Debate surrounding home-size rules wearing on in San Carlos

In reviewing the sets of recommendations set forth by both groups, councilmembers considered how the rules might intersect with each other and with real estate market trends as well as their effect on homeowners’ ability to build homes to meet their needs. Because the proposed changes in the city’s ordinance require City Council approval, looming over the discussion is the upcoming election Nov. 6, which will determine which three of the five candidate vying for seats on the City Council will replace Mayor Bob Grassilli, Vice Mayor Cameron Johnson and Councilman Matt Grocott when their terms end at the end of the year.

Though councilmembers opted not to take action on the sets of recommendations before them, they asked members of both the committee and the commission also present at Monday’s meeting how they reached their recommendations. Acknowledging the complexity of the planning process and the lengthy discussions preceding the council’s Monday meeting, Councilman Mark Olbert noted the challenge of balancing the diverse set of interests.

“This is a very complex issue,” he said. “Whatever we come up with nobody is going to like it completely.”

Collection of experts

Comprised of residents as well as professionals with backgrounds in real estate, architecture and home building, the Single-Family House Advisory Committee, or SHAC, met six times since the summer of 2017 to study the concerns raised by residents about the effect of large home projects on the city’s small lots. Following the SHAC’s meetings, a set of proposed changes outlining “form-based” parameters for “main body” and “wing” components of a house were released in May in an effort to reduce the visual impact of new home projects but also afford homeowners flexibility in how they choose to expand.

The Planning Commission began reviewing the form-based approach starting in May and ultimately held four meetings to discuss the new rules, increasingly favoring use of more numeric restrictions on home size and mass in response to concerns the “form-based” standards wouldn’t be enough to curb large home-building projects.

Though commissioners agreed to keep the 50 percent lot coverage maximum, they agreed after a lengthy discussion to include in their recommendations a maximum floor area ratio, or FAR. Set at 1,000 square feet plus 35 percent of the home’s lot area or 50 percent of the lot area, whichever is greater, the commission’s recommendation also included other changes aimed at striking a balance between the needs of homeowners hoping to build on small lots and neighbors of new projects. Among them were a provision to exempt from a home’s lot coverage of up to 200 square feet of space dedicated to front porches and a provision to exempt from a home’s FAR calculation basements that are no more than 3 feet above grade and completely under a home’s footprint.

Good Growth San Carlos

Councilmembers also considered the views of the volunteer group Good Growth San Carlos, led by residents Brent Cowan and Christian Vescia, who also served on the SHAC. Advocating for a maximum FAR in line with other neighboring cities, representatives of the group have voiced support for tightening the rules proposed by both the SHAC and the Planning Commission to ensure the new standards address the concerns of neighbors of large home projects and those passing by them in their surrounding neighborhoods.

Though he acknowledged the form-based approach could have some merits, Vescia expressed concern that the city’s previous proposals didn’t include discussions of FAR until early September, even after several residents spoke up in favor of it in the months leading up to Monday’s discussion. Vescia and Cowan voiced support for a maximum FAR closer to the 0.53 median they calculated for Belmont, San Mateo, Burlingame, Menlo Park and Redwood City, noting the what they calculated for home projects in the city exceeded 0.90 in some cases.

“Residents have stood up over months and across different channels and expressed clear interest in having standards aligned with peer communities,” said Vescia.

Though councilmembers consider the group’s data, they also weighed the high volume of small lots in the city, which Community Development Director Al Savay said are concentrated in the flatter parts of the city near downtown and close to schools and parks. Of the 7,957 lots in the city, Savay said some 63 percent of them are 60 feet wide or less.

Having bought his house on Elm Street some six years ago when he and his wife had one infant child, Mike Garibaldi said his family of five is now outgrowing the house they live in on a 4,800-square-foot lot. Garibaldi, who is currently working on a home project of his own, advocated for study of the distribution of lot sizes in neighboring cities when comparing their FARs to the maximum to be set for San Carlos.

“We want to be here forever,” he said. “The only way for us to do that given what’s been going on in the real estate market is to go up.”

Garibaldi also encouraged councilmembers to consider the grace period before any changes they approve go into effect, noting the high cost of hiring local architects and the investment homeowners are required to put into remodel and renovation designs.

Acknowledging the concerns residents have raised about the privacy of their homes, Johnson wondered if the rules would prevent neighbors from being able to see into each other’s backyards and whether the proposed rules could and should set an expectation that neighbors shouldn’t be able to see into each other’s yards.

“Are we solving a problem that can’t be solved?” he asked. “I want to make sure we’re not setting up a false expectation.”

Causes, next steps

Johnson was joined by Olbert in a hope to better understand how the real estate market could have also played a role in the uptick in large home projects residents observed in recent years, and also how the proposed changes may affect future home values in the city. Though City Manager Jeff Maltbie said staff considered the threshold at which home-size restrictions could affect home values, they also weighed data showing larger homes sell at a lower per cost basis and ultimately didn’t think the recommendations would affect home values by a large margin.

Olbert and Grocott also wondered how some of the proposed rules would intersect with existing provisions in the city’s zoning code as well as each other. Noting homeowners on the city’s east side may be limited in their ability to build two-story homes, Grocott had concerns about removing a rule allowing some homes to be built within 10 feet of a property line as long as a portion of the backyard is maintained.

Olbert also asked whether rules incentivizing homeowners to build single-story structures may clash with another proposed standard to increase the required distance between the rear property line and a home, or a rear setback, to 20 feet.

“I just would hate to sort of double down and solve the same problem twice,” he said.

Commissioners David Roof and Jim Iacoponi noted the commission’s recommendation to increase the rear setback to 20 feet was aimed at preserving backyards and space between homes, and could perhaps be revisited for home projects in which homeowners can limit structures to one story.

The council voted unanimously to extend the public hearing to its Oct. 22 meeting, when it will continue a discussion on the proposed rules.

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106