Zoning Text Amendments
Corridor Mixed Use, Parking, Housing Element Implementation & Other Zoning Code Updates
November 25, 2025
Laura Russell, Deputy Community
Development Director
Request
• Conduct a public hearing to consider a series of proposed Zoning Text amendments to various Sections of the Zoning Ordinance
• Introduce Ordinance implementing Zoning Ordinance text amendments 2 Background
• January 16, 2024 - Planning Commission and City Council • Considered amendments to implement the Housing Element • Concerns raised about proposed height increases in the CMU District • Additional study requested - Retained consultant that writes zoning codes and does modeling
• July 23, 2024 – City Council public meeting
• Reviewed various CMU development scenarios
• Considered consolidated parking standards
• State law mandated “by-right” or ”ministerial” project processing • October 24, 2024 – Community Meeting
• Presented CMU Development Standards
• Approximately 5 attendees, answered questions, no specific feedback • September 16, 2025 – Planning Commission public hearing 3 Sections of the Zoning Ordinance Proposed to be Amended and Why Section 2, Definitions Implement Housing Element & State law Section 4, Residential Implement Housing Element & State law Minor staff-initiated clean up
Section 5A, CMU Adjust development standards to support ground floor commercial and economic development
Section 8, Parking Consolidate all parking requirements in one place; modernize and simplify
Section 9.5.4, Accessory Buildings Minor staff-initiated clean up Section 10, Procedures Implement Housing Element related to “reasonable accommodations”
Section 13, Design Review Planning Commission & Council requested review Section 31, Village Districts Remove parking regulations (moved to new Section 8) Section 4, Residential
• Updated language on permitted residential uses to implement the Housing Element and State law
• State law requires certain uses be permitted in residential zones • Planning Commission concern about residential care facilities • Can the City regulate them to help fit into single family neighborhoods? • Consider additional restrictions if allowed by State law • Residential care facilities must comply with development standards for their zoning district (rules that apply to all houses) • Staff does not recommend any additional regulations
5 Section 5A, Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
Along El Camino Real, on
either side of the BVSP area
North End – 3/4 mile section:
• Includes narrow properties
between El Camino Real
and Caltrain Tracks
• Does not include Old
County Road
South End – 1/3 mile section:
• Includes small portion of
Old County Road next to
HIA area and City limits
6 Section 5A, Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
7 Proposed Hotel Regulations Proposed Office Over Retail with Community Benefits
* Just examples, not a proposed project
Modeling of development
scenarios:
• Assume 16’ ground
floor commercial
heights for increased
feasibility – common
best practice
• Above the ground
floor, different uses
typically have different
floor to ceiling heights,
resulting in different
height buildings
• Summary of that
modeling process in
Attachment D
Section 5A, Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
Proposed Revisions, consistent with 2024 Council feedback:
• Increase the base height from 45’ to 50’ to encourage ground floor commercial uses and make four story office development more feasible • Increase the community benefits height from 55’ to 60’ with City Council approval if the community benefits outweigh potential impacts • Establish unique development standards for hotels of 2.5 FAR and 65’ height as incentive for this fiscally positive land use • Remove CUP for hotels – now a permitted use; still requires Planning Commission Design review
8 Section 5A, Corridor
Mixed Use (CMU)
• Planning Commission concern
about sites adjacent to single
family areas
• 11 lots zoned R-1 immediately
adjacent to CMU District
• Northern and southern end of El
Camino Real; these areas are
sloped
• Map - Attachment F
9 Implement
Housing Element
FAR: 2.43 2.08 (does not approach max FAR)
Height: 56’0” - 62’0”
Open Space: 12% 15% of site
Spaces: 63
Hotel
108 95 rooms (12% reduction)
300 sq ft avg. room size
0.58 0.65 spaces/room
Planning Commission Recommendation
15’ setback & two 5’ stepbacks
15’
5’
stepback
5’
stepback
FAR: 2.43 2.20 (closer to FAR)
Height: 56’0” - 62’0”
Open Space: 12% 23% of site
Spaces: 63
Hotel
108 99 rooms (8% reduction from initial scenario)
300 sq ft avg. room size
0.58 0.63 spaces/room
Staff Alternative Recommendation
10’ setback & 5’ stepback
10’
5’
stepback
Examplepotential
future
development
site abutting
R-1 District
* Just an example, not a
proposed project
Red line
shows where
the section is
drawn from
Examplepotential
future
development
site abutting
R-1 District
Example -
potential
future
development
site abutting
R-1 District
Staff
alternative:
10’ setback
5’ stepback
* Just an example, not a proposed project
Example -
potential
future
development
site abutting
R-1 District
Staff
alternative:
10’ setback
5’ stepback
* Just an example, not a proposed project
PC recommendation
shown with red line
Section 8, Parking
Proposed updates consolidate all parking requirements into new Section 8 • Change narrative standards to tables
• Change units of measure to modern standards
• Update language to be consistent with AB 2097 (no required parking for most uses within ½ mile of Caltrain station)
• Clarifying the types of parking exceptions, reductions, and alternative compliance opportunities allowed
• Revise criteria for approval of applications with less than the minimum or more than the maximum number of spaces
• Change review authority from the Zoning Administrator to the Community Development Director for parking exceptions, reductions or other proposed variations (only if there is no other entitlement that requires Planning Commission review) 16 Section 13, Design Review
• Previous versions of these zoning ordinance amendments included a change in review authority from Planning Commission to the Community Development Director for certain housing projects with streamlined deadlines under State law • Planning Commission suggested additional analysis
• How other cities are addressing the timelines
• Options for noticing the public about these projects
• Not included in amendments under consideration tonight • Topic will be agendized with Planning Commission for further discussion 17 Section 13, Design Review
Re-organization of Objective Design Standards (ODS) to improve clarity, not change policy
• Group standards with similar intended context
• Clarify what Design Standards are stand-alone requirements versus what regulations are intended to be categorized together to provide a “menu” of options available
18 Community Outreach
19 • October 2024 - Community Meeting via Zoom
• Notice mailed to all property owners within 300’ of CMU District • Approximately 5 attendees, no specific feedback
• Website with information since fall 2024
• Notice of Planning Commission public hearing mailed to all property owners within 300’ of CMU District
• 7 public comments received
• Meeting with property owner adjacent to CMU
• Notice of this public hearing mailed to all property owners within 300’ of CMU District – no comments received
Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations
Planning Commission Recommendation Staff Response
Consider additional restrictions on Residential
Care facilities if permitted by law
Existing regulations will apply – no additional
restrictions recommended
Additional analysis of review authority for
housing projects with strict timelines under
State law
Removed from this set of amendments – will
be scheduled for Commission discussion
Increase setback and stepback in CMU Commission recommendation may impact feasibility of projects – alternative proposal for
Council consideration
Consider creating design standards for the
back of parking structures in the future
No action at this time – Council may wish to
direct staff to consider this topic in the future
Adopted Resolution 2025-22 by vote of 5-0
(one absent) recommending approval
Recommendation
21 Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance related to:
• Implementation of the certified Housing Element,
• Development standards in the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) District, • Consolidation of parking requirements into one section of the Zoning Ordinance,
• Other minor updates to clarify zoning regulations and improve implementation.
Questions
22 CMU District Height
What about State Housing laws?
• State Density Bonus Law would apply to projects with affordable units, could result in additional height above base height of 50’
• Three story, 33’ law: If a project is 100% affordable housing, project may exceed base height by three stories or 33’ if it’s within ½ mile of the Caltrain station • It’s hard to predict how applicants will design these projects; depends on the configuration of the site and the population they are serving • Could result in 8 story buildings
• Can’t guarantee buildings wouldn’t be taller but very unlikely due to Fire Code, Building Code and common construction methods
23 Section 2, Definitions
• Focused on housing related terms to comply with State Law and implement the Housing Element
• Includes terms: Residential Care Facility, Emergency Shelter, Family, Farmworker Housing, Low Barrier Navigation Center, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Short-Term Rental.
24 Section 8, Parking
25 How did staff consolidate? Example: drive aisles
Section 8: 26’ width Section 8A: 24’ width
• Merged them together and choose 24’ instead of 26’ because that is the current industry standard
• Intent to keep underlying policy, if conflict, went with the more modern or simple standard
Section 9.5.4, Accessory Buildings
• Additional reference of the term accessory
structures, to clarify the purpose and intent
• Consistent with the proposed amendments to
Section 4
26 Staff initiated
clean up
Section 10.8, Procedures
• Housing projects requesting reasonable
accommodation for a modification or exemption
from the standard zoning regulations for persons
with disabilities
• Removal one findings for consistency with the
City’s certified Housing Element
• Change review authority from the Zoning
Administrator to the Community Development
Director for this type of request
27 Section 31 (partial 31.6 & 31.7), Village Districts
• Subsections 31.6 and 31.7 include parking regulations for properties in the Village Districts.
• Proposed to be deleted in their entirety and integrated into new Section 8, Parking • Would improve consistency and cohesiveness of all City parking regulations • One parking design standard to remain in Section 31:
• Applicable only in Village to above ground parking structures that include ground floor habitable space.
FAR: 1.98
Density: 79 du/ac
Height: 43’0” - 49’0”
Open Space: 10% of site
Spaces: 49
Residential
34 units
850 sq ft avg. unit size
1.15 spaces/unit
Retail
4,925 sq ft retail
2 spaces/1,000 sq ft
Residential over Retail
Current Height Limit 45’
45’
FAR: 1.87
Height: 37’0” - 40’0”
Open Space: 17% of site
Spaces: 68
Office
30,000 sq ft
2 spaces/1,000 sq ft
Retail
3,520 sq ft retail
2 spaces/1,000 sq ft
Office over Retail
Current Height Limit 45’
Move OS
to rear
45’
FAR: 2.47
Height: 58’0” - 64’0”
Open Space: 17% of site
Spaces: 90
Office
41,250 sq ft
2 spaces/1,000 sq ft
Retail
3,520 sq ft retail
2 spaces/1,000 sq ft
Office over Retail with Community Benefits
Proposed Height Limit 60’
60’
FAR: 1.39
Height: 38’0” - 42’0”
Open Space: 12% of site
Spaces: 42
Hotel
54 rooms
300 sq ft avg. room size
0.78 space/room
Hotel
Existing Height Limit 45’ – Example 1
45’
FAR: 1.91
Height: 47’0” - 52’0”
Open Space: 12% of site
Spaces: 42
Hotel
81 rooms
300 sq ft avg. room size
0.52 space/room
Hotel
Existing Height Limit 45’ - Example 2
45’
FAR: 2.43 (2.5 Max)
Height: 56’0” - 62’0”
Open Space: 12% of site
Spaces: 63
Hotel
108 rooms
300 sq ft avg. room size
0.58 space/room
Hotel
Proposed Height Limit 65’
65’