Condo plan rejected in San Mateo: Property owner to appeal to San Mateo City Council for new condos

Unlike larger projects that typically involve a study session prior to a formal review, as a relatively small housing proposal, Tuesday evening was the first time the Planning Commission considered the plans and, somewhat unexpectedly, unanimously denied the project, said San Mateo Associate Planner Simon Vuong.

Mixed with single-family homes and a few large housing developments, Vuong said neighborhood concerns and the proposal’s density prompted the commission’s denial.

Property owner Victor Catanzaro, of San Mateo-headquartered Wall Street Properties, sought to create a four-story condominium complex with a level of below-ground parking on a 15,300-square-foot lot near Second Avenue — a few blocks from the downtown Caltrain station to the west and Highway 101 on-ramp to the east.

Although the proposal was considered an in-fill development, could have been exempt from certain environmental review and met city zoning codes, Catanzaro said he was shocked the commission didn’t approve the proposal.

“It provides much-needed housing for San Mateo. It’s improving a vacant lot and we’ve spent significant amounts of time working with staff and understanding the zoning codes and designing a project that conforms with all of the development standards,” Catanzaro said.

With the nearby Third and Fourth avenues serving as key arteries from Highway 101 into downtown, Vuong said residents in neighboring homes expressed concerns at Tuesday’s hearing about parking and traffic. Some noted it’s difficult for them to leave their driveways as it is, he said.

According to a video of the meeting, commission Chair Charlie Dreschler questioned whether more than one neighborhood meeting would have helped address residents’ concerns.

Planning commissioners also indicated they felt the building wouldn’t fit with the surrounding residences, Vuong said.

“Staff vets the projects prior to bringing it to a public hearing and it does comply with code requirements,” Vuong said. “But members of the commission had certain opinions about the design and size and massing that they expressed at the meeting.”

The commission did not explicitly indicate what would need to be changed for their reconsideration, Vuong said. However, the property owner filed an appeal that will be reviewed by the City Council in the coming months, he said.

Catanzaro said he spent more than two years working with staff, hiring city-approved consultants to conduct various studies and was complying with the various zoning regulations of the “gateway” area. He noted they were not asking for concessions in parking requirements, setbacks, height or density.

The 15-unit for-sale condominiums would include one-, two- and three-bedroom units ranging in size from 906 square feet to 1,864 square feet, according to a staff report. The site would have had 32 parking spaces and based on state and city regulations, two of the housing units would have been provided as below market rate, according to the report.

Sandwiched between Second and Third avenues, the block on which the site is located is primarily made up of single-family homes. Across the street is the Gateway Commons condominium complex and nearby on Third Avenue is the large Metropolitan Apartments complex.

Catanzaro also owns a third vacant lot on the corner of Third Avenue, closer to the Metropolitan, that was not included as part of the development and Dreschler questioned why the additional parcel was not included.

“I too share a concern that this may not be the highest and best use of this land, knowing that adjacent parcels may have fit a building of this character a little bit better, it would have been closer to and across the street from a property of similar height and density,” Dreschler said, according to a video of the meeting.

Commission Vice Chair Diane Whitaker also said this proposal closer to the single-family homes felt “too large for this location.”

Catanzaro said his firm has owned the properties he seeks to redevelop for years. Having himself served on a citizens advisory committee while the city worked on developing the “gateway district” zoning regulations, he hopes to see the project through.

“I would like to think that the City Council supports development in the city when the development meets all standards of the zoning code,” Catanzaro said. “We’re local, we live in San Mateo, we’ve had our business in San Mateo forever, since the ’70s; we’d like to do a quality project for the city, for the community.”

samantha@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106