Local zoning · San Carlos

San Carlos — Design Review

Design Review under the San Carlos local zoning and planning code, with the controlling citations.

Last reviewed: July 2, 2026

Overview

San Carlos conductss statutory design review (called “design review and objective design standards compliance review”) through Chapter 18.29 of the zoning ordinance; the rules set the scope, criteria, decision authorities, and findings that the City uses to shape building massing, site layout, landscaping, parking and streetscape details. The program is intended to implement the General Plan and the city’s objective design standards while allowing the Director or the Planning and Transportation Commission to require changes or conditions to achieve compatibility. See the City’s design review framework for how this interacts with other permitting steps. § 18.29.010

How San Carlos’ design review works (core rules)

Purpose and scope: Design review is organized to “promote excellence in site planning and design” and to ensure projects support a pedestrian‑ and transit‑oriented core and neighborhood character; the chapter lists what features are evaluated (building massing, site layout, landscaping, parking, signs, lighting, etc.). § 18.29.010 and § 18.29.050
Decision authority: Small projects and objective‑standards compliance for 4 or fewer units are typically reviewed by the Director; larger projects, single‑family deviations, and major deviations are handled by the Planning and Transportation Commission (and appeals may go to the City Council) — see the review authority table. § 18.26.070
Criteria and findings: To approve design review the decision maker must find the project conforms to the requirements of the zoning title, the General Plan (and any specific plan), any adopted design guidelines, prior tentative maps/permits, and the specific design review criteria in the code. § 18.29.070 and § 18.29.060
Conditions and limits: Approving bodies may impose conditions reasonably related to design objectives, but they cannot impose conditions that reduce allowed residential density or FAR below the limits established in the ordinance or an approved use permit/variance. § 18.29.080
Appeals / timing / expiration: Design review decisions are appealable under the common procedures chapter (appeal rules, expirations, and modifications). § 18.29.090 and Chapter 18.27

Notes about coordination: design review is processed concurrently with any discretionary permits (use permits, variances, PDs). Peer review by City‑retained architects is allowed and the applicant pays that cost. § 18.29.050(E–F)

(Practical: design review looks at the same physical elements that show up in parking layouts, building setbacks and development form in the development standards, and landscape plans — expect the reviewer to reference those other rules directly.) § 18.29.050

District-by-district breakdown (where design review interacts with zoning)

Below are the San Carlos districts where design review commonly matters. Each subsection gives the district purpose, typical permitted uses, the decision‑relevant dimensional standards, and where the district generally applies. All itemized standards are grounded in the Municipal Code citations shown.

RS (Single‑Unit Residential: RS‑3, RS‑6)

Purpose: low‑density single‑family neighborhoods; preserves scale, yards and neighborhood compatibility. § 18.04.030 and accompanying district purpose text. § 18.04.070
Typical permitted uses: single‑unit dwellings, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), small family childcare, parks and community uses. § 18.04.070
Key dimensional standards (decision‑relevant): front, side and rear setbacks and maximum lot coverage are set in the RS development standards; small‑lot subdivisions modify base RS standards per Table 18.04.100‑G (e.g., 10 ft front setback minimum for small‑lot single‑unit, maximum height 28 ft for small‑lot projects). § 18.04.030 and Table 18.04.100‑G
Where it applies: the established single‑family neighborhoods across the city (see zoning map); small‑lot subdivision rules allow compact single‑unit layouts in RS where compatible. § 18.04.070
Special design review notes: deviations from objective RS standards (e.g., side yard or height deviations) trigger design review and the Planning and Transportation Commission hears single‑family deviation requests. § 18.29.040 and § 18.26.030(K)
If the proposal includes an ADU, designers must follow ADU rules in addition to RS objective standards; design review can still apply to exterior elements. See § 18.23.210 (ADU cross‑references in the code). Not found in retrieved materials: full ADU section text in this extract (verify with the jurisdiction).

RM (Multiple‑Family Residential: RM‑20, RM‑59, RM‑100)

Purpose: medium‑ and high‑density housing designed to fit neighborhood contexts and allow multi‑unit forms. § 18.04 purpose and RM descriptions
Typical permitted uses: multi‑unit housing, townhomes, small lot single‑unit developments, ADUs, limited institutional/public uses. § 18.04.070
Key dimensional standards: densities by district (units/acre), front setbacks 15 ft, interior side and rear setbacks (see Table 18.04.050‑1), maximum heights (e.g., 35 ft RM‑20, up to 60 ft RM‑100 with conditions), lot coverage and open space minimums. § 18.04.050 (Tables)
Where it applies: multi‑family corridors and transition zones adjacent to single‑family areas. Transitional standards protect RS boundaries (e.g., stepbacks above 28 ft along RS boundaries). § 18.04.050
Design review emphasis: RM districts have objective design standards (building entrances, massing breaks, open space) that must be met; minor deviations for RM/MU districts are processed per the compliance review rules and may be routed to the Director or Commission depending on project size. § 18.04.060 and § 18.29.040

MU (Mixed‑Use subdistricts — e.g., MU‑DC‑100, MU‑D‑100, MU‑N‑120, etc.)

Purpose: accommodate ground‑floor retail/office with residential above, create pedestrian activity, and form El Camino Real and downtown mixed‑use streets. § 18.05.020
Typical permitted uses: retail, restaurants, offices, and multi‑unit residential (uses vary by MU subdistrict code letter). § 18.05.020 (land use table)
Key dimensional standards: height limits vary by MU subdistrict — common maximums include 50–75 ft (see Table 18.05.030‑3); where next to RS districts, buildings are limited to 28 ft along rear/side setback lines with required stepbacks above that line. Ground‑floor transparency and build‑to line rules also apply. § 18.05.030
Where it applies: activity corridors including Downtown, El Camino Real, and other commercial corridors. § 18.05
Design review emphasis: MU projects are closely reviewed for façade articulation, upper‑story stepbacks, ground‑floor activation, and public‑realm improvements (e.g., sidewalks and street trees per the development standards). § 18.05.030

IA / IL (Industrial / Business Park)

Purpose: employment, light industrial, business parks — standards focus on minimizing impacts on nearby residences. § 18.07
Typical permitted uses: offices, light industrial, research and development, limited retail/supportive uses. § 18.07
Key dimensional standards: FAR, setbacks and height vary; transitional height/setback and landscape buffer requirements apply where industrial adjoins RS districts (e.g., 15 ft interior side/ 30 ft rear when adjacent to RS; buffer planting widths and tree spacing). § 18.07.030(A)
Where it applies: industrial and business park areas (map in zoning). § 18.07
Design review emphasis: truck docks, service areas, and building design near Highway 101 require special attention and may be conditioned to reduce visual and operational impacts. § 18.07.040

A — Airport District

Purpose: accommodate airport‑related activity while conforming to airport land‑use compatibility requirements. § 18.09.010
Typical permitted uses and standards: uses and maximum height are constrained by airport rules (maximum height often capped at 50 ft per the Airport plan); front yards, landscape planters and other site standards are specified. § 18.09.040
Design review emphasis: projects near the San Carlos Airport need compatibility review under the ALUCP and typical design review considerations (height, lighting, glare, and noise). See zoning clearance cross‑reference for ALUCP consistency checks. § 18.28.030 and § 18.21.150 Not found in retrieved materials: full ALUCP text in this extract (verify with the jurisdiction).

PD — Planned Development District

Purpose: site‑specific, flexible standards to achieve superior design and public benefits; design review is built into PD approvals. § 18.10.010
Typical permitted uses: determined by the PD plan; PDs allow tailored adjustments to setbacks, height, FAR, parking, etc. § 18.10
Key standards: PD approval requires findings including design quality, consistency with General Plan and specific plan goals, and superior community benefits. § 18.36.040 (PD findings)
Design review emphasis: because PDs change the baseline rules, design review focuses on the PD plan’s specific design commitments and public amenities. § 18.36.050

Overlay districts — examples (Hillside (H), Northeast Area, Gateway (G))

Overlays add rules or requirements to the base district and often require design features (e.g., gateway public plazas, Hillside slope protections). The Hillside (H) overlay and the Northeast Area Overlay both expressly include design review/standards and allow reductions only through design review if the design criteria are met. § 18.12 and § 18.14A
Where they apply: the overlay maps in Chapter 18.11–18.14A; overlay rules modify setbacks, heights and required landscape setbacks (e.g., fifteen‑foot landscaped gateway setback along Brittan Avenue). § 18.11.040 (G Overlay criteria) and § 18.14A.020

Quick reference table — decision‑relevant items (examples)

Topic	What matters to the design reviewer	Code reference
Who decides (design review)	Director for many ministerial/compliance reviews; Planning & Transportation Commission for larger projects, single‑family deviations, major deviations; appeals to Council per table.	§ 18.26.070
Scope of review	Site plan, massing, materials, landscaping, parking layout, lighting, signs (color usually excluded for single‑family review).	§ 18.29.050
Approval findings	Consistent with the title, General Plan, adopted design guidelines, and the design review criteria.	§ 18.29.070
Objective standards (RM/MU)	Objective design standards apply and deviations are tracked as minor/major per project size; different processes for ≤4 units vs ≥5 units.	§ 18.04.060 and § 18.29.040
Small‑lot single‑unit (special rules)	Modified setbacks, max height 28 ft, project‑scale FAR 0.45, lot coverage 35% for small‑lot single‑unit subdivisions.	Table 18.04.100‑G § 18.04.100

Checklist

Confirm whether the project is subject to design review or objective design standards compliance review (Chapter 18.29). § 18.29.020 Not found in retrieved materials: full applicability list text in this extract (verify with the jurisdiction).
Identify review authority (Director vs Planning & Transportation Commission) using Table 18.26.070 and project triggers (unit count, deviations, overlays). § 18.26.070
Prepare full submittal set per Chapter 18.27 completeness requirements (site plan, elevations, materials, landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect if >5 units, parking layout in accordance with parking rules). § 18.27.040 and § 18.18.050
Demonstrate consistency with the General Plan, any specific plan, and adopted design guidelines; show how the project meets the design review criteria (§ 18.29.060). § 18.29.060
Include elevations showing materials, massing, rooflines, stepbacks (MU/RM); illustrate lighting, signage (if applicable), and landscape/irrigation; highlight how parking is buffered and pedestrian connections are provided. § 18.29.050 and § 18.18.050
If requesting deviations to objective standards, prepare a clear deviation narrative and identify whether they are minor or major per § 18.29.040. § 18.29.040
Check overlay district rules (e.g., Hillside H, Gateway G, Northeast Area) and include any overlay‑required elements (public plazas, gateway landscaping). See overlay districts. § 18.11.040 and § 18.12
Confirm whether any private architectural review or HOA approvals are required and transmit them to the City (the applicant’s responsibility). § 18.29.050(I)

Risks & Ambiguities

Issue	Why it matters	What to verify
Which body reviews the project	Director vs Commission affects hearing, noticing, timelines and likelihood of conditions.	Check Table 18.26.070 and § 18.29.030 for assignment; confirm with the Planning Division. § 18.26.070
Whether a requested deviation is “minor” or “major”	Major deviations require Commission review and may trigger stronger public scrutiny.	Review definition and thresholds in § 18.29.040; ask the Director for a determination. § 18.29.040
Overlay requirements (map accuracy)	Overlays can add mandatory features (e.g., gateways, setbacks) or require conditional permits.	Confirm overlay boundaries and specific overlay subsections (e.g., 18.11, 18.12, 18.14A) and whether reductions are permitted only via design review. § 18.11.040
Landscape / tree requirements and protected trees	Landscape plans may need a registered landscape architect; protected trees may require separate permits.	Confirm Chapter 18.18 landscape buffer types and protected‑tree permit rules. § 18.18.050
Sign review overlap	Large or freeway‑visible signs may themselves be subject to design review and different decision authorities.	See Chapter 18.22 (sign rules) and design‑review triggers for signs; some sign reviews go to the Commission. § 18.22 Not found in retrieved materials: full sign chapter text in this extract (verify with the jurisdiction).
Building code vs zoning design review	Design review controls form and aesthetics but the building official enforces the California Building Standards Code; conflicts can arise.	Design approvals do not substitute for Title 24 compliance — verify structural/fire code requirements with the Building Division. Not found in retrieved materials: cross‑reference language between Chapters 18 and building code (verify with the jurisdiction).

Plain-English Summary

If you’re building or altering property in San Carlos and your project changes how a building looks, sits on a lot, or affects landscaping, parking or the street front, expect a design review under Chapter 18.29; the Director or the Planning and Transportation Commission will check your drawings against the city’s design criteria, objective standards, and applicable district or overlay rules and can require changes or conditions to make the project fit the neighborhood and the General Plan. § 18.29.010, § 18.29.060, § 18.29.070

Source References

San Carlos Municipal Code, Chapter 18.29 (Design Review and Objective Design Standards Compliance Review): § 18.29.010–§ 18.29.090.
San Carlos Municipal Code, Review Authority / Table 18.26.070 (who decides and appeal bodies): § 18.26.070.
San Carlos Municipal Code, RM objective standards and RM development tables: § 18.04.050 / § 18.04.060 (RM standards and objective design standards).
San Carlos Municipal Code, MU district development and height standards: § 18.05.020 and § 18.05.030 (Table 18.05.030‑3).
San Carlos Municipal Code, Small‑lot subdivision standards (Table 18.04.100‑G): § 18.04.100.
San Carlos Municipal Code, General site, landscaping and buffer rules: Chapter 18.15 and 18.18 (landscaping & screening). § 18.18.050.
San Carlos Municipal Code, Planning and Transportation Commission powers (design review role): § 18.26.030(K).
San Carlos Municipal Code, Zoning clearance / ALUCP consistency cross-reference: § 18.28.030.
San Carlos Municipal Code excerpts referencing overlay rules (G Overlay, Hillside H overlay, Northeast Area Overlay): § 18.11.040, § 18.12, § 18.14A.

Not found in retrieved materials / verify with the jurisdiction: the full text of Chapter 18.22 (signage) in the extract and some cross‑references to State ADU law and the complete ALUCP text were not included in the returned snippets; for parcel‑specific rules, setbacks, or an exact zoning map, verify with the City of San Carlos Planning Division.

Sources

Retrieved passages

San Carlos Zoning Code (§ 3) High relevance
San Carlos Zoning Code (§ 3) High relevance
San Carlos Zoning Code (§ 3) High relevance
San Carlos Zoning Code (chapter and) High relevance
San Carlos Zoning Code (Section 18.21.150) High relevance
San Carlos Zoning Code (Section 18.29.070) High relevance
San Carlos Zoning Code (section may) High relevance
San Carlos Zoning Code (title and) Medium relevance
San Carlos Zoning Code (Section 18.14A.020) Medium relevance
San Carlos Zoning Code Medium relevance
San Carlos Zoning Code (Section 18.04.070) Medium relevance

Cited sections

Official San Carlos code library

Frequently asked questions

Do I always need design review in San Carlos?

No — not every project triggers discretionary design review. Objective design standards compliance review and administrative approvals exist for many smaller projects; larger projects, single‑family deviations and major deviations require Planning and Transportation Commission review. Check the assignment rules and Table 18.26.070 to see whether your project goes to the Director or Commission. § 18.26.070

What does design review evaluate in San Carlos?

Design review evaluates site plan, building proportions and massing, architectural details, landscaping and irrigation, parking layout and screening, lighting, and signage; the code lists these review elements in the scope. § 18.29.050

What findings does the City require to approve design review?

The decision maker must find the project is consistent with the zoning title, the General Plan (and applicable specific plans), any adopted design guidelines, any prior approvals (e.g., tentative map), and the design review criteria in § 18.29.060. § 18.29.070

Who does design review for a 6‑unit apartment building?

Projects with five (5) or more residential units are typically reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (objective compliance review for 5+ units goes to the Commission). Confirm with the Planning Division since assignment can vary by deviations. § 18.26.030(K) and § 18.29.040

If my project complies with objective standards, can the City still require changes?

Yes. The City may impose conditions reasonably related to achieving the chapter’s purposes; however, it cannot impose conditions that would reduce allowed residential density or FAR below the ordinance or an approved permit/variance. § 18.29.080

Do signs require design review?

Some signs are subject to design review (for example, freeway‑visible or very tall signs); the sign chapter describes which signs require Commission review and allows the Director to refer sign permits to the Commission. See Chapter 18.22 and the design review linkage. Not found in retrieved materials: the full sign chapter text in this extract (verify with the jurisdiction).

Can design review waive overlay requirements such as gateway setbacks?

Overlay requirements may be reduced or waived through design review only if the review authority finds the applicable overlay design criteria are met; specific overlay sections explain the criteria (G Overlay, Hillside, Northeast Area). § 18.11.040 and overlay chapters.

Will the City require a landscape plan prepared by a pro?

Yes — landscaping for commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential projects with more than five units must be prepared by a California registered landscape architect; buffer yard rules and planting schedules are in Chapter 18.18. § 18.18.050

How do objective design standard deviations work for RS districts?

Deviations to RS objective standards are classified as minor or major; single‑family deviations are reviewed by the Commission and the Director has authority for some minor deviations. See Chapter 18.29 (deviation procedures) and the Director/Commission assignment table. § 18.29.040 and § 18.26.070

What’s the interaction between design review and the California Building Standards Code (Title 24)?

Design review addresses siting, massing and appearance; Title 24/California Building Standards Code governs structural, life‑safety, accessibility and energy compliance. Design review does not replace building code approvals; expect separate plan checks with the Building Division. Not found in retrieved materials: full cross‑reference language in the extract (verify with the jurisdiction).

Ask about any San Carlos property

Get a cited, plain-English answer on San Carlos zoning, setbacks, FAR, ADUs and permits — for any address.

Start Free Trial