San Mateo planning commission backs zoning changes to implement housing element, expands below‑market‑rate compliance options

The San Mateo Planning Commission on May 13 recommended that the City Council adopt a package of zoning code amendments and an updated Below Market Rate (BMR) program resolution to implement the city's 2024 housing element.

The proposal, presented by Principal Planner Steve Golden and Rachel Horst, housing and neighborhood services manager, would (1) streamline development review and add an appeal path for incomplete applications, (2) change rules on planning approval expirations, (3) adjust when projects must be reviewed by City Council based on height relative to the General Plan, (4) establish minimum densities for mixed‑use residential projects (with higher minima near Caltrain), and (5) add two compliance alternatives to the city's BMR rules: an off‑site construction option and a developer‑proposed alternative that requires City Council approval.

The changes aim to implement multiple housing element policies adopted by the council, including H1.3 (BMR program), H1.6 (streamlining review), and H1.9 (minimum densities). "After a multiyear process, the City of San Mateo adopted our housing element. City council adopted on 05/20/2024, and it was certified by the California Housing and Community Development Department on July 23, 2024," Principal Planner Steve Golden said during the staff presentation.

Why it matters: The package is intended to help the city meet state housing obligations, increase affordable housing production, and align zoning rules with the General Plan and recent state guidance. Staff said the measures are designed both to accelerate predictable approvals and to offer alternatives for meeting inclusionary requirements when on‑site construction is not feasible or not the best fit.

Key provisions and discussion

Streamlining and appeals: Staff proposed an appeals process for cases in which planning staff have determined an application is incomplete. "State law under the permanent streamlining act says that we have to give that applicant an appeals process," Golden said. Under the draft code, applicants would have 14 days to appeal an incomplete determination and the Planning Commission would be the body to make the required written determination within 60 calendar days.

Approval expiration extensions: The code currently allows an initial two‑year planning approval with a six‑month window to pull building permits (2.5 years total). The amendment would allow the Zoning Administrator to approve up to two additional two‑year extensions (increases the maximum potential life of an approval to about 6.5 years), subject to findings.

Authority threshold tied to General Plan heights: Staff suggested changing the triggers that send a project to City Council. Rather than a fixed 55‑foot threshold, projects that are consistent with the height allowed by the General Plan could stay at the Zoning Administrator (the council earlier raised the administrative threshold to 99 units). Projects that exceed the General Plan height limits would go to the council.

Minimum densities for mixed‑use residential projects: As required by policy H1.9, staff proposed minimum density standards across mixed‑use land‑use designations; higher minima would apply to sites within a half‑mile of Caltrain stations. The commission discussed the philosophical and practical tradeoffs of fixed units‑per‑acre minima versus alternative metrics (for example, ratios of housing units to commercial square footage). Staff said the densities will be studied further as part of the comprehensive zoning code update.

BMR program amendments: Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Rachel Horst explained that the city's current BMR baseline requires 15% affordable units for developments of 11 or more units. Horst said staff's recommended amendment would add two council‑approved alternatives to the on‑site requirement: (1) an off‑site construction option under which a developer could meet or exceed the 15% requirement by building affordable units on another site that meets General Plan and AFFH (affirmatively further fair housing) objectives and has a viable financing plan, and (2) a developer‑proposed alternative that would be evaluated by the council against similar findings, including whether the alternative provides equal or greater public benefit than on‑site units.

"H1.3, the goal of H1.3 is to increase affordable housing production through various means, including by updating the BMR program and specifically by allowing more compliance options than what exist today," Horst said. Staff emphasized that any off‑site option would have findings intended as guardrails: units must meet or exceed the baseline affordable count, be consistent with the General Plan and Housing Element, have a financing plan, further AFFH objectives, and be delivered concurrently or under an approved phasing plan.

State rules and viability: Staff and the commission discussed how state law interacts with local incentives. Community Development Director Zach Dahl told the commission, "State law does require that we have an alternative to our standard, inclusionary requirements." Dahl noted that in many cases a developer seeking the benefits of state density bonus law will prefer to build units rather than pay a fee, because eligibility for density bonus concessions and waivers requires provision of affordable units.

Commissioner questions and comments: Commissioners probed how often in‑lieu fees have been used for small projects, how the off‑site option would be implemented in practice, how AFFH would be demonstrated, and whether alternative metrics (such as units per commercial square foot) should be evaluated. Commissioner Clafeter asked staff how many 5–10 unit projects had paid in‑lieu fees in recent years; staff said such payments have been rare during the planner's year on staff and that the BMR fund balance has remained relatively flat. Commissioner Nugent said he thought the off‑site and developer‑proposed alternatives were unlikely to be used often but said he would not oppose having them available.

Process, CEQA and next steps: Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend council adopt the ordinance and associated resolution. Staff told the commission they planned to classify the ordinance as categorically exempt under CEQA Guideline 15183 because the proposed changes are consistent with densities in the adopted General Plan and the city previously certified an EIR for the General Plan. Staff also noted the city received a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development in November 2024 and is working to align some ordinances with HCD guidance (including an upcoming revision to the accessory dwelling unit code).

Commission action and vote

The commission voted unanimously to recommend that City Council adopt the zoning code amendments described in staff's report and approve the resolution updating the BMR program guidelines. The motion included an added recommendation that the council direct staff to study alternative metrics (for example, unit‑to‑commercial‑square‑foot ratios) as part of the forthcoming comprehensive zoning code update.

Votes: Chair Patel: yes; Vice Chair Nugent: yes; Commissioner Ebneter: yes; Commissioner Clafeter: yes; Commissioner Williams: yes. The vote to approve the consent calendar earlier in the meeting was also unanimous.

What happens next: The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the San Mateo City Council for public hearings and final action. Staff told the commission they expect further analysis and additional code work during the comprehensive zoning update in 2025–2026, including a more comprehensive revision of the BMR program in 2026.

Ending: The proposal moves the city's zoning code and BMR program toward more flexibility and clearer processes intended to advance multiple housing element goals. If the City Council approves the recommendations, the changes would alter review timing, provide new compliance paths for affordable units, and set minimum densities designed to encourage housing, particularly near transit.