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 staff report and with the conditions in the Draft
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 587
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. STUDY SESSION
a. Study 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.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions.
Vice Chair Clements wanted to know the logic behind having one articulation standard for multifamily 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.
Chair 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.
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 588
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, eliminating 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 reduce 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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 589
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 590
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Community Workshop #3
Meeting Summary, April 26, 2023
1 Summary Document #7
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
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 MixedUse 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 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.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Development Standards – Open Space
6 • MIG presented additional standards for
open spaces to support the current
transitional standards in the Housing
Element.
• Support for open spaces, and
courtyards that are open to the public.
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.
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.
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.
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.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Other Comments
11 • Create more objective standards.
• Create less prescriptive standards.
• Limit the size of big buildings.
• Define the minimum set of standards
that encourages good design.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3 - MEETING SUMMARY
Questions and Answers
12 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]
1 OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Response summary and analysis
of results from 420 participants
COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
cityofsancarlos.org/designstandards
March 20, 2023
Summary Document 9.a #8
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 603
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?
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 604
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:
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 605
4 In your current home, do you:
How long have you lived in San Carlos?
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 606
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 happy 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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 607
6 What San Carlos neighborhood
do you live in?
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 608
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.
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 609
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 Ave
Brittan Ave
Elm St
Club Dr
Melendy Dr
Beverly Dr
Alameda de las Pulgas
Holly St
Industrial Rd
El Camino Real Howard Ave
Old County Rd
San Carlos Ave
Cordilleras Ave
Cedar St
Bayshore Fwy
Arguelo Park
Burton Park
Big Canyon Park
Eaton Park
Highland Park
Heather Park
Crestview Park
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 610
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?
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 611
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 612
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 613
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 OVERDEVELOPMENT!
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 614
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 615
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 616
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 617
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.
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 618
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?
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 619
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 620
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 621
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.
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!
Front design with mixed materials is really really ugly. Way too many stories.
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 622
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 623
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 624
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?
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 625
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 626
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 627
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 628
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.
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 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 mixeduse with living space above retail.
ADDITIONAL DESIGN
COMMENTS
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 629
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 630
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?
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 631
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 632
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 633
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 offstreet 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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 634
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 635
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.
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 636
85 MULTIFAMILY
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.).
Parcel boundaries are approximated
Non-Residential
Mixed Use
Multifamily
Single Family
City of San Carlos
Residential Zoning Districts
Crestview Dr
Eaton Ave
Brittan Ave
Elm St
Club Dr
Melendy Dr
Beverly Dr
Alameda de las Pulgas
Holly St
Industrial Rd
El Camino Real Howard Ave
Old County Rd
San Carlos Ave
Cordilleras Ave
Cedar St
Bayshore Fwy
Arguelo Park
Burton Park
Big Canyon Park
Eaton Park
Highland Park
Heather Park
Crestview Park
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 637
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?
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 638
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 639
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 640
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 641
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.
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 Messy!
More efficient use of the building footprint would add more occupancy.
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 642
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 neighborfriendly.
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 643
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?
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 644
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 645
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 646
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.
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
May make this take, but it’s nice
Mixing building styles helps with breaking up the mass of the building.
Mixture of architectural styles is not appealing
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 647
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.
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 648
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!
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 649
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?
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 650
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 651
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-ofplace. 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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 652
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 653
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 654
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 cookiecutter. 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 designwise.
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 655
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
Community Workshop #2
Meeting Summary, October 19, 2022
1 Summary Document #10
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
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 MixedUse residential development. • The City team included:
– Andrea Mardesich
– Rucha Dande
– 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 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 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 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 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 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 landscape
requirements.
• Include pocket parks and balconies.
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 over
nearby homes.
• Promote solar roofs.
• Encourage good transitions.
• Reduce balconies near neighbors.
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.
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.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
General Questions and Comments
18 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - MEETING SUMMARY
General Questions and Comments
19 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]
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 676
MIG, Inc. 2
Maximum setback requirements are hard to meet sometimes because of the utility company requirements for above-ground vaults.
What are the challenges that developers or the community face during the approval process?
Challenging to engage the community based on the current standards and guidelines; 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-line 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. Buildings 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 frontage (due to fire aerial apparatus requirement).
Utility companies do not let designers or developers have any say in where transformers, connections go. Transformer rooms do not allow windows, can cause conflicts with design standards, and are not in the control of designer or developer.
Some design 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 after many years of initial work lead to redesign and project delays. How can current standards be improved and incorporated into the objective design standards 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. Standards 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 projects 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 comments. Would like standards that consider the context and in general “good quality” materials and design.
Give multiple options in terms of standards such as: provide window recess or at least three materials.
Allow for zero setbacks on the first two floors.
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 677
MIG, Inc. 3
Would support graywater laundry to landscape (recycled water). All electric (EV charging).
Allow rooftop decks.
Native plants and features.
Walk and 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 projects in an objective way for neighbors.
What are the unique values and characteristics of San Carlos you would like incorporated into the objective design standards?
Protecting and providing quality buildings.
Some measures of proportionality and beauty should be maintained. Diversity in product types is more important than “design aesthetic” from a subjective point of view. Creating more housing is more important than meeting building “quality.”
Shift 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 create great projects?
San Jose
Design process is reasonably efficient and not onerous, and good examples of built projects.
Recently adopted design standards and easy to work with (except for a few difficult landscape requirements which would prohibitively increase cost such as soil and tree size requirements).
Sunnyvale
Petaluma
FBC – good to work with from an architect’s perspective. San Francisco
Good standard for measuring building heights
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 678
1 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 20’ 40’
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 nonresidential 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
Packet Pg. 679
2 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 20’ 40’
ODS • EXISTING ZONING | 1562 ECR TEST-FIT: Plan Concepts
EL CAMINO REAL
Public Alley
Shops Shops
Parking
33 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Retail
±650 sf Elec. Mech. Bikes 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 Elec. Bikes 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
Packet Pg. 680
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 FAR, building could be six stories with larger units (parking uses 0.6 FAR / 12,000 sf in Option A)
- counting parking as FAR 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.
Packet Pg. 681
4 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 20’ 40’
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.
MU-N-40 Zone RS-6 Zone
ADU / SB 9 Unit
Packet Pg. 682
5 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 20’ 40’
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
Packet Pg. 683
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 FAR - 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.
Packet Pg. 684
7 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 20’ 40’
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 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+
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
Packet Pg. 685
8 SAN CARLOS, CA | MAY 3, 2024
0 20’ 40’
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 Floors Option 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
Driveway
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
Packet Pg. 686
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.
Packet Pg. 687
1 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY
0 20’ 40’
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 nonresidential 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
Packet Pg. 688
2 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY
0 20’ 40’
ODS • RECOMMENDATIONS | 1562 ECR TEST-FIT: Refined Concept
EL CAMINO REAL
Public Alley
Parking
64 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Retail
±800 sf Elec. Bikes
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
Packet Pg. 689
3 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY
0 20’ 40’
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
Packet Pg. 690
4 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY
0 20’ 40’
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.
MU-N-40 Zone RS-6 Zone
Packet Pg. 691
5 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY
0 20’ 40’
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
Packet Pg. 692
6 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY
0 20’ 40’
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
Packet Pg. 693
7 SAN CARLOS, CA | JULY 18, 2024 | GOOD CITY COMPANY
0 20’ 40’
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
Packet Pg. 694
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
Packet Pg. 695
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)
Packet Pg. 696
1 SAN CARLOS, CA | August 19, 2025 | CITY OF SAN CARLOS ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR STUDY FOR MIXED-USE SITES | STUDY SUMMARY 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 ST
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.
Packet Pg. 697
2 SAN CARLOS, CA | August 19, 2025 | CITY OF SAN CARLOS 0 15’ 30’
ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR STUDY FOR MIXED-USE SITES | 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
Packet Pg. 698
3 SAN CARLOS, CA | August 19, 2025 | CITY OF SAN CARLOS 0 15’ 30’
ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR STUDY FOR MIXED-USE SITES | 997 EAST SAN CARLOS AVENUE Parking
6 spaces
Trash
Lobby
Commercial
±1,418 sf
Garage
Entry
BAYPOR
T AVE
E SAN CARLOS AVE
20’ minimum setback from RS
(single family) zone
Commercial
±3,180 sf
150’
50’
Trash
Lobby
BAYPOR
T AVE
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
Packet Pg. 699
4 SAN CARLOS, CA | August 19, 2025 | CITY OF SAN CARLOS 0 15’ 30’
ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR STUDY FOR MIXED-USE SITES | 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
Packet Pg. 700
5 SAN CARLOS, CA | August 19, 2025 | CITY OF SAN CARLOS 0 15’ 30’
ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR STUDY FOR MIXED-USE SITES | 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 Street
Bikes
Bikes
0.1 FAR
0.3 FAR
Commercial
Residential
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Garage Parking
Upper Floor Plans
Packet Pg. 701
6 SAN CARLOS, CA | August 19, 2025 | CITY OF SAN CARLOS 0 15’ 30’
ODS • COMMERCIAL FAR STUDY FOR MIXED-USE SITES | 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 FAR Bikes
Bikes
Commercial
Residential
Resident Commons
Circulation
Service
Garage Parking
Upper Floor Plans
Packet Pg. 702
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-SB100 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 multifamily 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 highquality residential development in San Carlos and comply with State objectives and law.
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 703
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 stepbacks 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:
o Policy 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.”
o Policy LU-8.2 “Ensure that new development is sensitive to the character of adjacent structures and the immediate neighborhood”; o 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 between 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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 704
sufficiently demonstrate a project’s compliance with new objective design standards.”
o 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”;
o Policy LU-8.7 “Require new residential development to provide outdoor areas and landscaping or native vegetation, or tree canopy to enhance the surroundings”;
o Policy 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”;
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 singlefamily 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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 705
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”, 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 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 singlefamily 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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 706
promote the growth of the city in an orderly manner and promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 707
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 Packet Pg. 708
September 22, 2025
9a
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
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 709
9.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 710
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 22, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Appropriating an Additional $300,000 from the General Capital Fund (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance to the Park-in-Lieu Fund (Fund 27) Project C2221; Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement for Products and Services with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $251,773 for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as Required Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the North Crestview Park Master Plan to Consider Relocation of a Rare Plant Species; and Authorizing the Spending of Contingency in the Amount of $48,227 for a Not-to-Exceed Contract Amount of $300,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend that the City Council provide direction on the North Crestview Park Master Plan CEQA services.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
An additional appropriation of $300,000 is necessary to prepare an EIR for the relocation of the rare plant species identified by CEQA consultants at North Crestview Park. The execution of this contract would increase the total funding allocated for the master plan process to $525,000. There are sufficient funds available in the General Capital Fund Unassigned Balance to cover this request.
Master Plan Contract with Verde, Inc. (existing contract) $225,000 Agreement with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
- Prepare Full EIR $240,273
- Adaptive Management Program (5 years) $ 11,500
Contingency (~20%) $ 48,227
Total Contract Amount $525,000
BACKGROUND:
On January 27, 2023, the City Council held its annual Strategic Planning Retreat to discuss the City’s mission, vision, and core values, review strategic goals and objectives, and consider new priority areas for the upcoming year. At this retreat, a new City Council goal, “Recreational Opportunities,” was discussed and added. One of the objectives identified under this goal was to complete a new master plan for North Crestview Park to explore additional recreational
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 711
opportunities at this site.
The City kicked off the North Crestview Park Master Plan process with the award of contract to Verde Design, Inc. (“Verde”) on August 14, 2023. Verde completed community outreach in 2024 with two in-person workshops, online surveys, and a pop-up event at the Farmers’ Market.
Following the first phase of outreach, three design options were developed based on feedback and input received from the community. Common elements of the design options included a loop trail, native planting, wind buffers, multi-use meadow, climbing zone, fitness zone, multi-use court, restroom building, shade structure, picnic tables, hillside seating, universal play area, and accessible parking.
The Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission reviewed the design options at its June 5, 2024 meeting and recommended Concept B, with the amendment to the design that a multi-use sport court should not include pickleball lines. The City Council, at its June 24, 2024 meeting, selected the recommended Concept B as its preferred design for the North Crestview Park Master Plan.
Following this direction, the Verde design team further refined the design, while the CEQA consultants conducted technical biological studies, as required under CEQA. During the site visit, the Paniculate Tarplant (Deinandra paniculata) was discovered at a central portion of the site.
This plant is on the California Rare Plant Rank list. Removing the plant would be considered a significant environmental impact.
Staff and the City Attorney met with Verde and CEQA consultants to discuss options to move forward with the plan for the park. The CEQA consultant noted that preserving the plant on-site, within a developed park, would require a 30’ protected buffer zone with no improvements or soil disturbance and maintenance of natural vegetation only. It was determined that there were three options to move forward with this plan: 1) preserve the plant in place and design park elements around it; 2) prepare an EIR with a statement of overriding considerations to relocate the plant; and 3) fold the design of the park into the current Parks Master Plan process to prioritize improvements across all parks in a more holistic manner.
Staff met with the Council subcommittee on May 13, 2025 to share the discovery and present the options. Staff recommended proceeding with Option 3 to include the design of North Crestview Park in the Parks Master Plan in order to comprehensively address and prioritize improvements and funding across all City parks. Subcommittee members expressed openness to consider redesigning the park and noted the need to discuss prioritization of funds for improvements to our park system while considering other City priorities.
All of the options were presented and discussed at the June 23, 2025 City Council meeting, where Council directed staff to move forward with the North Crestview Master Plan process as is, and to come back with a contract agreement to prepare an EIR with a statement of overriding considerations to relocate the sensitive plant and proceed with the preferred park design concept.
ANALYSIS:
The existing CEQA services under the contract agreement with Verde includes the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Due to the rarity of the tarplant (Deinadndra
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 712
paniculata), mitigation through relocation and other means is not guaranteed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, relocating the plant will result in a significant and unavoidable impact and preparation of an EIR is required. Additional tasks required to prepare the EIR as outlined in the proposal include: a Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR, Notice of Completion, Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings, Notice of Determination, and Project Management. Subconsultants under David J Powers (DJP), H.T.
Harvey & Associates, Inc., will assist with the preparation of the EIR, tarplant relocation, and longterm monitoring. Consultants have estimated the preparation of the EIR will take approximately one year to complete from authorization to proceed.
If authorized by the City Council, DJP would complete the following tasks:
Issuance of a Notice of Preparation. The notice will include a brief project description and invite interested parties to comment on the scope of the EIR. The notice is sent to the State Clearinghouse, posted at the County and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site.
Prepare the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR will be published for a 45-day review and comment period. Notice of the availability of the Draft EIR will be sent to the State Clearinghouse, posted at the County and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. Prepare the Final EIR and Response to comments. DJP will respond to each comment received and if needed, make revisions to the EIR based on comments. Prepare Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that includes all the mitigation measures that will be required to be implemented with the project. Findings for the Council’s consideration in adopting the Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Following adoption of the EIR, a Notice of Determination will be recorded at the county.
The scope of work also includes HT Harvey & Associates’ (“HT Harvey”) completion of the Biological Resources Analysis for the EIR and assistance with responses to comments. HT Harvey will also prepare the Tarweed Relocation and Monitoring Plan and monitor the relocation of the planting for a five-year period. Relocation of the plant is suggested to begin in the fall season with the harvest of mature seeds from the existing population, holding the seeds under appropriate conditions until it is ready for planting. The City will be responsible for performing site maintenance necessary to maintain the plant population (occasional weeding).
Approving this contract would bring the total cost of the North Crestview Park Master Plan process to $525,000. Should the City Council authorize the preparation of the EIR, once the EIR is adopted and master plan approved by City Council, the next step would be to prepare construction design documents. Design services, including construction support, are estimated to cost between $550,000 and $750,000. This would result in a total expenditure of between $1 million to $1.2 million to complete the master plan process and prepare bid-ready documents.
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 713
Verde consultants estimate that construction of North Crestview Park, as designed in Concept B, would cost $8 million to $10 million in today’s dollars. With 90,000 square feet of improvement area, the cost works out to be approximately $88 per square foot, nearly double what the industry is currently budgeting for other neighborhood park projects. The high cost for North Crestview Park is attributed to the grading necessary for the driveway and parking, as well as the restroom and retaining walls at the top of the site. At this time, there is not sufficient funding in the budget to begin construction in the near future, and therefore, the project is on the CIP Unfunded List.
There is no funding available at this time to construct the project; when funding becomes available, the Council may choose to amend the design of the park. Also, given the time delay between certification of the EIR and start of construction, circumstances at the site may change requiring further environmental analysis prior to the construction contract being awarded to develop the park which would add to the total cost of the project.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Adopt a Resolution appropriating an additional $300,000 from the Fund 25 Unassigned Fund Balance to Fund 27 Project C2221, authorizing the execution of an agreement for products and services with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $251,773 for the preparation of an EIR as required under CEQA for the North Crestview Park Master Plan to consider relocation of a rare plant species, and authorizing the spending of contingency in the amount of $48,227 for a not-to-exceed contract amount of $300,000; or
2. Do not adopt a Resolution; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted by:
Amy Newby, Parks & Recreation Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution
2. David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Proposal
3. North Crestview Park Preferred Plan with Tarplant Overlay
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 714
RESOLUTION NO. 2025 – ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS APPROPRIATING AN ADDITIONAL $300,000 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL FUND (FUND 25) UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TO THE PARK-IN-LIEU FUND (FUND 27) PROJECT C2221; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES WITH DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $251,773 FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) AS
REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR THE
NORTH CRESTVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN TO CONSIDER RELOCATION OF A RARE PLANT SPECIES; AND AUTHORIZING THE SPENDING OF A CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,227 FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $300,000.
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2023, the City Council held its annual Strategic Planning Retreat and added a new goal, “Recreation Services,” with an objective to complete a new North Crestview Park Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council awarded a contract with Verde Design, Inc. (“Verde”) to complete the master plan process; and
WHEREAS, community outreach for the North Crestview Park Master Plan was completed in 2024 following two in-person workshops, online surveys, and a pop-up event at the Farmers’ Market; and
WHEREAS, through community outreach, the preferred park elements included a loop trail, native planting, wind buffers, multi-use meadow, climbing zone, fitness zone, multi-use court, restroom building, shade structure, picnic tables, hillside seating, universal play area and accessible parking; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2024, the City Council selected Concept B as its preferred design for North Crestview Park; and
WHEREAS, the Verde design team continued to further refine the design, while the CEQA consultants conducted technical biological studies, as required under CEQA, and discovered Paniculate Tarplant (Deinandra paniculata), a rare plant, at a central portion of the site; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2025, staff presented to the City Council three options to consider for this project and directed staff to move forward with the North Crestview Park Master Plan process as is, and to prepare an Environmental Impact Report with a statement of overriding considerations to relocate the sensitive plant; and
WHEREAS, the existing contract with Verde included the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and therefore, an additional scope of work and new contract is required to move forward; and
WHEREAS, due to the rarity of the tarplant (Deinadndra paniculata), mitigation through relocation and other means is not guaranteed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and relocating the plant will result in a significant and unavoidable impact and preparation of an EIR is required; and
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 715
WHEREAS, the full proposal from David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. shall include a Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR, Notice of Completion, Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings, Notice of Determination, and Project Management as well as tarplant relocation and long-term monitoring; and
WHEREAS, an additional appropriation of $300,000 from the General Capital Fund (Fund 25) Unassigned Fund Balance to the Park-in-Lieu Fund (Fund 27) Project C2221 is necessary to cover the additional costs to complete associated tasks; and WHEREAS, the additional scope of services will increase the project budget to $525,000 for the North Crestview Park Master Plan services; and
WHEREAS, additional funding allocations will be required to prepare construction design documents as well as to construct the park; and
WHEREAS, at this time, there is not sufficient funding in the budget to begin construction in the near future, and therefore the North Crestview Park project is on the CIP Unfunded List.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby appropriates an additional $300,000 from Fund 25 Unassigned Fund Balance to Fund 27 Project C2221; authorizes the execution of an agreement for products and services with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $251,773 for the preparation of an EIR as required under CEQA for the North Crestview Park Master Plan to consider relocation of a rare plant species; and authorizing the spending of contingency in the amount of $48,227 for a not-to-exceed contract amount of $300,000.
* * * * *
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 22nd day of September 2025, by the following vote:
________________________________
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 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 716
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com David J. Powers & Associates
July 24, 2025
Derek McKee
Verde Design, Inc.
2455 The Alameda
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Sent via email to: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Amendment #3 to the Scope and Budget for the N. Crestview Park Master Plan Project Dear Mr. McKee:
This amendment request to David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. (DJP&A) scope and budget for the N.
Crestview Park Master Plan Project is in response to Verde and the City’s request for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) due a significant environmental impact that was not previously anticipated, assistance with relocation and on-going monitoring of tarweed plants on-site, and assistance with regulatory permits, as described in further detail below.
Our existing scope of work includes preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
As previously noted in emails from Carolyn in 2024, the San Diego tarplant (Deinandra paniculata), a special-status plant, was identified on the project site. Preservation of the plant in its current location would conflict with the Council-approved concept design for the park. Due to the rarity of the plant this far north, mitigation through relocation and other means is not guaranteed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project would result in a significant unavoidable impact and preparation of an EIR would be required. The additional tasks required to prepare an EIR for this project are described below, as well as the budget amendment request to complete the additional tasks.
Additional Tasks
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
• Notice of Preparation. DJP&A will prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for circulation by the City of San Carlos. The NOP will include a brief project description, project location map, and discussion of potential environmental effects of the project. This scope includes DJP&A attendance at one public EIR scoping meeting for the project. This scope assumes that the City will file the NOP with the County of San Mateo and DJP&A will file the NOP with the State Clearinghouse.
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 717
July 24, 2025 N. Crestview Park Master Plan Project
Amendment #3
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com David J. Powers & Associates
The text of the EIR will incorporate relevant issues raised in the responses to the NOP received during the 30-day NOP circulation period.
• Draft EIR. In addition to the required sections in an Initial Study (project description, environmental setting, discussion of environmental impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts) the CEQA Guidelines requires that EIRs include several additional sections (introduction, summary, discussion of cumulative impacts, alternatives, growth inducing impacts, significant, unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes). DJP&A will prepare an EIR with all of the required EIR sections. This amendment assumes that Verde and the City will coordinate and collaborate with DJP&A to determine a reasonable range of alternatives for the project that would avoid and/or lessen the project’s significant impact to the San Diego tarplant. Upon completion of the Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR), DJP&A will submit an electronic copy of the document to the City for review and comment. This scope of work assumes two rounds of review of the ADEIR by the City. DJP&A will finalize the document based on City comments and provide the City with up to five hard copies of the Draft EIR for public distribution and a PDF of the document for posting on the City’s website. • Notice of Completion. DJP&A will prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC), in accordance with the CEQA and City of San Carlos requirements. The NOC will include a brief description of the project, the project location, and will state where copies of the Draft EIR are available for review. DJP&A will submit an electronic draft of the NOC to the City for review and comment. DJP&A will revise and finalize the NOC based on City comments. DJP&A will upload the NOC and Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse on behalf of the City. This scope assumes that the City will handle noticing and prepare and submit a Notice of Availability to the County Clerk. • Final EIR. Upon completion of the 45-day Draft EIR circulation period, DJP&A will prepare an Administrative Draft Final EIR (ADFEIR). The Final EIR will contain the following:
o List of persons and agencies who commented on the Draft EIR; o Responses to comments on the Draft EIR;
o Revisions to the EIR text, as necessary; and
o Copies of letters received on the Draft EIR.
This scope of work assumes up to 30 hours of Principal Project Manager time and 60 hours of Project Manager time to complete the Final EIR/responses to comments. If additional effort is required to complete the Final EIR and respond to the comments, it can be completed on a time and materials basis.
An electronic copy of the ADFEIR will be submitted to City for review. This scope includes one round of review of the ADFEIR by the City. The document will be revised and finalized per the comments received, and DJP&A will provide up to five
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 718
July 24, 2025 N. Crestview Park Master Plan Project
Amendment #3
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com David J. Powers & Associates
hard copies of the Final EIR to the City for public distribution. DJP&A will also provide the City with a PDF of the document for posting on the City’s website. This scope assumes that DJP&A will transmit the Final EIR to the State Clearinghouse on behalf of the City.
• Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program. DJP&A will prepare a draft Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. The MMRP will summarize the mitigation measures identified, when mitigation measures will be implemented, who will be responsible for implementation, and who will provide oversight. DJP&A will submit a draft of the MMRP for the City’s use prior to the project hearing. This amendment assumes the City will finalize the MMRP as appropriate.
• Findings. Although we are not attorneys and do not prepare legal findings, DJP&A will assist City Staff and the City Attorney in compiling information from the EIR for findings required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, if requested to do so. • Notice of Determination. DJP&A will prepare a Notice of Determination (NOD), in accordance with CEQA and City of San Carlos requirements. The NOD will include a brief project description, date of project approval, determination of the project’s environmental effects, mitigation measures and conditions of approval, statement whether overriding considerations were adopted, and the location where the Final EIR and record of project approval may be examined.
DJP&A will submit an electronic copy of the draft NOD for the City’s review. This amendment assumes one round of review of the draft NOD by the City. Based on comments received from the City, DJP&A will revise and finalize the NOD. An electronic copy of the finalized NOD will be submitted to the City. This scope assumes that the City will file the NOD with the County of San Mateo and DJP&A will file the NOD with the State Clearinghouse.
• Project Management. Preparation of the EIR and management of the tarplant relocation and monitoring will require additional project management on the part of DJP&A to coordinate with subconsultants, Verde, and the City. In addition, our existing scope assumed a total of four hours of Principal time and 12 hours of Project Manager time for project management and coordination. To date, we have spent three hours of Principal time and 40 hours of Project Manager time coordinating with Verde, the City, and subconsultants regarding the results of the cultural and biological resources reports, the need for air quality and noise technical studies, and the proposed concept plan. Therefore, we are requesting seven additional hours of Principal Project Manager for management of the EIR and tarplant relocation and 51 additional hours of Project Manager time for management of the EIR and to recoup the additional project management time we have already spent beyond our existing scope.
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 719
July 24, 2025 N. Crestview Park Master Plan Project
Amendment #3
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com David J. Powers & Associates
H. T. Harvey & Associates, Inc.
• EIR Assistance. H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc. (HTH), under contract to DJP&A, will complete a Biological Resources Analysis that accounts for impacts to the San Diego tarplant and assist with responses to comments on the Draft EIR. Our existing scope does not include the time necessary to prepare an impact analysis and mitigation measures for the highly unusual occurrence of San Diego tarplant on the project site. In addition, because the existing scope assumed preparation of an Initial Study for the project, technical responses to comments regarding biological resources were not assumed. This amendment request includes additional budget to cover the time required to evaluate impacts to the San Diego tarplant in the Biological Resources Analysis, coordinate with the project team to determine a reasonable range of alternatives to avoid and/or reduce the project’s impacts to the San Diego tarplant, and respond to technical comments regarding biological resources. Up to eight hours is assumed for coordination on alternatives and up to 50 hours is assumed for responses to comments. • Tarweed Relocation and Monitoring. HTH will prepare a Salvage, Relocation, Management, and Monitoring Plan (SRMMP) for San Diego tarplant. This task includes time to prepare the plan and coordinate with the City to locate, characterize, and select an appropriate relocation site, as well as to coordinate with species’ experts with greater experience with the species from its typical range in Southern California. This scope assumes that the City will facilitate identifying lands that the City owns, controls, or could obtain permission to use for establishment and management of the new population.
Ideally, these lands should be very close to the locations of the existing population (e.g., on the adjacent site) to provide the best chance that conditions are suitable for establishment of a new self-sustaining population of San Diego tarplant.
Beginning in Fall 2025, HTH will harvest mature seed from the existing population and hold it under appropriate conditions until it is ready for planting. Following the selection of the relocation site, HTH will work with the City to prepare the relocation site for planting. We have assumed that if any site preparation beyond weed-whacking (such as mowing, grubbing, or tilling) is necessary, the City will provide the labor and equipment required to prepare the site for planting under direction of HTH. Once the site is prepared, HTH will apply the seed to the relocation site per the SRMMP and prepare a memo documenting the seed harvest, site preparation, and relocation planting “as built”.
As to be required by the SRMMP, HTH will monitor the success of the relocation planting for five years following seeding to document mitigation success. This scope assumes that the City will perform the minimal site maintenance necessary to maintain the plant population (e.g., occasional weeding).
No consultation with regulatory agencies is required to proceed with the relocation of the San Diego tarplant population. Therefore, no permitting or coordination with state or federal government or resource agency staff is included in this scope.
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 720
July 24, 2025 N. Crestview Park Master Plan Project
Amendment #3
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com David J. Powers & Associates
• Optional Adaptive Management. If desired by the City, HTH can perform necessary maintenance (weeding) of the site for an additional cost.
Estimated Cost
The total estimated cost to complete the additional work is $240,273. A breakdown of the cost for the additional work and optional task is provided in the table below.
A. Budget Amendment #3 $240,273
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. ($60,228)
• NOP and Scoping Meeting Attendance, Draft EIR, NOC
• Final EIR, MMRP, Findings, and NOD
• Project Management
H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc.
• EIR Assistance ($31,545)
• Tarweed Relocation and Monitoring ($148,500)
B. Existing Contract Amount $96,964
Total Contract Amount with Budget Amendment # 3 (A+B) $337,237 C. Optional Adaptive Management $11,500
Total Contract Amount with Budget Amendment # 3 + Optional Task (A+B+C) $348,737 Note: Subconsultant costs and select reimbursables include our standard 15% administrative fee.
Please contact Carolyn Mogollon ((408) 454-3437; [email protected]) or me should you have questions regarding this proposed amendment to our contract or require any additional information. If this amendment request is acceptable to Verde, it can be attached to your standard change order request.
Sincerely,
Kristy L. Weis
Vice President, Principal Project Manager
Direct: (408) 454-3428
Email: [email protected]
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 721
N. Crestview Park Amendment 3
Final Audit Report 2025-07-24
Created: 2025-07-24
By: Carolyn Mogollon ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAjDMS1w2_bohQDzVAqMTqrRM3YjRzD8fU "N. Crestview Park Amendment 3" History
Document created by Carolyn Mogollon ([email protected]) 2025-07-24 - 8:13:45 PM GMT
Document emailed to Kristy Weis ([email protected]) for signature 2025-07-24 - 8:13:49 PM GMT
Email viewed by Kristy Weis ([email protected])
2025-07-24 - 8:23:25 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Kristy Weis ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2025-07-24 - 8:34:09 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed.
2025-07-24 - 8:34:09 PM GMT
10.a
September 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 722
Tarplants Tarplants Protection
Buffer
Protection
Buffer 30'-0" 30'-0"