715/723 N San Mateo Drive
Six Story Multi-Family Residential Project
PA-2025-031
City Council Public Hearing
July 20, 2026
Greg Powell, M-Group Consulting Planner
On the behalf of the
Community Development Department
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
• PROJECT BACKGROUND
• REGULATORY SETTING
• APPEAL
• STAFF RECOMMENDATION
PROJECT LOCATION
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Chronology
• SB 330 Preliminary Application: November 14, 2024
• Neighborhood Informational Meeting: February 6, 2025
• Formal Planning Application: April 15, 2025
• City review of project for completeness and consistency: April 2025 to January 2026 • Deemed Complete: January 12, 2026
• Planning Commission Review and Approval: March 24, 2026 • Appeal Filed: April 2, 2026
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Description
• Approx. 258,000 Square Foot Multi-family Residential building • 181 dwellings w/ 19 very-low-income dwellings
• 6 stories / 75’-11”
• 180 covered parking stalls
• Residential amenities: Pool, fitness room & amenity deck on 2nd floor, common room & amenity deck/BBQ area on 6th floor
Looking Northwest @Villa Terrace & N. San Mateo Drive
Looking Southwest Along North San Mateo Drive
Courtyard View, Above Villa Terrace
Private Open Space
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Public Hearing held on March 24, 2026
• Public Comment: 3 speakers + Applicant Team
• Reviewed Revised Conditions of Approval
• Adopted Resolution to Approve: 4-0 Vote
The Planning Commission confirmed that the project met all applicable objective standards in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and other local policy documents that were in effect at the time the preliminary application was submitted under SB 330.
REGULATORY SETTING – GENERAL PLAN
General Plan Land Use: Residential
Medium II
1 of 10 Strive San Mateo General
Plan 2040 Study Areas
Proposed Maximum
Height – Stories 6 6
Residential
Density (DU/acre)
181 Dwellings
(148 units/acre)
121 Dwellings
(99 units/acre)
REGULATORY SETTING – STATE HOUSING LAWS
Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
• Limits a local agency’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or render housing development projects infeasible if objective standards are met
• To deny, must find project would have a “Specific Adverse Impact” Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill 330)
• Project vested – freezes development standards and fee structure Assembly Bill 130
• New California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for housing development projects • Expedited review process
Assembly Bill 2097
• Prohibits parking minimums for qualifying projects within one-half mile from major public transit stop
REGULATORY SETTING – STATE DENSITY BONUS
State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code section 65915)
• Density Bonus - 50% Density Increase
• Up to 3 Concessions
• Unlimited Waivers
State Density Bonus Law Applied to the Proposed Project • 15% of base density (19 Units) for Very Low Income
• 50% Density Increase (60 Units)
• No Concessions requested
• Waivers from Development Standards:
• Increased floor area ratio (FAR)
• Reduced setbacks/yards, landscape buffers, & open space • 1 Objective Design Standard
REGULATORY SETTING – HAA
The Housing Accountability Act limits a local agency’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or render housing development projects infeasible when the project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards.
ØThe HAA applies to a project that receives waivers from objective standards under State Density Bonus Law.
If a housing development project complies with objective standards, then the local agency can only disapprove a project or require that it be developed at a lower density where it makes written findings that:
Ø(1) the project would have a “specific adverse impact” on public health or safety, and Ø(2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
FRAMEWORK FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL
The HAA guides the Council's review and deliberation of this appeal, and each appeal point must be reviewed against the objective standards that apply to this Project.
Ø The Planning Commission confirmed the Project met all applicable objective standards in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and other local policy documents.
For any appeal point that is not supported by an objective standard, the Council must consider if a specific adverse impact would occur and if no feasible alternative exists to avoid the adverse impact.
Ø No evidence in the record to support a finding of specific adverse impact.
If an appeal point is not related to an objective standard, and no specific adverse impact would occur, the Council must dismiss the appeal point.
APPEAL
1. “Notice and project description were incomplete,” and “Project Entitlements were not disclosed and/or not included”
ØThe Public Notice for the Planning Commission Public Hearing was completed in compliance with State Law and SMMC Section 27.08.050.
2. “the 73 page Transportation Study Attachment #7 was not made available until midday Mon. Mar. 23”
ØThis is correct. When the City learned of this omission, the Agenda Report was corrected to list the LTA as an attachment, the Planning Commission Agenda materials were updated, and the LTA was provided to the appellant, in advance of the March 24 Planning Commission meeting.
3. “Staff Report provided limited data and analysis of neighborhood concerns ...” ØProject review by the DRB and the Planning Commission was guided by the City's adopted objective standards, and the Planning Commission approved the Project after finding it complied with these standards.
APPEAL
4. “CEQA requires that the City add a condition requiring a Phase I Env. Assessment, but none appears”
ØThe appellant is correct that review under AB 130 requires project approval to include a condition of approval to require a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. A condition was not needed because Phase I Environmental Site Assessments were provided with the application.
5. “Conditions should be amended to provide opportunity for City staff and residents to meet and to review and provide input...”
ØThe conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission were based on a thorough review by the DRB and reflect the objective standards adopted by the City, and the Conditions are consistent with those applied to other similar projects. Like similar projects, the Construction of the Project will be subject to a Construction Management Plan prepared in accordance with the City's Construction Management Plan requirements to manage all aspects of construction and ensure the timely completion of the Project while minimizing adverse impacts on neighboring properties and residents.
APPEAL
6. “Garage entry/exit needs to be relocated to N. San Mateo Drive to eliminate off-site glare and limit traffic traveling on neighborhood streets”
ØGarage access to North San Mateo Drive is prohibited by SMMC section 27.64.025.
7. “per SMMC in E2 Dist. recreation areas and garbage operations need to be fully enclosed to limit noise, glare and odors.”
ØThe Project complies with the SMMC. The SMMC does not require that recreation areas be enclosed, and project trash, recycling, and green waste will be stored within the building except when accessed by Recology for routine pick-up. SMMC Section 27.48.050 requires that permitted uses be conducted within completely enclosed buildings. “Permitted Use” refers to the land uses allowed by the Land Use District, and for the Project, the permitted use is residential units.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR), a Site Development Planning Application (SDPA), and a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (VTM) for the construction of a new six-story multifamily residential building with 181 dwelling units and associated site improvements at 715/723 North San Mateo Drive, and find that the Project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66, based on the Findings for Approval and subject to the Conditions of Approval.