built. Instead of high density housing we get endless high density Biolabs. Yes I know Prop 13/Tax revenue has a lot to do with it, but saying zoning prevents housing is 100% garbage,...the City control/can change zoning. Another ridiculous example is the new Hotel over by Holly that also could have been housing. Palo Alto went through this in the 60’s when the South side of town, (south of Embarcadero) was converted from mostly industrial, (a huge Dairy was there, similar in size to Kelley Moore site) to housing and a shopping center to address then growing need for,...gasp,...housing. Current San Carlos is a convenient excuse to not build more housing. This design survey is GREAT and appreciated,...but heavily restricting design rules will just drive up prices further,...not looking for Venice Beach level of anything goes.

I do not see the value of this survey at all. Are you planning to use respondent’s collective opinions to define objective design standards? Many of the pictures do not show
neighboring structures or location of parking making it impossible to evaluate several of the criteria. Also it would have been better to use real buildings in San Carlos as the candidates, and the photos should all be taken from the same angles, same lighting, in order to eliminate the artistic bias from the subjects.

I don’t see any off-street parking
I like that the building design is cohesive and not split up into various designs
I like the overall design of these buildings, but the windows are so large that everyone walking on the street can see everything inside of each of these homes and it feels like too much invasion of privacy and too much exposure.

I like the symmetry
I like the symmetry of the design
I like this best of the options, it has good symmetry and is self-consistent. I like the colors too.

I would ask the guy who built the mission style building to build a building that encircles this one so that no one knows this one exists.

I would lower the height and also have the building be set back more. I think it is a great plan to increase for San Carlos to meet the housing crisis by building extra homes, etc., but these homes and units don’t need to be giant 3-story buildings with giant apartments in terms of square footage.

Rather, having small 1-2 bedroom apartments and studios would solve the issue and keep things more affordable...and also avoid 3-story monstrosities like the one above!
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 and compatible with adjacent design, quite acceptable
im guessing that the parking is that black space in the front.

Functional but if possible put somewhere else and landscape the ‘black’
Imposing, feels
overgrown for the
space.

In all the
designs
presented,
parking is

ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 533

102

ADDITIONAL DESIGN

COMMENTS
curious. I’m assuming
underground, however,
must allocate more than one spot per unit as even if placed near a train station residents will have multiple cars and our current el camino parking cannot sustain current business and additional residents. Even though balconies are wood, the rest of the building doesn’t conform to any particular architectural style and appears box like.

Insure 2.5 parking spaces per unit, including street parking is there off street parking?
It is cohesive and it looks like there’s a fair amount of natural light available to residents.

It’s OK if there is off street parking.

It’s really ugly, but if this what’s got to be done, then do it this way please no, if you are talking about that place where Black Mountain used to be, don’t even think about it
It’s right on the street and appears massive.

Kind of “blah” and too corporate
Like how each unit appears independent from rest of building with patios/balconies and varying elevations.

Like the height, not too high-rise, and looks residential. Good balconies and arch interest.
like the incorporation of outdoor decks/spaces on all levels Lines up well with neighboring structure. Seems well lit and walkable. Could be taller to make use of the site.

Looks like a design that will age well. First floor units are too close to the sidewalk/street and offer zero privacy. Really like the corner balconies. More trees would help blend it in with the neighborhood.

Looks like it would be a good place to live, although not as private and possibly noisy based on proximity of living spaces.

Looks like the apartments in San Mateo.

Looks nice and appropriate for the neighbors
Looks so bulky. Ugly. Parking?
Looks very cookie cutter
Lower height - it’s very imposing. More variation in the structure - it’s rather uniform. Needs landscaping and deeper setbacks
Lower height improve building articulations and setbacks Make it look less like a hotel
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
Matt want more separation between the structures but is nice more parking and outside space; dwellings people can buy and stay in for long time
More set backs.

Need greenery. Like the uniform but not cookie cutter look.

Unsure on 3 story vs 2. Don’t want san carlos to turn into high rise town.
need much more multifamily zoned
needs benches and other places to gather
Needs better setback, more trees/plant. should have off street parking for 2+ cars.
needs green space, needs a driveway for pick-up, uber,
deliveries, drop offs
needs parking
Nice
Nice Architecture. Achieves fill in. Where is parking?
Nice design and good function. Has balconies but none are side by side creating privacy. Mature landscaping would help with privacy also while also adding curb appeal. More screening is needed for the bottom floor units. Good height, natural colors and good articulation. Can’t tell what the parking situation is.

No. Single design across entire structure. Not fussy
None
Not clear where the designated parking area is.

Not suitable near single family homes
Of the three choices in this category, this one is my second choice: it is not as visually appealing as the previous structure, but it has somewhat more variety than the first one.

Off street parking
Ok looking building
Probably the best out of 3 not great choices. Need to go with another style entirely. All of these choices look the same and the colors are dark and depressing.

Ranked this 3 like the last one, but I like this better.

Revoke architect’s licence
Seems to have no amenities for the area like bike racks, benches or other things to make the nieighborhood better.

Sidewalk is right up against the street and it would be nice to have more space separating pedestrians from cars.

Sightly better. At least it has some roof ridges to keep the eye moving around the structure.
sorry - got bored. no offense but this is a boring survey and no one knows what articulation is anyways. it would have been better to do comparisons and used less repetitive
questions. but thanks for trying!
The articulation is well done and thoughtful. The drought tolerant landscaping looks good but could be more mature.

Some of the higher large window could use some screening if located next to a single family residence.

The bilateral symmetry pulls together the markedly different levels, nice. The airy balconies add spaciousness and make the building feel less imposing.

The outside porch areas facing the street are not used by most residents except as perhaps for storage or houseplants.

Most people would prefer more floor space, actual storage, solar panel car charging stations and roof gardens, I am sure.

The sun shades, balconies, and setbacks do a good job of

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 534

103
breaking up the mass of the building.

The variation in roof lines and the porches and balconies make it a better fit in a residential neighborhood. The setback of the front doors from the street also helps. Needs trees.

There was an attempt at articulation, but the mirror image here is just boring and makes the building feel too cookie- cutter. It could be worse, though -- so points for the attempt.

There needs to be trees. The sidewalk should be buffered from the street with planting. I’d still live here, but not as happily as the second example.

These look better than the first and have more variation in the design.

These look to be a good way to get larger residences in a small area.
“they all feel the same and are pretty bad
would be great to have different company projects
this one - the last - is the best of the three and a little calmer/more coherent”
This building has too many floors and would not fit into the character of San Carlos.

This has a consistent design language. It’s pretty bland, though. Another bunch of boxes in offset stacks.There’s nothing to tie the design to the area or to let someone know that this is a structure in San Carlos vs. Tampa.

This is a good concept and execution, except for parking that we can not see here, but must be somewhere.

This is a good looking multi unit building with large windows and friendly balconies. If it’s situated on a relatively large property so there could be proportional setbacks it would be a handsome addition to the community.

This is a middle-ground design between the first and
second. It disguises the boxiness better, with some variety.

Colors are still blah.

This is good. Doesn’t feel as dense as the earlier block. It feels close to the street. And, there’s no sign of parking? This might be the only example on this page that is tolerable to look at. The overwrought articulation is stripped back by the facts that: 1. The building is symmetrical. 2. The color palette is more limited and cohesive. 3. The windows on each level are roughly the same size.

This one looks balanced, and the units have a walkway
before the front doors...better privacy and protection. Good lighting.

This third one is similar to the first in many ways, including the dull brown coloring, but they took the time to create more visual variety and interest. So it’s much better design- wise.

This unit is on the cusp of being a massive block like some of the largest buildings earlier in the survey. By attempting to squeeze in more units the building is on the verge of ruining the character of San Carlos. The awnings do break the building up. Colors look great but be careful not to allow it to be built next to SFHs or THs. It would ruin the property value of adjacent buildings and that could lead to multi million dollar lawsuits against the city.

Too “monolithic “ design. Looks more commercial than
domestic
Too busy
too busy and commercial looking.

Too dense, not enough parking, landscaping, open space.

Too many people can live in structures like this, leading to congestion and changing the quiet small town feel.

Too much visual mass and vertical height. Third story should have set maximum coverage of overall structure to less than 40%. Third story should require greater setback. Good use of varied window sizes and shapes, but singular design
across entire building makes this feel too much like an apartment block. Need articulation of different units/sections using different materials, architecture, setbacks, and other design elements to visually break up this large of a building.

Top story doesn’t fit the rest… looks clumsy.
towers over sidewalk.
unappealing in the same ways as the previous examples
Vary up the design. The building is a mirror image about its central axis. Where is the playfulness of design?
Very nice. Could be taller and remain just as nice.

Very pleasant design
Well balanced, but needs more greenery and trees.

What is it?
While this looks to be a mirror image style building, it is well done. The various balconies look good and the use of space is nice. It does not look like a giant box. It is nice to look at.

Yay missing middle

ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMMENTS

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 535

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Community Workshop #2
Meeting Summary, October 19, 2022
1 Summary Document #10

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 536

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY 2
Introduction
The second community workshop occurred on October 19, 2022 from 6:00 - 8:00 PM. • The workshop was held via Zoom and included an interactive discussion. • 29 people attended.
• The meeting was recorded and posted on the project webpage:
www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 537

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Overview
The purpose of the Community Workshop was to provide an overview of the project goals, share the project process, explain what objective design standards are, and have an interactive discussion about the character of San Carlos related to Multi-Family and Mixed- Use residential development.
• The City team included:
– Andrea Ma rdesich
– Rucha D ande
– Meghan Riddlespurger
– Lisa Costa Sanders
• The consultant team from MIG included:
– Laura Stetson
– Rishi Dhody
– CJ Davis
The following pages summarize what the community shared. 3 12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 538

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Zoom Poll
The workshop began with introductions to the
project and included a short Zoom polling exercise
which asked the following questions:
• Question #1 – Which of the best describes your
connection to San Carlos:
– Resident
– Employee
– Developer
– Property Owner
More than 68% of the participants attending the
workshop are residents in the City of San Carlos.
4 12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 539

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Zoom Poll
• Question #2 – What neighborhood do you live
in:
– Laureola
– White Oaks
– Cordes
– Howard Park
– Carmelita Drive
– Beverly Terrace
– Devonshire Canyon
– Brittan Heights
– White Oaks
– Alder Manor
Most people attending the workshop live in the
White Oaks, Laureola and Carmelita Dr
neighborhoods.
5 12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 540

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Zoom Poll
• Question #3 – How long have you lived in San
Carlos:
– 1-2 Years
– 2-5 Years
– 5-10 Years
– More than 10 Years
More than 64% of the participants have lived in
the City of San Carlos for more than ten years.
6 12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 541

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Overarching Elements of Neighborhoods
The MIG consultant team presented the “overarching elements of neighborhoods” which was affirmed by the community.
7 12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 542

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Overarching Elements of Neighborhoods
8 In addition, the community provided some additional “overarching elements of neighborhoods” such as:
• Walkable
• Green Open Spaces
• Climate Sensitive Design

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 543

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Overarching Elements of Neighborhoods
9 The workshop attendees were asked the
following question: What are the overarching
elements that contribute to the character of
San Carlos’ neighborhoods?
• Maintain the character of the
neighborhood
• Create climate-sensitive designs
• Increase context-sensitive design
• Minimize wind tunnel effects
• Increase green space and landscaping
• Improve streets for safety

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 544

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Emerging Design Elements of Neighborhoods
10 The MIG team presented the “emerging
design elements of neighborhoods” and
asked the following question: What are the
overarching design elements that contribute
to the character of housing in terms of
“Street Interface – Multi-family”?
Participants said:
• Provide wide sidewalks for comfort.
• Ensure fewer garages face the street
and parking remains in the back.
• Encourage street furniture and bike
parking.
• Reduce heat island effects.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 545

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Emerging Design Elements of Neighborhoods
11 The MIG team presented the “emerging
design elements of neighborhoods” and
asked the following question: What are the
overarching design elements that contribute
to the character of housing in terms of
“Street Interface - Mixed-Use”?
Participants said:
• Provide areas for delivery trucks.
• Maintain standards for placement of
driveways and parking.
• Maintain setbacks and stepping back
upper levels.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 546

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Emerging Design Elements of Neighborhoods
12 The MIG team presented the “emerging
design elements of neighborhoods” and
asked the following question: What are the
overarching design elements that contribute
to the character of housing in terms of
“Front Setbacks and Landscaping”?
Participants said:
• Include trees in new developments.
• Ensure new trees are types that will
grow tall.
• Include landscaping and setbacks on
sides and rear as well.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 547

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Emerging Design Elements of Neighborhoods
13 The MIG team presented the “emerging
design elements of neighborhoods” and
asked the following question: What are the
overarching design elements that contribute
to the character of housing in terms of
“Entrances and Balconies”?
Participants said:
• Ensure noise ordinance is enforced.
• Place balconies on front and not sides
• Use noise dampening.
• Place windows only where they do not
face other buildings.
• Provide landscaping that screens, and
ensure it is maintained.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 548

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Emerging Design Elements of Neighborhoods
14 The MIG team presented the “emerging
design elements of neighborhoods” and
asked the following question: What are the
overarching design elements that contribute
to the character of housing in terms of
“Common Open Space”?
Participants said:
• Create more open spaces.
• Encourage deck landscaping.
• Increase the percentage of landscap
e
r
equirements.
• Include pocket parks and balconies.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 549

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Emerging Design Elements of Neighborhoods
15 The MIG team presented the “emerging
design elements of neighborhoods” and
asked the following question: What are the
overarching design elements that contribute
to the character of housing in terms of
“Building Shape, Size, and Articulation”?
Participants said:
• Maintain a walkable, small-town feel.
• Ensure buildings do not tower ove
r
near
by homes.
• Promote solar roofs.
• Encourage good transitions.
• Reduce balconies near neighbors.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 550

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Emerging Design Elements of Neighborhoods
16 The MIG team presented the “emerging
design elements of neighborhoods” and
asked the following question: What are the
overarching design elements that contribute
to the character of housing in terms of
“Transition to Adjoining Developments”?
Participants said:
• Provide landscape in the step down.
• Provide sunlight to backyards.
• Ensure buildings don’t look too high
next to single family.
• Enforce tree sizes.
• Provide glazing for birds and blinds for
light pollution.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 551

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Emerging Design Elements of Neighborhoods
17 The MIG team presented the “emerging
design elements of neighborhoods” and
asked the following question: What are the
overarching design elements that contribute
to the character of housing in terms of
“Materials and Colors”?
Participants said:
• Set reflectivity standards to reduce
heat islands.
• Include colors that houses can choose
from.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 552

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
General Questions and Comments
18 12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 553

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
General Questions and Comments
19 12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 554

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Next Steps
20 • On-going Community Engagement (Oct-Dec, 2022)
– Stakeholder Meetings
– Planning Commission / Residential Design Review Committee Study Session • Summarize Existing Conditions (Sep-Nov, 2022)
– Existing Reports
– Emerging Vision and Community Feedback
– Existing Standards
• Community Survey (Nov, 2022)
• Develop Emerging Design Standards (Nov-Dec, 2022)
Project Website - www.cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards City contact - [email protected]

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 555

Agenda & Summary
The City of San Carlos – Objective Design Standards
Stakeholder Meeting #2
Multi-family and Mixed-use Development Projects
Date: 10/6/2022
Time: 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
Location: Virtual (Zoom)
Notes:
 What standards have worked best in the past to achieve design objectives?  Setbacks and other standards break the mass of very large buildings (over 300 feet).
 Daylight plane standards have been helpful in other cities that have that standard.  Which standards constrain creative design?
 Mathematical based guidelines instead of form based
 Mixed-use zoning standards are restrictive and overly constrained. Makes building nearly impossible.
 Articulation, massing, step-back requirements are often “overkill.”  Specific architectural styles should not be dictated.  Prescriptive window requirements on the ground floor (specific).  Not enough detail about actual window treatments
 Limitations on style
 Current FAR calculation that includes structured parking makes it difficult to yield allowed densities.
 The way San Carlos measures height is counterproductive to getting projects built.  66 Walnut example – density bonus difficulties because they had to add another floor. Would be difficult to meet the minimums. Increase in density but not heights or other constraints make it impossible or very difficult to meet requirements within cost parameters.

Participants
o Jonathan Ennis
o Elaine Breeze
o Sean Gibson
o Laura Stetson (MIG)
o Mukul Malhotra (MIG)
o Rishi Dhody (MIG)
o Steven Davidovas (MIG)
Summary Document #11

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 556

2MIG , Inc.
 Maximum setback requirements are hard to meet sometimes because of the utility company r
equirements for above-ground vaults.
 What are the challenges that developers or the community face during the ap
proval process?
 Challenging to engage the community based on the current standards and gu
idelines; designs may be meeting the mathematical-based densities and zoning standards
but community does not like the “form.” (This may be attributable in part to developers’ desire to create larger units.)
 Encourage the city to refrain from all discretionary aesthetic or “character” based requests. It is difficult enough to make projects pencil, and every request adds to bottom-li
ne and longer costs (e.g., HOA fees); additional project costs reduce affordability.
 Styles –
most of the community tends to like traditional styles. If a style is selected as a choice, it should become a good example of it.  Bu
ildings which meet the basic requirements and are not designed well are being approved.
 Tree
difficulties: there is a disconnect between planning and fire department. Fire department wants maximum six-foot-tall trees if a building only has one street frontag
e (due to fire aerial apparatus requirement).
 Utility companies do not let designers or developers have any say in where transform
ers, connections go. Transformer rooms do not allow windows, can caus
e conflicts with design standards, and are not in the control of designer or developer.
 Some d
esign review happens too late in the project; if it is done it should be done early.
 Required changes in the design based on planning staff direction or community uproar aft
er many years of initial work lead to redesign and project delays.  How can c
urrent standards be improved and incorporated into the objective design st
andards to streamline the approval process better?
 Form-based guidelines are preferred.
 Provide the most flexibility and make it clear to everyone what is possible (for neighbors and developers).
 Less interpretation needed and more clarity provided.  St
andards should be as simple as possible.
 It is
important to define the goals of the ODS (ex. production of housing vs. preservation of “community character”)
 Balance high-quality design with flexibility.
 Expand the kit of parts that architects and developers can use to build great pro
jects instead of tying their hands.
 Provide a toolkit for producing a high-quality pedestrian and livability experience without the possibility of arbitrary “I think it would look nice” type commen ts.
 Wo
uld like standards that consider the context and in general “good quality” materials
and design.
 Give multiple options in terms of standards s uch as: provide window recess or at l
east three materials.
 Allow
for zero setbacks on the first two floors.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 557

3MIG , Inc.
 Would support graywater laundry to landscape (recycled water).  All
electric (EV charging).
 Allow rooftop decks.
 Native plants and features.
 Walk a
nd bike support.
 Fully describe and provide standards for what is to be expected at the pedestrian level.
 Lower reflectivity on exterior colors, as this can help with toning down large proj
ects in an objective way for neighbors.
 W
hat are the unique values and characteristics of San Carlos you would like incorpor
ated into the objective design standards?
 Protecting and providing quality buildings.
 Some measures of proportionality and beauty should be maintained.  Div
ersity in product types is more important than “design aesthetic” from a su
bjective point of view. Creating more housing is more important than meeting build
ing “quality.”
 Shif
t in lifestyles is required, and this will guide design: more mode shift and from suburban to urban.
 Which communities
have you worked in that have guidelines or standards
that cr
eate great projects?
 San Jose
 Des
ign process is reasonably efficient and not onerous, and good examples of built projects.
 Rec
ently adopted design standards and easy to work with (except for a few difficult landscape requirements which would prohibitively increase cost such as soil a
nd tree size requirements).
 Sunnyvale
 Petaluma
 FBC –
good to work with from an architect’s perspective.
 San Francisco
 Good s
tandard for measuring building heights

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 558

1 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 40’20’
ODS • EXISTING ZONING | 1562 ECR TEST-FIT: Existing Site + Zoning Summary

WHITE OAK WAY
Parcel APNs 051-368-040
Site Area 20,018 sf (0.46 acre)
Zone MU-SB-120: Mixed-Use South Boulevard
Density 90 - 120 dwelling units per acre (41 - 55 units allowed) FAR

3.0 maximum
(10% increase allowed for mix of residential and non-
residential uses)
Setbacks
Front:
• Laurel St.: property line or 15’ from curb (the greater) • ECR: property line or 20’ from curb (the greater)
• All other streets: 0’ - 5’
Interior Side: 0’ min.; 10’ min. adjacent to RS district for all MU districts
Rear: 0’ min.; 30’ min. adjacent to RS district for all MU districts
Building Height
• 75’ / 6 stories maximum
• 30’ within 40’ of RS district
• 40’ within 50’ of RS district
• Parapets may extend 4’ above height limit
• Tower elements may extend 10’ above height limit
• 12’ ground floor minimum height
Upper Story
Stepbacks
4th - 6th stories may align with 3rd story along ECR
(no upper story setback required for this site)
Blank Wall 25’ maximum length
Parking
• 40’ minimum setback for surface parking
• Subgrade parking may match building setbacks
• 5’ maximum height above grade for subgrade parking
structure
• Surface parking minimum 8’ setback from buildings and public plazas (5’ walkway plus 3’ landscaping)
• Parking access required via side street or alley wherever possible
• 1 covered space per studio / 1br unit
• 1.5 covered spaces per 2br / 3br+
• 1 space per 400 sf of retail
Landscaping and
Open Space
• 10% minimum lot area public and/or private open space • 20’ minimum dimension
• 10% minimum lot area landscaping

CENTRAL AVE

EL CAMINO REAL

LAUREL ST
100’
200’
Public Alley
Good Living Inn
(existing 2-story motel)
Shops
Shops

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 559
2 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 40’20’
ODS • EXISTING ZONING | 1562 ECR TEST-FIT: Plan Concepts

EL CAMINO REAL
Public Alley
Shops
Shops
Parking
33 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Retail
±650 sf
Bikes
Elec.

Mech.

Office
±550 sf
3rd-5th Floors
Common
±850 sf
Courtyard
±1,900 sf
T
Stair to 2nd floor only
Garage
Entry
Retail
Residential Office
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Studio
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom
2nd Floor
T

EL CAMINO REAL
Public Alley
Shops
Shops
Parking
23 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Retail
±1,000 sf
Bikes
Elec.

Office
±550 sf
Garage
Entry
Ramp
Down
Common
±700 sf
Courtyard
±1,700 sf
Stair to 2nd floor only
No unit on
5th floor
T
T
Option A:

Meets maximum density and FAR, with
smaller units.
• 55 units, max density
• Ground-floor podium parking
Option B:

Meets minimum density and exceeds
maximum FAR, with larger units.
• 41 units, min density
• Ground-floor podium parking and
subgrade parking level

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 560
3 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
ODS • EXISTING ZONING | 1562 ECR TEST-FIT: Program, Massing + Discussion Points Allowable
building
envelope
Building Height 5 stories, ±55’ - Type V-A, 4-over-1
Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
Studio 11 units 20% 347 sf
1 bedroom 28 units 51% 599 sf
2 bedroom 16 units 29% 824 sf
TOTAL 55 units (120 dua)
Retail 684 sf
Residential 37,503 sf
Circulation / Service 14,106 sf
Common / Res .Office 2,024 sf
Parking 11,887 sf (33 spaces, 0.6 space per unit)
TOTAL 66,204 sf
FAR 3.3
Building Height 5 stories, ±55’ - Type V-A, 4-over-1
Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
1 bedroom 13 units 32% 650 sf
2 bedroom 16 units 39% 914 sf
3 bedroom 12 units 29% 1,280 sf
TOTAL 41 units (89 dua)
Retail 1,017 sf
Residential 42,692 sf
Circulation / Service 13,463 sf
Common / Res .Office 1,868 sf
Parking 26,464 sf (62 spaces, 1.5 spaces per unit)
Below grade parking not counted in FAR
TOTAL 68,484 sf
FAR 3.4
Findings:
• Counting above-grade podium parking as FAR is a limiting factor in achieving more housing.
- if podium parking not counted as F AR, building could be six stories with larger units (parking uses 0.6 FAR / 12,000 sf in Option A)
- counting parking as F AR favors below-grade parking which is often cost-prohibitive • Achieving density limit of 55 units within 3.3 FAR requires smaller units which limits market feasibility. (assuming 10% FAR increase granted by providing mixed-uses)
- for larger, higher-end market-rate units that fit within the FAR limit, only the minimum density is achieved, and the building is limited to 5 stories - to achieve the 55-unit density limit with larger , higher-end market-rate units, the building needs to be 6 stories, with more expensive Type III-A construction, and results in approximately 4.1 FAR
• The 20’ ECR setback requirement is a limiting factor in ground-floor use viability. - for shallower sites that have ground-floor podium parking, very little room remains for viable retail/commercial areas
- consider tailoring setbacks based on ground-floor use, such as larger setbacks for residential and smaller setbacks for retail/commercial
Allowable
building
envelope
• If no parking was provided, a small-unit or senior housing project could provide 55 units in 4.5 stories at ±3.0 FAR.
- ground-floor courtyard with larger retail space
- some ground-floor units
- rear building wings not needed on 5th floor
• At the allowable 6-story building height, zoning compliance varies based on unit mixes.
- a small-unit mix project would exceed both allowable density and FAR - a large-unit family mix project would meet the allowable density , but exceed allowable FAR
Building Height 6 stories, ±65’ - Type III-A, 5-over-1 Unit Type Amount % Mix
1 bedroom 24 units 44%
2 bedroom 16 units 29%
3 bedroom 15 units 27%
TOTAL 55 units (120 dua)
FAR ±4.1
Building Height 6 stories, ±65’ - Type III-A, 5-over-1 Unit Type Amount % Mix
Studio 14 units 20%
1 bedroom 35 units 51%
2 bedroom 20 units 29%
TOTAL 69 units (150 dua)
FAR ±3.9
Option A:

Meets maximum density and FAR, with smaller units.

Option A’:

Exceeds maximum density and FAR, with smaller units.

Option B:

Meets minimum density and exceeds maximum FAR, with larger units.

Option B’:

Meets maximum density and exceeds maximum FAR, with
larger units.

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 561
4 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 40’20’
ODS • EXISTING ZONING | 1058 LAUREL ST. TEST-FIT: Existing Site + Zoning Summary 120’
50’

BRITTAN AVE

LAUREL ST
1040-1056 Laurel St.
(6 new townhomes)
Parcel APNs 051-347-110
Site Area 6,000 sf (0.14 acre)
Zone MU-N-40: Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Density 30 - 40 dwelling units per acre (4 - 6 units allowed) FAR 3.0 maximum
(10% increase allowed for mix of residential and non-residential uses) Setbacks
Front:
• Laurel St.: property line or 15’ from curb (the greater) • ECR: property line or 20’ from curb (the greater)
• All other streets: 5’ - 15’
Interior Side: 0’ min.; 10’ min. adjacent to RS district for all MU districts Rear: 0’ min.; 30’ min. adjacent to RS district for all MU districts Building Height
• 50’ / 4 stories maximum
• 30’ within 40’ of RS district
• 40’ within 50’ of RS district
• Parapets may extend 4’ above height limit
• Tower elements may extend 10’ above height limit
• 12’ ground floor minimum height
Upper Story Stepbacks 4th - 6th stories require 10’ minimum stepback from 3rd story below Blank Wall 25’ maximum length
Parking
• 40’ minimum setback for surface parking
• Subgrade parking may match building setbacks
• 5’ maximum height above grade for subgrade parking structure • Surface parking minimum 8’ setback from buildings and public plazas (5’ walkway plus 3’ landscaping)
• Parking access required via side street or alley wherever possible • 1 covered space per studio / 1br unit
• 1.5 covered spaces per 2br / 3br+
• 1 space per 400 sf of retail
Landscaping and Open
Space
• 10% minimum lot area public and/or private open space • 20’ minimum dimension
• 10% minimum lot area landscaping
RS-6 Zone
MU-N-40 Zone
Allowable Building Envelope
Laurel St.

RS-6 Zone
MU-N-40 Zone
ADU / SB 9 Unit

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 562
5 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 40’20’
ODS • EXISTING ZONING | 1058 LAUREL ST. TEST-FIT: Plan Concepts

LAUREL ST
RS-6 Zone
MU-N-40 Zone
2nd Floor
Parking
6 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Garage
Entry
T
Mech.

Terrace
3rd Floor
T
T
4th Floor
Terrace
Terrace

LAUREL ST
RS-6 Zone
MU-N-40 Zone
2 spaces
Drive-
way
1 space
1 space
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
4th Floor
Terrace
Terrace
2-story
townhomes
Terrace
2-story
townhomes
2-story
townhomes
2-story
townhomes

LAUREL ST
RS-6 Zone
MU-N-40 Zone
2 spaces
Drive-
way
1 space
1 space
1 space
2nd-3rd Floors
3-story
townhomes
Retail
Residential Office
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Studio
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom
Option A:

Meets maximum density, and is lower than the allowable FAR. • 6 units, max density
Option B:

Meets minimum density, and is much lower than the allowable FAR. • 4 units, min density
• Stacked townhomes
Option C:

Is below minimum density, and is much lower than the allowable FAR. • 3 units
• Townhomes

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 563
6 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
ODS • EXISTING ZONING | 1058 LAUREL ST. TEST-FIT: Program, Massing + Discussion Points Allowable
building
envelope
Allowable
building
envelope
Allowable
building
envelope
Findings:
• Required setbacks and stepbacks prevent allowable 3.0 FAR. - allowable building envelope after applying setbacks and stepbacks only achieves 2.5 F AR
- either lower the FAR maximum to 2.5 or reduce setback and stepback restrictions • Discrepancy between MU-N-40 zone and neighboring RS-6 zone rear setbacks. - MU-N-40 setbacks are more restrictive
- many built buildings in MU-N-40 do not have a 30’ setback - consider matching RS-6 setbacks to allow for more viable projects - if rear setback decreased from 30’ to 15’, gain 0.5 FAR over 4 floors - if ADUs in RS districts are allowed up to a 4’ rear setback, shouldn’t MU-N-40 allow shallower setbacks than 30’?
Building Height 4 stories, ±45’ - Type V-A
Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
1 bedroom 2 units 33% 639 sf
2 bedroom 3 units 50% 943 sf
3 bedroom 1 unit 17% 1,238 sf
TOTAL 6 units (44 dua)
Residential 5,940 sf
Circulation / Service 4,278 sf
Parking 2,623 sf (6 spaces, 1.0 space per unit)
TOTAL 12,841 sf
FAR 2.1
Building Height 4 stories, ±45’ - Type V-A
Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
2 bedroom townhome 2 units 50% 1,062 sf
3 bedroom townhome 2 units 50% 1,338 sf
TOTAL 4 units (29 dua)
Residential 5,337 sf
Circulation / Service 800 sf
Parking 400 sf (4 spaces, 1.0 space per unit)
TOTAL 6,537 sf
FAR 1.1
Building Height 3 stories, ±35’ - Type V-B
Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
3 bedroom townhome 3 units 100% 1,602 sf
TOTAL 3 units (22 dua)
Residential 5,340 sf
Parking 600 sf (5 spaces, 1.7 spaces per unit)
TOTAL 5,940 sf
FAR 1.0
• Should 12’ ground-floor height apply to 100% residential buildings? - 12’ ground-floor inhibits buildable housing area in the building rear based on stepback requirements
- consider allowing a 10’ ground-floor for 100% residential buildings - or if height language was changed from “30’ within 40’ of RS district” to “3 stories within 40’ of RS district”, gain 0.08 FAR on 3rd floor and would only have a 4th floor stepback
Option A:

Meets maximum density, and is lower than the allowable FAR. Option B:

Meets minimum density, and is much lower than the allowable FAR.

Option C: (townhomes)
Is below minimum density, and is much lower than the allowable FAR.

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 564
7 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 40’20’
ODS • EXISTING ZONING | 750 WALNUT ST. TEST-FIT: Existing Site + Zoning Summary Parcel APNs 050-152-100
Site Area 8,060 sf (0.19 acre)
Zone RM-100: Multifamily - Medium Density
Density 75 - 100 dwelling units per acre (14 - 19 units allowed) Lot Size1 10,000 sf minimum, 100’ minimum width
FAR 3.0 maximum
Setbacks
Front: 15’ minimum
Interior Side: 5’ minimum
Street Side: 10’ minimum
Rear: 15’ minimum
Building Height
• 60’ / 5 stories maximum
• 40’ within 40’ of RS district
• 50’ within 50’ of RS district
• Parapets may extend 4’ above height limit
• Tower elements may extend 10’ above height limit
Upper Story
Stepbacks
• 4th - 5th stories require 10’ minimum stepback from 3rd story below
• 3rd story and above: maximum 80% ground floor area
2 • Exceptions may be granted by the director provided that an entry courtyard with a minimum depth of 25’,
landscaping, and seating amenities are provided on the
ground level at grade, or other comparable public
amenities are provided
Lot Coverage 75% maximum
Parking
• 40’ minimum setback for surface parking
• Subgrade parking may match building setbacks
• 5’ maximum height above grade for subgrade parking
structure
• 1 covered space per studio
• 1.5 covered spaces per 1br / 2br
• 2 covered spaces per 3br+
Landscaping and
Open Space
• 10% minimum lot area public and/or private open space • 10% minimum lot area landscaping
NOTES:
1 Lot is smaller than minimum lot size per zoning.
2 Not applicable on lots less than 60’ wide.
155’
52’

WALNUT ST

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 565
8 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 40’20’
ODS • EXISTING ZONING | 750 WALNUT ST. TEST-FIT: Plan Concepts

WALNUT ST
2nd-3rd Floors
Parking
7 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Garage
Entry
T
Mech.
4th-5th FloorsOption A:

Just below maximum density,
and is lower than the allowable
FAR.
• 18 units, max density
• Smaller unit mix
T

WALNUT ST
Parking
7 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Garage
Entry
Mech.

T
T
2nd-3rd Floors
4th-5th Floors

WALNUT ST
Drive-
way
1 space
1 space
1 space
1 space
1 space
Retail
Residential Office
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Studio
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom
2nd-3rd Floors
3-story
townhomes
Option B:

Meets minimum density, and is
lower than the allowable FAR.
• 14 units, min density
• Larger unit mix
Option C:

Is below minimum density, and
is much lower than the
allowable FAR.
• 5 units
• Townhomes

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 566
9 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
ODS • EXISTING ZONING | 750 WALNUT ST. TEST-FIT: Program, Massing + Discussion Points Allowable
building
envelope
Allowable
building
envelope
Allowable
building
envelope
Building Height 5 stories, ±55’ - Type V-A, 4-over-1
Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
Studio 10 units 56% 443 sf
1 bedroom 2 units 11% 642 sf
2 bedroom 6 units 33% 951 sf
TOTAL 18 units (97 dua)
Residential 12,692 sf
Circulation / Service 7,079 sf
Parking 3,667 sf (7 spaces, 0.4 space per unit)
TOTAL 23,438 sf
FAR 2.9
Building Height 5 stories, ±55’ - Type V-A, 4-over-1
Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
1 bedroom 6 units 43% 586 sf
2 bedroom 6 units 43% 933 sf
3 bedroom 2 units 14% 1,245 sf
TOTAL 14 units (76 dua)
Residential 12,892 sf
Circulation / Service 6,879 sf
Parking 3,667 sf (7 spaces, 0.5 space per unit)
TOTAL 23,438 sf
FAR 2.9
Building Height 3 stories, ±35’ - Type V-B
Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
3 bedroom townhome 5 units 100% 1,551 sf
TOTAL 5 units (27 dua)
Residential 8,615 sf
Parking 950 sf (5 spaces, 1 space per unit)
TOTAL 9,565 sf
FAR 1.2
Findings:
• Difficult to achieve large, market-rate units within the FAR and height limits. - small-unit scenario (Option A) works well within the zoning parameters - larger units only reach minimum density at 5-story / 3.0 FAR limit • Parking is very limited on such a narrow site.
- only achieve 7 spaces, and with at least 1:1 parking ratio, project would be limited to 7 units - limited parking not conducive to large, market-rate units at a high density - parking requirements for this FAR and density make more sense on larger sites, such as two or three combined lots of this size
• If parking was not provided, could achieve family unit mix for an affordable project. - units can get larger while building remains at 5 stories within FAR limit, some ground-floor units - site proximity to transit might make no parking more feasible for certain project types • Can meet zoning intent, if site is combined with adjacent lot for a total of a 100’-wide lot. - can achieve 100 dwelling units per acre (35 units)
- can achieve 3.0 FAR limit
- increased parking ratio of 0.8 space per unit
Option A:

Just below maximum density, and is lower than the allowable FAR.

Option B:

Meets minimum density, and is lower than the allowable FAR.

Option C: (townhomes)
Is below minimum density, and is much lower than the allowable FAR.

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 567
1 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY 0 40’20’
ODS • RECOMMENDATIONS | 1562 ECR TEST-FIT: Existing Site + Revised Zoning Summary

WHITE OAK WAY
Parcel APNs 051-368-040
Site Area 20,018 sf (0.46 acre)
Zone MU-SB-120: Mixed-Use South Boulevard
Density 90 - 120 dwelling units per acre (41 - 55 units allowed) FAR

3.0 maximum No limit for residential use

0.1 min. - 0.3 max. for commercial use
(10% increase allowed for mix of residential and non-
residential uses)
Setbacks
Front:
• Laurel St.: property line or 15’ from curb (the greater) • ECR: property line or 20’ from curb (the greater)
• All other streets: 0’ - 5’
Interior Side: 0’ min.; 10’ min. adjacent to RS district for all MU districts
Rear: 0’ min.; 30’
15’ min. adjacent to RS district for all MU
districts
Building Height
• 75’ / 6 stories maximum
• 30’
28’ within 40’ of RS district
• 40’ within 50’ of RS district
• Parapets may extend 4’ 5’ above height limit
• Tower elements may extend 10’ above height limit
• 12’ ground floor minimum height
Upper Story
Stepbacks
4th - 6th stories may align with 3rd story along ECR
(no upper story setback required for this site)
Blank Wall 25’ maximum length
Parking
• 40’ minimum setback for surface parking
• Subgrade parking may match building setbacks
• 5’ maximum height above grade for subgrade parking
structure
• Surface parking minimum 8’ setback from buildings and public plazas (5’ walkway plus 3’ landscaping)
• Parking access required via side street or alley wherever possible
• 1 covered space per studio / 1br unit
• 1.5 covered spaces per 2br / 3br+
• 1 space per 400 sf of retail
• No parking minimums for sites within 0.5 mile of major transit per State Law (AB 2097)
Landscaping and
Open Space
• 10% minimum lot area public and/or private open space • 20’ minimum dimension
• 10% minimum lot area landscaping

CENTRAL AVE

EL CAMINO REAL

LAUREL ST
100’
200’
Public Alley
Good Living Inn
(existing 2-story motel)
Shops
Shops

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 568
2 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY 0 40’20’
ODS • RECOMMENDATIONS | 1562 ECR TEST-FIT: Refined Concept

EL CAMINO REAL
Public Alley
Parking
64 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Retail
±800 sf
Bikes
Elec.

Mech.

Office
3rd-6th Floors
Common
Courtyard
±1,800 sf
T
Stair to
2nd floor
only
Garage
Entry
Retail
Residential Office
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Studio
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom
2nd Floor
3-level stackers w/ pit
T

PROGRAM SUMMARY
Building Height 6 stories, ±75’ (Type III-A, 5-over-1) Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
1 bedroom 26 units 48% 669 sf
2 bedroom 15 units 27% 911 sf
3 bedroom 14 units 25% 1,265 sf
TOTAL 55 units (120 dua)
Retail 827 sf (0.04 FAR)
Residential 54,178 sf
Circulation / Service 17,173 sf
Common / Res .Office 1,812 sf
Parking 12,689 sf (64 spaces, 1.2 spaces per unit)
TOTAL 86,679 sf (4.3 FAR)
Allowable
building
envelope
75’ height limit
Test-Fit Refinements:
• No FAR limit for residential use - allows for larger units within 6-story height limit • No parking minimum, but achieves 1:1 parking ratio or greater using stackers • 55 units, max density
• Large-unit mix
• Ground-floor podium parking using 3-level stackers

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 569
3 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY 0 40’20’
ODS • RECOMMENDATIONS | 1562 ECR TEST-FIT: Alternate Refined Concept

EL CAMINO REAL
Public Alley
Parking
46 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Retail
±6,600 sf
Bikes
Elec.

Mech.

Office
3rd-6th Floors
Common
Courtyard
±1,800 sf
T
Stair to
2nd floor
only
Garage
Entry
Retail
Residential Office
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Studio
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom
2nd Floor
4-level stackers w/ pit
T

PROGRAM SUMMARY
Building Height 6 stories, ±75’ (Type III-A, 5-over-1) Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
1 bedroom 26 units 48% 678 sf
2 bedroom 15 units 27% 884 sf
3 bedroom 14 units 25% 1,283 sf
TOTAL 55 units (120 dua)
Retail 6,650 sf (0.33 FAR)
Residential 54,200 sf
Circulation / Service 17,158 sf
Common / Res .Office 1,466 sf
Parking 7,365 sf (46 spaces, 0.8 spaces per unit)
TOTAL 86,839 sf (4.3 FAR)
Allowable
building
envelope
75’ height limit
Test-Fit Refinements (alternate layout):
• No FAR limit for residential use - allows for larger units within 6-story height limit • Increased retail for better market feasibility
• Reduced housing floor-to-floor heights to accommodate 4-level stacker parking • 55 units, max density
• Large-unit mix
• Ground-floor podium parking using 4-level stackers

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 570
4 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY 0 40’20’
ODS • RECOMMENDATIONS | 1058 LAUREL ST. TEST-FIT: Existing Site + Revised Zoning Summary 120’
50’

BRITTAN AVE

LAUREL ST
1040-1056 Laurel St.
(6 new townhomes)
Parcel APNs 051-347-110
Site Area 6,000 sf (0.14 acre)
Zone MU-N-40: Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Density 30 - 40 dwelling units per acre (4 - 6 units allowed) FAR

3.0 maximum No limit for residential use

0.1 min. - 0.3 max. for commercial use
(10% increase allowed for mix of residential and non-residential uses) Setbacks
Front:
• Laurel St.: property line or 15’ from curb (the greater) • ECR: property line or 20’ from curb (the greater)
• All other streets: 5’ - 15’
Interior Side: 0’ min.; 10’ min. adjacent to RS district for all MU districts Rear: 0’ min.; 30’
15’ min. adjacent to RS district for all MU districts
Building Height
• 50’ / 4 stories maximum
• 30’
28’ within 40’ of RS district
• 40’ within 50’ of RS district
• Parapets may extend 4’ 5’ above height limit
• Tower elements may extend 10’ above height limit
• 12’ ground floor minimum height
Upper Story Stepbacks 4th - 6th stories require 10’
6’ minimum stepback from 3rd story below
Blank Wall 25’ maximum length
Parking
• 40’ minimum setback for surface parking
• Subgrade parking may match building setbacks
• 5’ maximum height above grade for subgrade parking structure • Surface parking minimum 8’ setback from buildings and public plazas (5’ walkway plus 3’ landscaping)
• Parking access required via side street or alley wherever possible • 1 covered space per studio / 1br unit
• 1.5 covered spaces per 2br / 3br+
• 1 space per 400 sf of retail
• No parking minimums for sites within 0.5 mile of major transit per State Law (AB 2097) Landscaping and Open
Space
• 10% minimum lot area public and/or private open space • 20’ minimum dimension
• 10% minimum lot area landscaping
RS-6 Zone
MU-N-40 Zone
Allowable Building Envelope
Laurel St.

RS-6 Zone
MU-N-40 Zone

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 571
5 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY 0 40’20’
ODS • RECOMMENDATIONS | 1058 LAUREL ST. TEST-FIT: Refined Concept

LAUREL ST
RS-6 Zone
MU-N-40 Zone
2nd Floor
Parking
9 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Garage
Entry
T
Mech. /
Elec.
3rd Floor
4th Floor
Terrace
Terrace
3-level
stackers
w/ pit
Circulation
Service
Studio
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom

PROGRAM SUMMARY
Building Height 4 stories, ±50’ (Type III-A, 5-over-1) Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
2 bedroom 3 units 50% 1,018 sf
3 bedroom 3 units 50% 1,139 sf
TOTAL 6 units (44 dua)
Residential 7,188 sf
Circulation / Service 4,888 sf
Parking 3,321 sf (9 spaces, 1.5 spaces per unit)
TOTAL 15,397 sf (2.6 FAR)
Allowable
building
envelope
50’ height limit
T
T
Test-Fit Refinements:
• No FAR limit for residential use - allows for larger units within 4-story height limit • Reduced rear setback from 30’ to 15’, matching neighboring RS zone • Reduced stepbacks from 10’ to 6’
• Matched RS zone 28’ building height limit along rear setback line • No parking minimum, but achieves 1:1 parking ratio using stackers • 6 units, max density
• Large-unit mix
• Ground-floor podium parking using 3-level stackers

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 572
6 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY 0 40’20’
ODS • RECOMMENDATIONS | 750 WALNUT ST. TEST-FIT: Existing Site + Revised Zoning Summary Parcel APNs 050-152-100
Site Area 8,060 sf (0.19 acre)
Zone RM-100: Multifamily - Medium Density
Density 75 - 100 dwelling units per acre (14 - 19 units allowed) Lot Size1 10,000 sf minimum, 100’ minimum width
FAR 3.0 maximum No limit for residential use
Setbacks
Front: 15’ minimum
Interior Side: 5’ minimum
Street Side: 10’ minimum
Rear: 15’ minimum
Building Height
• 60’ / 5 stories maximum
• 40’
28’ within 40’ of RS district
• 50’ within 50’ of RS district
• Parapets may extend 4’ 5’above height limit
• Tower elements may extend 10’ above height limit
Upper Story
Stepbacks
• 4th - 5th stories require 10’ 6’ minimum stepback from 3rd story below
• 3rd story and above: maximum 80% ground floor area2
• Exceptions may be granted by the director provided that an entry courtyard with a minimum depth of 25’,
landscaping, and seating amenities are provided on the
ground level at grade, or other comparable public
amenities are provided
Lot Coverage 75% maximum
Parking
• 40’ minimum setback for surface parking
• Subgrade parking may match building setbacks
• 5’ maximum height above grade for subgrade parking
structure
• 1 covered space per studio
• 1.5 covered spaces per 1br / 2br
• 2 covered spaces per 3br+
• No parking minimums for sites within 0.5 mile of major transit per State Law (AB 2097)
Landscaping and
Open Space
• 10% minimum lot area public and/or private open space • 10% minimum lot area landscaping
NOTES:
1 Lot is smaller than minimum lot size per zoning.
2 Not applicable on lots less than 60’ wide.
155’
52’

WALNUT ST

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 573
7 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY 0 40’20’
ODS • RECOMMENDATIONS | 750 WALNUT ST. TEST-FIT: Refined Concept

WALNUT ST
2nd-3rd Floors
Parking
18 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Garage
Entry
T
4th-5th Floors
T
Mech. /
Elec.
3-level tandem
stackers w/ pit Circulation
Service
Studio
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom

PROGRAM SUMMARY
Building Height 5 stories, ±60’ (Type V, 4-over-1)
Unit Type Amount % Mix Avg Unit Size
Studio 6 units 33% 437 sf
1 bedroom 6 units 33% 587 sf
2 bedroom 4 units 22% 983 sf
3 bedroom 2 units 12% 1,035 sf
TOTAL 18 units (97 dua)
Residential 13,500 sf
Circulation / Service 6,922 sf
Parking 3,979 sf (18 spaces, 1.0 space per unit)
TOTAL 24,401 sf
Allowable
building
envelope
60’ height limit
Test-Fit Refinements:
• No FAR limit for residential use - allows for larger units within 5-story height limit • Reduced stepbacks from 10’ to 6’
• No parking minimum, but achieves 1:1 parking ratio using stackers • 18 units, nearly max density
• Ground-floor podium parking using 3-level stackers

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 574
1 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY ODS • RECOMMENDATIONS | Rear Transitions Study - Mixed-Use (MU) Existing Standards
• REAR SETBACK: 30’ minimum
• REAR HEIGHT:
- 40’ within 50’ of RS district
- 30’ within 40’ of RS district
• REAR STEPBACKS: 10’ minimum
±482 - 642
new housing units

EL CAMINO REAL
MU-N-40
MU-N-50
MU-DC-100

SAN CARLOS AVE
• ±57 lots
• ±14.7 acres
• Avg. density range 33 to 44 dua
• ±482 - 642 new housing units
Proposed Standards Option A
• REAR SETBACK: 20’ minimum
• REAR HEIGHT: 28’ on rear setback line
• REAR STEPBACKS: 6’ minimum
73 - 96 more units
(15% increase)
Proposed Standards Option B
• REAR SETBACK: 15’ minimum
• REAR HEIGHT: 28’ on rear setback line
• REAR STEPBACKS: 6’ minimum
Study of Rear Transition Standards from Mixed-Use (MU) to Single Family Residential (RS) Districts
METHODOLOGY:
• Located all MU-N-40, MU-N-50, MU-DC-100 lots with rear adjacencies to RS districts (see map) • Tallied areas of all affected MU lots
• Applied allowable density range per each lot’s zoning standard to generate a unit count range • Created test-fit of selected prototype site following current zoning standards • Created test-fit showing alternate rear setback, rear height, and rear stepbacks • Compared results to generate average percentage increase in residential building area • Applied average percentage residential building area increase to unit count range 97 - 128 more units
(20% increase)
Outline of building
following existing
standards
Outline of building
following existing
standards

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 575
2 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY ODS • RECOMMENDATIONS | Rear Transitions Study - Multifamily (RM)

EL CAMINO REAL
RM-59
RM-100

SAN CARLOS AVE
• ±43 lots
• ±10.1 acres
• Avg. density range 56 to 75 dua
• ±568 - 751 new housing units
Existing Standards
• REAR SETBACK: 20’ minimum
• REAR HEIGHT (RM-59):
- 40’ within 50’ of RS district
- 30’ within 40’ of RS district
• REAR HEIGHT (RM-100):
- 50’ within 50’ of RS district
- 40’ within 40’ of RS district
• REAR STEPBACKS: 10’ minimum
±568 - 751
new housing units
Proposed Standards Option A
• REAR SETBACK: 20’ minimum
• REAR HEIGHT: 28’ on rear setback line
• REAR STEPBACKS: 6’ minimum
56 - 75 more units
(10% increase)
Proposed Standards Option B
• REAR SETBACK: 15’ minimum
• REAR HEIGHT: 28’ on rear setback line
• REAR STEPBACKS: 6’ minimum
Study of Rear Transition Standards from Multifamily (RM) to Single Family Residential (RS) Districts
METHODOLOGY:
• Located all RM-59 and RM-100 lots with rear adjacencies to RS districts (see map) • Tallied areas of all affected RM lots
• Applied allowable density range per each lot’s zoning standard to generate a unit count range • Created test-fit of selected prototype site following current zoning standards • Created test-fit showing alternate rear setback, rear height, and rear stepbacks • Compared results to generate average percentage increase in residential building area • Applied average percentage residential building area increase to unit count range Outline of building
following existing
standards
Outline of building
following existing
standards
85 - 112 more units
(15% increase)

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 576
1 SAN CARLOS, CA | AuguSt 19, 2025 | CItY OF SAN C ARLOS ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR StuD Y FOR MIXED-uSE SItE S | StuD Y S uMMAR Y 58 El Camino Real
MU-NB-120; 7,127 sf lot
997 E San Carlos Ave
MU-N-40; 7,500 sf lot
969-971 Laurel St
MU-N-50; 6,000 sf lot
1348 Laurel St
MU-N-40; 8,212 sf lot
1569-1575 Laurel St
MU-SB-100; 5,000 sf lot

EL CAMINO REAL
LAuREL S
t

E SAN CARLOS AVE

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
In conjunction with the revised Objective Design Standards, the City seeks to select an allowable range of required commercial ground-floor space for mixed-use projects on small lots. The range only applies to mixed-use buildings with commercial (or other active uses) on the ground floor and residential or other uses above. For projects that are 100% commercial, the original FAR of 3.0 still applies.

The commercial FAR range will accommodate uses such as small coffee shops occupying a small part of a ground floor to larger commercial uses like stores, restaurants, or maker spaces that occupy most of the ground floor. The previously recommended range of 0.1 to 0.3 can work for small commercial spaces, but is too small for large spaces that might occupy most of the ground floor. This study will establish a range of commercial FAR that is both feasible for development and contributes to the active street environment of San Carlos.

METHODOLOGY
Five sites were selected by the City representing a range of small sites (shown on map). The collection of sites offer variety in location around the City, lot dimensions, adjacent uses, and mixed-use zone types in order to provide a comprehensive recommendation for an optimal commercial FAR range.

For each site, two versions of a typical mixed-use building were laid out with ground-floor commercial and residential above. The first version provided a small commercial program, residential-serving circulation, service, and garage parking, while the second version maximized the ground-floor commercial program, and provided minimal residential circulation and service spaces, with no garage parking.

FINDINGS
Key findings include:
• Average commercial FAR with smaller commercial program = 0.21 • Average commercial FAR with larger commercial program = 0.48 VMWP recommends adjusting the previous range of 0.1 to 0.3 commercial FAR to 0.1 to 0.7 commercial FAR. This range accommodates smaller and larger spaces than those tested for the study, and should adequately serve most proposed mixed-use projects in the future.

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 577
2 SAN CARLOS, CA | AuguSt 19, 2025 | CItY OF SAN C ARLOS 0 30’15’
ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR StuD Y FOR MIXED-uSE SItE S | 58 EL CAMINO REAL Parking
5 spaces
trash
Lobby
Commercial
±1,700 sf
garage
Entry

EL CAMINO REAL
LAuREL St
Commercial
±3,779 sf
20’ minimum setback from
curb along El Camino Real
15’ minimum setback from
curb along Laurel Street
150’
50’
trash
Lobby

EL CAMINO REAL
LAuREL St
20’ minimum setback from
curb along El Camino Real
15’ minimum setback from
curb along Laurel Street
150’
50’
Smaller Commercial Program:
• MU-NB-120
• 7,127sf lot (50’ x 150’)
• 0.24 FAR shown (1,700 sf)
• 5 resident parking stalls
Larger Commercial Program:
• MU-NB-120
• 7,127sf lot (50’ x 150’)
• 0.53 FAR shown (3,779 sf)
• No parking provided
Bikes

0.1 FAR

0.3 FAR
Bikes
Commercial
Residential
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Garage Parking
Upper Floor Plans

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 578
3 SAN CARLOS, CA | AuguSt 19, 2025 | CItY OF SAN C ARLOS 0 30’15’
ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR StuD Y FOR MIXED-uSE SItE S | 997 EASt S AN CARLOS AVEN uE Parking
6 spaces
trash
Lobby
Commercial
±1,418 sf
garage
Entry
BAYPORt A VE

E SAN CARLOS AVE
20’ minimum setback from RS
(single family) zone
Commercial
±3,180 sf
150’
50’
trash
Lobby
BAYPORt A VE

E SAN CARLOS AVE
20’ minimum setback from RS
(single family) zone
150’
50’
Smaller Commercial Program:
• MU-N-40
• 7,500 sf lot (50’ x 150’)
• 0.19 FAR shown (1,418 sf)
• 6 resident parking stalls
Larger Commercial Program:
• MU-N-40
• 7,500 sf lot (50’ x 150’)
• 0.42 FAR shown (3,180 sf)
• No parking provided
Bikes

0.1 FAR

0.3 FAR
Commercial
Residential
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Garage Parking
Upper Floor Plans

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 579
4 SAN CARLOS, CA | AuguSt 19, 2025 | CItY OF SAN C ARLOS 0 30’15’
ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR StuD Y FOR MIXED-uSE SItE S | 969-971 LAuREL StREEt Smaller Commercial Program:
• MU-N-50
• 6,000 sf lot (50’ x 120’)
• 0.26 FAR shown (1,562 sf)
• 4 resident parking stalls
LAuREL St
Parking
4 spaces
trash
Lobby
Commercial
±1,562 sf
garage
Entry
Larger Commercial Program:
• MU-N-50
• 6,000 sf lot (50’ x 120’)
• 0.57 FAR shown (3,423 sf)
• No parking provided
PuBLIC ALLEY
Commercial
±3,423 sf
15’ minimum setback from
curb along Laurel Street
50’
120’
LAuREL St
trash
Lobby
PuBLIC ALLEY
15’ minimum setback from
curb along Laurel Street
50’
120’
Bikes

0.1 FAR

0.3 FAR
Bikes
Commercial
Residential
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Garage Parking
Upper Floor Plans

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 580
5 SAN CARLOS, CA | AuguSt 19, 2025 | CItY OF SAN C ARLOS 0 30’15’
ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR StuD Y FOR MIXED-uSE SItE S | 1348 LAuREL StREEt

61.5’
133.5’
Smaller Commercial Program:
• MU-N-40
• 8,212 sf lot (61.5’ x 133.5’)
• 0.12 FAR shown (954 sf)
• 3 resident parking stalls
LAuREL St
Parking
3 spaces
trash
Lobby
Commercial
±954 sf
garage
Entry
Larger Commercial Program:
• MU-N-40
• 8,212 sf lot (61.5’ x 133.5’)
• 0.37 FAR shown (3,050 sf)
• No parking provided
Commercial
±3,050 sf
20’ minimum setback from RS
(single family) zone
15’ minimum setback from
curb along Laurel Street

61.5’
133.5’
LAuREL St
trash
Lobby
20’ minimum setback from RS
(single family) zone
15’ minimum setback from
curb along Laurel StreetBikes
Bikes

0.1 FAR

0.3 FAR
Commercial
Residential
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Garage Parking
Upper Floor Plans

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 581
6 SAN CARLOS, CA | AuguSt 19, 2025 | CItY OF SAN C ARLOS 0 30’15’
ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR StuD Y FOR MIXED-uSE SItE S | 1569-1575 LAuREL StREEt 50’
100’
Smaller Commercial Program:
• MU-SB-100
• 5,000 sf lot (50’ x 100’)
• 0.23 FAR shown (1,144 sf)
• 3 resident parking stalls
PuBLIC ALLEY
LAuREL St
Parking
3 spaces
trash
Lobby
Commercial
±1,144 sf
garage
Entry
Larger Commercial Program:
• MU-SB-100
• 5,000 sf lot (50’ x 100’)
• 0.52 FAR shown (2,579 sf)
• No parking provided
15’ minimum setback from
curb along Laurel Street
50’
100’
PuBLIC ALLEY
LAuREL St
trash
Lobby
Commercial
±2,579 sf
15’ minimum setback from
curb along Laurel Street

0.1 FAR

0.3 FARBikes
Bikes
Commercial
Residential
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Garage Parking
Upper Floor Plans

12.a
September 08, 2025
Packet Pg. 582
Attachment 5

FINDINGS

18.35.080 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 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.

12.a
September 08, 2025 Packet Pg. 583
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.

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 within the General Plan 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.”
-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

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 584

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

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 585

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.

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 proposed 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 minimizes impacts and compatibility conflicts. The proposed amendments are consistent with and implement the Goals, Policies and Actions of the 2030 General Plan and as such

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 586

promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 587

Residential Multifamily and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards (RM/MU ODS) 1 MU-D-120
MU-DC-100
MU-N-40
MU-N-50
MU-N-120
MU-NB-120
MU-SA
MU-SB-100
MU-SB-120
MU-SC-120
RM-59
RM-100
N
Attachment 6:

San Carlos Zoning Map showing RM/MU ODS applicable zoning districts

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 588

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

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 589

12.a
September 08, 2025

Packet Pg. 590