A rendering of the proposed structure at 616 S. B St. at the former Kelly Moore site in San Mateo recommended for approval by the Planning Commission for a new eight-story development.
The San Mateo Planning Commission recommended approval for a new eight-story development at the former Kelly Moore site in downtown San Mateo, a taller and denser building than what was initially submitted a few years ago.
The updated application calls for 94 rental units, 10 of which would be reserved for low-income households, roughly 7,300 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and 114 parking spaces, according to project plans submitted to the city. The site is located at 616 S. B St.
Currently, the site comprises a parking lot and one-story commercial buildings, including the former Kelly Moore Paints, which will be demolished to make room for the new structure.
The commission unanimously recommended the project — which will soon go before the City Council for final approval — while also acknowledging neighbors’ concerns around congestion and parking impacts.
The new plans were a result of the city’s zoning updates in recent years, particularly Measure T, which increased height and density limits in certain areas of the city, including downtown. Previously, in 2023, the project called for a five-story building with 48 residential units and roughly 9,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor.
Some residents, including those living in the nearby Gramercy on the Park housing complex, said the traffic analysis underestimates the daily trip impacts. The impact report estimates the project will generate 900 net new average daily vehicle trips, and despite the 114 parking spaces, the project does not have minimum parking requirements due to its proximity to the Caltrain station.
Still, the property must participate in a transportation demand management program to reduce the number of trips by at least 25%.
City staff said they are ultimately unable to require the developer to make more robust safety changes to the intersections.
“The traffic impact analysis did evaluate the study intersection around the project site, and those intersections did not exceed the thresholds that would necessitate the need to evaluate them any further for additional improvements,” Associate Engineer Ryan Brunmeir said during the meeting. “Therefore, we are unable to require the project to implement additional improvements at those locations.”
Commissioners still hoped for some city-initiated improvements that could be made to the public right-of-way instead.
“It's been a few years to get us to this point so I'm glad to see another project here moving forward,” Chair Seema Patel said during the meeting, adding that she also wanted to “encourage the city to consider this area of B street holistically and consider making perhaps some quick-build safety improvements … before construction starts.”
(650) 344-5200 ext. 102
Daily Journal staff
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Join the ADU Resource Center of San Mateo County for a free webinar about ADU financing. Our… Read moreADU Funding For Homeowners
Bay Area soccer celebration! Live World Cup, games, meet Oakland Roots' Kendall McIntosh &am… Read moreBay Area World Cup Kickoff
Dirk van Ulden said:
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(3) comments
So has this development been altered to now only support rental units and not homes? Was this apartment plan proposed in the past or completely new, sprung upon the public and nearby neighborhoods and instantly approved by the commission? And why not alter the design to add a few more floors and increase density by building dorm-style or SRO type units so even more folks can move in?
I'd say there will be more congestion and parking impacts from 94 units vs. 48 units. So while the “commission” acknowledged neighbors’ concerns around congestion and parking impacts, that’s all they’re doing. Acknowledging concerns but not doing anything about them - since they're almost doubling the number of available units.
Terrence, it sounds like you didn’t actually watch the meeting. I suggested a little homework around let’s required to the City Of San Mateo and then actually watch the meeting. Otherwise, your comments lack context and are really useless.
Thanks for your advice, Mr. Bonnila, but if you watched the meeting, why don’t you save us time and instead of contributing a vague response, you could add relevant context to address my concerns. Or, perhaps, you didn’t watch the meeting and that explains the tepid response?
BTW, Mr. Bonilla, remember a few months ago when I asked you to explain why Democrats such as yourself put the welfare of criminals and terrorists over the American people? Why your Democrat colleagues who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution fail to do so? Why Democrats want biological males to compete against biological females while invading their safe spaces? We haven’t forgotten and we’re still waiting.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.