San Carlos adopts changes to home sizes

With Councilman Ron Collins, Councilman Mark Olbert served on a council subcommittee aimed at studying several recommended sets of new zoning standards after months of meetings by the Single-Family House Advisory Committee and Planning Commission. They considered restrictions on the floor area ratio, or the ratio of a building’s total floor area to its lot size, how much of a lot a home is covering, how close to the property line homes can be built and the size of the garage included in a home project among a variety of proposed changes.

As councilmembers prepared to vote on a set of recommended changes, Olbert acknowledged they would likely not satisfy any group that has weighed in so far given the complexity of the issue and high volume of input.

“We are not going to please everybody, in fact we’re probably not going to please anybody completely,” he said. “These are inherently complex issues that involve balancing a lot of competing interests.”

Collins and Olbert ultimately recommended officials establish a maximum floor area ratio, or FAR, set for lots less than 7,500 square feet at the greater of 1,100 square feet plus 35 percent of one’s lots size or 50 percent of the lot area. For lots more than 7,500 square feet in size, they proposed a maximum home size of 50 percent of the lot area, said Collins, who noted the changes are expected to result in modestly-sized homes that also represent a reduction in what is allowed under the city’s current zoning.

Their recommendation built on changes proposed by the Planning Commission, which established a maximum FAR at the greater of 1,000 square feet plus 35 percent of one’s lots size or 50 percent of the lot area. By adopting a maximum FAR and asking staff to continue working with the Planning Commission and the next City Council to scope incentives aimed at encouraging homeowners to build single-story homes as well as improvements to the design review process, Collins and Olbert were hoping to take one step toward new rules while giving the three new councilmembers to be elected Nov. 6 a chance to weigh in on them once they begin their terms.

Though Johnson acknowledged the stress residents have felt around the changing character of their neighborhoods as larger home projects have taken shape throughout the city, he said he felt the changes were driven more by the economy than adjustments to the city’s zoning rules. He suggested the option for homeowners to expand their homes has largely been available to them for some time but they haven’t had the expendable income to make those changes until recently. With Olbert and Collin’s recommendation slated to reduce the median allowable home size by more than 40 percent, Johnson wondered if the change might be too drastic as a first step.

“It may be necessary to get there but that would not be my choice for the first step,” he said. “It just seems like a bigger change than is potentially necessary.”

Councilmembers also discussed other adjustments to the city’s existing zoning standards recommended by planning commissioners, such as easing a city requirement to build a two-car garage and instead allowing homeowners to build one-car garages as long as they include a driveway that can accommodate two parked cars. They recommended the changes go into effect 180 days after the second reading of the ordinance, extending the commission’s recommendation to allow a grace period of 90 days. The council also opted to keep the required radius for noticing home projects with neighbors at 150 feet and added a requirement to put signs about the projects in the front yard of a property.

Though the Planning Commission recommended increasing the rear setback of a house, or the distance between the nearest wall of the house and its rear property line, the council opted not to make the change in an effort to preserve another provision allowing a 5-foot rear yard setback for certain homes. Councilman Matt Grocott voiced concern about how the commission’s recommended change could negatively affect homeowners with one-story, cinder-block homes on the east side of the city, which he said are difficult to convert into two-story homes. If those homeowners are limited in their ability to expand their homes into their backyards, they may not be able to expand their homes as needed and continue living in the city, noted Grocott.

“There’s a reason they bought over there … it gives some people an opportunity to live in San Carlos and have the benefit of living in San Carlos, but there’s no way they could live on the west side,” he said.

Several councilmembers commended the work of Good Growth San Carlos, a volunteer group led by residents Brent Cowan and Christian Vescia, for analyzing different sets of proposals and offering a perspective on the recommendations up for review in the months leading up to Monday’s meeting. Vescia and Cowan consistently advocated for establishing an FAR and rules in line with peer cities and were joined by several residents in previous meetings in voicing concern about the impact of large home projects on neighbors and the neighborhood character.

Though Mayor Bob Grassilli acknowledged the changes would affect all homeowners in the city, he hoped they could be a first step and future councilmembers would continue to improve them.

“The new council will have a shot to make it even better and I hope they do,” he said.

In other business, the council voted unanimously to extend by six months a moratorium on businesses selling guns it put in place nearly a year ago in response to a heated debate about whether Turner’s Outdoorsman sporting goods store should be allowed to open at 1123 Industrial Road in November of 2017. Aimed at giving residents and officials more time to discuss potential regulations on gun and ammunitions sales in the city and effectively halting the sporting goods and firearms store’s plans to open in the city, the temporary ban was set to expire Nov. 12 but with the extension will now expire May 12. Since the moratorium was enacted last fall, two public meetings were held in May and an online forum collecting nearly 2,000 responses was conducted from May to July. Officials expect the Planning Commission to begin review of the issue at its Nov. 5 meeting, with City Council meetings to follow.

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106