San Carlos studies sweeping downtown plan: upzoning proposal, retail rules and contested parking caps

City staff and consultants led a lengthy June 23 study session on a draft downtown specific plan that lays out land‑use changes, design guidance, mobility priorities and new parking policies intended to guide decision‑making for the next 20 years.

Lisa Porus, the city’s planning manager, summarized the plan’s purpose and civic engagement work that shaped it, and said the policies are intended to "meet the needs of the community today and into the future." Consultant Jim Stickley highlighted several proposed changes that could shift the downtown’s built form, including rezoning the SAM Trans parcel from MUDC‑100 to MUD‑120 to allow up to about 70 feet in height, and raising required retail floor heights from 12 feet to a 14–16 foot range to make spaces more attractive to prospective tenants.

Why it matters: The SAM Trans parcel sits adjacent to transit nodes; council members repeatedly asked whether upzoning there could be used in the next housing element cycle and how state density bonuses might amplify actual development beyond base zoning. Council member Dugan asked staff to be explicit about density‑bonus triggers, noting that small changes in affordability requirements can translate into large bonus allowances.

Other land‑use recommendations include restricting automobile sales in the downtown core, making some personal‑service and instructional uses easier to locate downtown, and revisiting the city’s formula‑business rule so some regional chains could come in with a minor use permit rather than a full use permit. City attorney Greg explained that the formula‑business definition can be objective and tailored (for example, counting outlets statewide or by county) but cautioned the council that the city must set an objective standard.

Mobility and parking: The plan pairs a streetscape concept — wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes on El Camino, and a permanent 700‑block Laurel pedestrian plaza with a dismount zone — with parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies. Consultant Brian Canipa proposed a districtwide, tiered parking cap (illustrative examples included a draft baseline of about 0.7 parking spaces per bedroom that could rise if developers provided public access or additional TDM measures). He said the approach is meant to reduce vehicle trips and support multimodal goals, but acknowledged the tradeoffs.

Council concerns: Several members said they support activating downtown and easing some use restrictions, but many cautioned against adopting parking maximums immediately without more data. Council members asked staff to return with clearer analysis of 1) how parking caps would affect development feasibility and lending, 2) the effect on affordable housing (and whether unbundled parking would apply to BMR units), and 3) the MTC TOC grant tradeoffs if the city chooses not to adopt certain measures. "If you don't have parking maximums," one member warned, "you may be less competitive for certain grant funding — but you also risk scaring off developers if the cap is too strict." (Council debate quoted and paraphrased from the study session.)

What’s next: Staff said the draft plan will be refined and returned as a public draft this summer; several council members asked staff to bring additional analysis on density‑bonus outcomes, a retail/market assessment tied to the proposed formula‑business threshold, and more detailed parking‑cap scenarios before the council considers formal policy action.

The study session closed with direction to staff to incorporate council feedback while preparing the public draft of the downtown specific plan and to schedule follow‑up briefings on parking and TDM analysis.