Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Mateo planners back new high‑density districts amid debate over FAR, open space and setbacks
Summary
On June 23 the Planning Commission recommended City Council introduce zoning‑code amendments that create R6, R7, MU3 and MU4 districts to implement the general plan; commissioners pressed staff on whether residential floor area should count toward FAR and asked staff to revisit open‑space and buffer rules before final code adoption.
The San Mateo Planning Commission on June 23 voted 3–0 to recommend that City Council introduce an ordinance creating four new zoning districts — R6 and R7 (higher‑density residential) and MU3 and MU4 (higher‑density mixed use) — and several cleanups to the municipal code intended to implement the recently adopted 2040 general plan.
Shelby Donahue, senior planner, told the commission the new districts are intended to align zoning with the general‑plan land‑use designations. Proposed standards include maximum densities of 99 dwelling units per acre for R6/MU3 and up to 130 units per acre for R7/MU4; height limits were described as six stories/75 ft for R6, eight stories/100 ft for R7, and corresponding mixed‑use height and floor‑area allocations for MU3 and MU4. Donahue summarized open‑space rules (options to provide 50 sq ft private usable open space per unit or 75 sq ft common open space per unit, with a minimum private usable size of 30 sq ft) and other changes such as clarifying retail floor‑area counting and exempting certain 100% affordable projects from landscape in‑lieu fees.
A public commenter, Steve Collison, urged more analysis and public outreach before adopting the new districts citywide, saying the staff report lacked the comparative work that accompanied prior study sessions on lower‑density zones. Commissioners echoed that request in several areas: they debated whether the draft language should exclude residential floor area from FAR calculations in mixed‑use buildings (staff said that draft line was inconsistent with current practice and likely to be removed unless the commission directed otherwise); questioned whether open‑space minimums would force waivers on constrained sites; and asked staff to re‑check where proposed high‑density districts would abut single‑family areas so buffer and setback rules can be reconsidered.
Staff and the community‑development director said the draft amendments are intended as interim standards until the comprehensive zoning‑code update is completed; a draft of the full code update is expected for planning‑commission study sessions in early next year, with final hearings thereafter. Staff told the commission staff will compare recent project plans against the proposed open‑space standards and refine FAR/FAR‑counting language during the comprehensive code process.
On the landscape in‑lieu fee, staff said the proposed exemption for 100% affordable housing projects is intended to avoid large variability in fees between similar sites and to reduce cost burdens on all‑affordable proposals; one commissioner objected that residents of affordable housing should have the same landscaping benefits as other residents. The commission directed staff to retain required landscaping standards while exempting only the unpredictable in‑lieu fee as drafted.
After extensive discussion, a commissioner moved that the Planning Commission recommend City Council introduce the ordinance and find the amendments exempt from further CEQA review under PRC 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183. The motion passed 3–0. Commissioners asked staff to return with comparative data (recent project open‑space and balcony footprints, FAR implications) during the comprehensive zoning‑code update so the council can consider adjustments before final adoption.
