Pressures to meet high housing development goals and to address affordable housing needs split the San Carlos Planning Commission Monday, with three of five members supporting a staff recommendation that could lead to greater density across the city.
“We are going to have to go up and I think we’re going to have to go up beyond our comfort level to meet the need, which is so great,” Commissioner Ellen Garvey said during Monday’s Planning Commission meeting.
A number of staff recommendations aimed at boosting the city’s housing stock came before the commission Monday but the most controversial was a potential citywide density bonus. As drafted, the bonus would allow developers to build four units for each very-low-income unit and two units for each low-income unit anywhere where residential development is permitted.
Three commissioners backed the proposal, Chair David Roof, Vice Chair Kristen Clements and Garvey. Commissioner Don Bradley abstained and Commissioner Jim Iacoponi voted against the city density bonus after arguing the city should fine-tune it before applying it citywide.
City residents have shared support for some increased density in the city, particularly along major corridors like El Camino Real, Adam Aronson, the city’s Economic Development and Housing manager, said. But developers could be permitted to build beyond the stated comfort level of community residents who compelled the city’s survey by combining the city bonus for additional units with the state bonuses for concessions on height, parking or other areas.
“The idea of going up is necessary,” Iacoponi said. “Opening up that option needs development. … It feels like ... we don’t really have the city, our fellow citizens, along with us.”
Given the small lot sizes in the city, Aronson said developers would likely need to consolidate parcels to be able to build the larger buildings — which could take years. The size of a project would also depend on the zoning area where it is proposed, Aronson noted, reducing the likelihood of massive developments being placed in less dense parts of the city.
Planning Manager Lisa Porras also noted that developers would have to prove they needed the bonuses when working with city staff before they would be granted.
“It’s not like they just get it, but they would have to make the case that they need it,” Porras said.
And commissioners who supported the bonus argued it would be a vital tool the city could use to encourage greater housing development as it faces a state-mandated goal to help facilitate the construction of about 3,000 new homes within the decade.
Recommended for you
As a compromise, Clements suggested staff add language to the ordinance that would direct staff to return to the governing boards within a year with recommendations on area-specific density bonuses.
Other policies
Unanimous support was given to other staff recommendations. Commissioners supported increasing the percentage of below-market-rate housing required in for-ownership projects and reducing the size of a project that would have to meet that requirement.
Current city policy requires residential developments of seven units or more to list at least 15% of its units at BMR but that policy would be changed to apply to projects of five or more units. And instead of listing 10% of units at moderate income levels and 5% at low, staff proposes raising that percentage to 20% BMR and removing moderate-income level housing requirements.
Commissioners also backed a change that would require BMR units to be listed as affordable into perpetuity, changing the city’s current requirement of 45 to 55 years. They also supported a council request to ensure BMR units are a similar size to market-rate units on average and that the units are evenly distributed within a development.
And language was also added to the ordinance to ensure parking fees are included in the total rent for BMR units and that renters be offered amenities like parking at an equivalent rate as market-rate units. For for-sale BMR units, parking must be included at a similar distribution as market-rate units whether parking is bundled or not.
Having been approved by the Planning Commission, staff will now take their recommendations and suggested changes to the council for approval.
“I think there are things we can do to make this work. It’s not impossible,” Bradley said. “I’m optimistic about the outcome if we follow our instincts and follow through and not politicize it and get a lot of people angry at us.”
(650) 344-5200 ext. 106
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.