241 of 324
August 8, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - Final broader issues.
Questions: Why doesn’t the owner want to preserve some of these trees? I understand there are live streams running underneath. What is the depth of the water table? Will tree removal affect the stability of the ground, especially for the adjacent neighbors? How difficult will it be to maneuver in those restricted spaces (such as tandem, i.e., placing children in car seats)? What does that do for other people waiting to get into and out of the garage? What happens when there is a power failure? Is the lift still available and does it have a back-up system? Is it controlled by computers? Computers often have glitches. Since no management on site, how will people access/retrieve their vehicles? Who will respond to make the repairs? Are there technicians to respond? Will parts be available for maintenance or repair? How about a traffic signal at W. Santa Inez and El Camino Real? What if permission for tie-backs is not given? Where is the exhaust system for the lift structure? Where is the exhaust going to go? This is lot line to lot line development. Where is construction equipment going to be stored? How are the construction logistics going to effect our community? Both homes are old. Has there been discussion about the demolition of structures, including the abatement of asbestos and lead paint? What are the details? Comments: Too massive for the neighborhood, traditional non-automated parking would only allow five units, many of us wouldn't be here if five units were proposed, 24” buckets of trees won’t help with mass, out of scale with the homes from on Santa Inez and Engle, where there are smaller homes from the 1920’s, reduce to 4-6 units max, seems to be what the neighborhood can absorb. Parking: Parking and traffic are already bad and a densely populated development will make it worse. San Mateo Park: (1) homes have single-car or no garages, on-street parking is needed for these residents and their guests, (2) is bordered by ECR, which has many R4 buildings along this transportation corridor. There is significant spillover parking from these R4 buildings, parking creeps up 1-2 blocks from every one of the R4 buildings; on-street parking also consumed by those going to work nearby or those leaving cars on street to fly out to the airport through rideshare applications, planning codes and guidelines do not take the reality of behaviors into consideration, those who choose not to use the lift system will park on W. Santa Inez and Engle Road, because there is no parking on ECR. Ingress, egress: Driveway location exacerbates existing difficult traffic conditions at intersection of West Santa Inez & ECR, will be absolute havoc, consider relocation of driveway to the less busy Engle Road. Traffic: Disagree with traffic report findings, for this reason asks Commission to reject the categorical exemption, traffic reports do not include accidents at West Santa Inez and ECR, significant delays for left turns onto ECR, traffic affects fire truck route, main route to ECR is down Santa Inez, check with the firefighters at the station and ask them if a fire truck will be able to get through.
CityLift automated parking system: We were not told of puzzle parking at original meetings at King Center earlier this year, city code states parking shall be “easily made without undue maneuvering to, into or out of a stall. All stalls shall be equally and independently accessible.”, however considerable maneuvering is made by this automated machine, and therefore parking does not meet code and is a reason for denial; parking system needs on-going maintenance, repair and eventual replacement, approval with this of parking system should require the HOA to take responsibility for lift for the life of the building, no confidence in two year maintenance agreement with the owner’s history of maintenance, unfair to put that onto the tenants, CityLift is better suited for high-density urban areas, not residential suburbs, SUVs don’t fit, SUV sales increasing, not realistic that everyone is going to use the lift.
Tree removal: Cutting down 23 trees (staff note: 22 are being removed), six are heritage trees, heritage tree language on the city website does not seem to apply to this project, though new trees will be planted, 24” box trees will take many years to reach maturity to provide ample screening, trees proposed on ECR may be a safety issue due to visability, tree selection under any mandate should be made by City Arborist; trees serve a variety of ecological functions-input from trained biologists and ecologist necessary to document particular ecological value that may not be obvious to the general public and/or the City Arborist.
242 of 324
August 8, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - Final Other comments: Concerned about street closures, cranes, construction trucks and equipment on the street; development is lot line to lot line, so trucks will be on the street during construction, neighbor’s permission is needed for proposed tiebacks, not going to happen, CalTrans doesn’t allow tiebacks on ECR; owner and architect ignored the density, traffic and planning concerns of the people expressed at the King Center meetings earlier this year, this is housing, but these are not affordable units; past decisions are part of the problem for Commission, obligation to residents and homeowners to first address the problems that we have now; once that is done, can consider larger developments/more units, other developments are coming, cumulative impact of approved and under-review projects, push to build high density residential without considering implications, larger concern for/should focus on infrastructure first, concern for the community; need to balance development and growth and grasp the impact on the people of San Mateo, loss of suburban environment. A number of concerns were raised by the adjacent neighbor, including size, privacy (window size), privacy barriers during construction, construction hours, excavation 20' deep 7' from their home, and concern that the project will cause unreasonable and irreparable damage to the structure.
Closing comments from speakers: Opposition is well founded, please preserve this neighborhood, consider the community, respectfully request you deny this project, asked to reduce size to the number of units that would be allowed with traditional underground parking and not the proposed mechanized process in a completely residential area; would like Planning Commission to look at some balance between R1 and R4--there is no buffer.
Three speakers spoke in favor of the project. Comments: Need for housing in the area, jobs outpacing housing, this is a creative solution to density and parking, walkable to downtown, this project, and more like it, are needed; proposed structure is not totally out of character with ECR, it is smaller than others.
The Chair closed the public comment for this item. Staff responded to some of the questions raised by the speakers. After some discussion, Commissioner Rodriguez moved to continue the public hearing on this item to a date uncertain, and that future public comment be limited to the conditions of approval. Second by Commissioner Drechsler. Motion approved 5-0 on a voice vote.
Continued to a Date Uncertain
Commissioner Ebneter, Commissioner O'Leary, Chairperson Whitaker, Vice Chair Rodriguez, and Commissioner Drechsler
Yes: 5 -
STUDY SESSION
3. San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Pre-Application - 2050 Detroit Drive (PA17-034)
Brad Underwood, Public Works Director, addressed the Commission. David Hogan, Contract Planner, reviewed the item with a PowerPoint presentation. Deryk Daquigan, Deputy Program Manager, San Mateo Clean Water Program, had a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the project in relationship with the Clean Water Program.
Staff clarified Planning Commission's role pertaining to this item. Public Works and the Clean Water Program staff are on working within a timeline; this project will return for a vote when a formal application is made. A site-specific CEQA will be a part of the formal application.
The Chair opened the public comment period for this item. Speakers: Kelly Moran, San Mateo, Esther Conrad, San Mateo, Renjit Mathew, San Mateo, Joshua Hugg, San Mateo, Adam Loraine, San Mateo, Richard Hedges, San Mateo. Speaker questions and comments:
243 of 324
August 8, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - Final Questions: The focus has been on meeting requirements to upgrade our facilities in time for permit renewal in 2020. What’s the long term design for the plant? Where are we headed in the long term? Will we be able to free up space at the site and, for example, move the corporation yard or other facilities to this location? Instead of building for a combined system, why don’t we design for a fix of the sanitary system? If the City did have a lateral ordinance, would blending be allowed? If that is true, would a smaller plant be allowed? If so, how much money would that save? Why is this important? 1) Would like tax dollars to be spent well, and 2) don’t want sewage leaking into the ground. Critically important to understand the link--if we have a lateral line ordinance, will it save us millions of dollars? Comments - general: All speakers commented about: Plant design and size, sewer lateral repair ordinance, and cost. Additional comments about permit timing and building for climate change resilience.
Detailed comments: Not clear how big the plant needs to be, largest capital expenditure undertaken, plant is oversized by designing it to deal with high levels of flow, if designed for less flow, it will be physically smaller, costing less and making way for other land uses, the design before you is fundamentally challenged, everything is in place except a sewer lateral repair ordinance for inflow reduction, don’t understand why we don’t, it’s known that water is seeping in from sewer laterals and that the lagoon is polluted with bacteria. Some of that is coming from the sewer laterals; the EPA, state water board and other environmental organizations are seeking sewer lateral improvements because the leaks from laterals are a public health threat, cannot size holding tanks if we do not know inflow from sewer laterals, need to look at the big picture, this is a very costly program, taxpayers will be bearing the cost, extra time could be afforded to look into the matter of a sewer lateral ordinance, sewer lateral infiltration has an influence on the necessity to have a plant of a certain size and has implications for groundwater infiltration, if we address the sewer lateral inspection issue, it buys us time with the RWQCB permit, this time allows us to (1) look at an appropriately sized, less expensive alternative and (2) provide a much more comprehensive solution; the phasing flexibility allowed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is not specified in the materials before the Planning Commission tonight (speaker asked City to follow up with RWQCB). Climate change resilience comments: Important to build beyond the minimum to protect this very critical piece of infrastructure. For public health and the functioning of the community, it is important to consider elevations, structures and design that protect the facility beyond 30 years, include designs elements such as horizontal levees. Speakers urged Commission to: ask these questions, encourage staff to support the matters articulated, and ask City Council to reconsider how to move forward on this; the design and future use of the site are affected.
Discussion was held between commissioners and staff about the formal application process and Commission’s charge this evening. Commission comments and questions: Speakers have made significant comments, concerned about how FEMA flood protection ties in with this, concerned about sustainability of this project, saltwater intrusion into the wastewater process. When was the last time Council weighed in on the project before us tonight? Concerned that circumstances may have changed since then. Will the RWQCB allow us to slow our process down so that we can look at alternatives? Staff responded. Commission's comments followed.
Planning Commission Comments:
Want City Council and Public Works staff to consider information/benefit from advice from both Commission and citizenry, important information provided tonight is of concern, concerned things have changed since project was approved by Council, need cohesive information, facility is too large and should be scaled down to reduce cost, need to make sure taxpayers money is not needlessly spent, urges City Council and Public Works to consider/have conversation about sewer lateral repairs/ordinance, assume Public Works/City staff are looking into the 100 year flood and climate change aspect, we have a duty from a public safety standpoint, there are areas we can improve, there is pressure from a regulatory board, but for a project of this magnitude, if we know we can do better, consider options before moving forward.
244 of 324
August 8, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - Final Comments about project design: Most commissioners favored the building design, including screening and the pedestrian bridge. One stated the west elevation is the most interesting and would rather see it face Joinville instead of the parking lot. One commissioner did not find administration building and headworks aesthetically pleasing. Other comments: Concerned about the elevation of new and existing buildings; some of the existing facility is below sea level, reality of sea level rise is a consideration, the basement below the administration building will be rendered useless in time of flood, use highest quality materials to make the project last as long as possible, include reflection of the natural environment in design.
Landscaping: No negative comments about landscaping. Consider horizontal wetlands; one commissioner preferred mixing plant materials for a less manicured look, another expressed concern about tree selection due to quality of the soil. Raised walkway is high maintenance, one commented that it did not need to be elevated. Educational component: All favorable comments; added that it should be interactive, use technology, and should be as engaging as possible. The idea of incorporating a public art piece as part of the education element/part of the design was stated.
REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Reports and announcements were not made due to the late hour.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m., Wednesday, August 9th.
245 of 324
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Regular Meeting Minutes - Final
Planning Commission
COMMISSION MEMBERS
John Ebneter, Chair
Charlie Drechsler
Pamela O'Leary
Eric Rodriguez
Dianne Whitaker
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Council Chambers 7:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairperson John Ebneter, Commissioner Dianne Whitaker, Commissioner Eric Rodriguez, and Commissioner Charlie Drechsler
Present 4 -
Commissioner Pamela O'LearyExcused 1 -
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve the Minutes of the September 12, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Rodriguez moved to approve the minutes with clarification that the August 22nd minutes were approved “as amended”. Second by Commissioner Drechsler. Motion to approve as amended carries 4-0 by a voice vote.
Approved as Amended
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Chair opened the public comment period. There were no speakers. Public comment period closed.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. 4 West Santa Inez Condos - 4 West Santa Inez / 1 Engle Road (PA15-104) Lily Lim, Associate Planner, reviewed the project with a PowerPoint presentation. Jack Matthews, of John Matthews architects addressed the Planning Commission about the Conditions of Approval.
The Chair opened the public comment period for this item. Speakers: Mary Diepenbrock, San Mateo, James Cravalho, San Mateo, Mary Cravalho, San Mateo, Eileen McKague, San Mateo, Brian McKague, San Mateo, Arnie Rodman, San Mateo, Debbie Leizgold, San Mateo, Gerry Wentworth, San Mateo, Christopher Angelo, San Mateo, Craig Jory, San Mateo, Tom Thompson, San Mateo. Speakers commented about the conditions pertaining to: The automated mechanical parking system, zoning code conformity, shoring/scaffolding, site survey, soils report and possibility of monitoring by third party structural engineer, consistency with the General Plan, design review comment letter, proof of liability insurance, landscape improvements, site development permit for removal of trees and tree replacement/in lieu fees, heritage tree protection, verification of landscape installation, west elevation windows, building construction activities, temporary construction of privacy fence, material hauling and construction worker parking. Several documents were submitted by the speakers.
The Chair closed the public comment period for this item. Staff and City Attorney responded to questions raised during the public comment period.
246 of 324
September 26, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - Final Commission questions, comments and discussion: History of automated parking systems in San Mateo, study session requirements (established by City Council resolution in the 1990’s - 20 units), appeal process, neighborhood parking permits, California Civil Code 832, parking system annual review condition, tree removal, need for housing, building height, building setbacks, previous project approval at this site, high quality design by a respected architect, however out of scale for the neighborhood, project needs to be smaller and more respectful of the 1-2 stories in the neighborhood, great design but wrong place, consider reducing the number or mix of units, traffic, parking, not in a transit corridor, addressing mechanized parking for future projects, thanked staff, neighborhood and applicant for trying to work with others on very important issues that came up, appreciate efforts to increase housing stock, however, biggest concern is how this will impact that neighborhood, project is not treating the neighbors with the respect that is needed.
Commissioner Drechsler moved that the project, as presented this evening, be denied, with direction to staff to draft findings for denial as a Consent Calendar item for the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 2017. Motion seconded by Commissioner Rodriguez and approved 3-1, Commissioner Whitaker voting no, and Commissioner O'Leary excused (absent).
Denied
Yes: Chairperson Ebneter, Commissioner Rodriguez, and Commissioner Drechsler3 - No: Commissioner Whitaker1 -
Excused: Commissioner O'Leary1 -
STUDY SESSION
3. 303 Baldwin Avenue Mixed-Use Pre-Application (PA17-033) Roscoe Mata, Associate Planner, reviewed the project with a PowerPoint presentation. Jonathan Moss, Executive Vice President & Founding Partner, Prometheus Real Estate, addressed the Planning Commission and answered Commission's questions. Bryan Shiles, FAIA, Founding Partner, WRNS Studio, addressed the Planning Commission with a PDF presentation.
Chair opened the public comment period for this item. Speakers: Susan Dahi, San Mateo, Michael Weinhauer, San Mateo, Maxine Terner, San Mateo, and Drew (last name not provided), San Mateo.
Comments/concerns: Traffic, parking--274 spaces will not be enough, setbacks, too much hardscape, not enough greenspace or recreation area, important project because it will set a precedence for downtown San Mateo and it abuts the historical district, this is currently a Latino-heavy shopping center, North B Street Initiative seeks to prevent gentrification of the area (speaker submitted document), blend with the historical feel of downtown, assess with the myriad of projects coming to San Mateo in mind, doesn’t address the need for housing, glass wall box inappropriate for downtown, jobs-housing balance, automated parking. The Chair closed the public comment period for this item.
Commission questions: Q: Intersection concerns? A: (staff) Will be examined as part of the traffic and pedestrian safety reports. The bulb-outs provide shorter and safer pedestrian crossing lanes.
Questions for the applicant:
Q: How did the neighborhood meetings change your proposal? A: Meetings were held very recently and the comments aren’t reflected in these drawings. Concerns revolved around traffic, parking, and how architecture fits. This building is consistent with massing in downtown, there is a diversity of architecture, and feels design put forth is consistent with that. Only a few office buildings have been built in downtown over a very long period of time. The market for office tenants, including ourselves, is for glazing to be pronounced in a significant manner. The glass elements are broken up. There is a reason why there are a
247 of 324
September 26, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - Final lot of newer buildings with large, open glass spaces--the market absolutely demands it. It is needed to attract a tenant that will be paying a reasonable rent for the building. It is important to note some of the images were residential buildings with punched windows/small apertures, which differ from offices.
Q: Some of the buildings downtown resulted in the enactment of height limits, citizens may not want those as a benchmark for comparison. A: We are not close to the heights of those 80-110’ buildings; we are immediately across the street from the train station; height limit is 55’; in our opinion, proposal is not excessive.
Q: Do you anticipate talking with someone about designing within a historical context of downtown? A: We have not considered that, but may very well consider an advising historic architect. WRNS has an incredibly long history in design both in this context and completely different contexts has considerable experience in this area.
Q: Housing mix - there is not much variety in the size of the units, think larger units are needed. Did you consider varying the size of the units? A: We would love to do larger units, I love to do two and three bedrooms units, however, the trade-off would be an increase bulk and mass. The unit count was important to make this project feasible. So yes, these units are smaller, even smaller than we want them to be.
Q: What version of mechanized parking will you have? How does this work? A: We have done a number of mechanized hydraulic lifts in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara; this will be a puzzle lift configuration. We are currently evaluating the details and manufacturers, including CityLift and Klaus, which is the world’s largest to my knowledge. We are interested in a system with the shortest wait time; looked into elevator lifts, which had a slightly longer wait time. We will be occupying more than half the building, so we want to make sure the lift system operates in a manner that is successful for everybody.
Q: How many below market rate (BMR) units are proposed? A: Six, that’s one more than required.
Q: What can you do to make the north wall more palatable for the residents who see that? A: (Bryan Stiles) Honestly, that hasn’t been studied, and it will be.
Q: Will it be feasible to step back the units on North B? A: Though consistent with what code allows-it sounds like there is interest in further stepping that back. Financially, and frankly, it makes it that much more difficult to make this work. Prevailing wage pushes the cost up 30-35%, which is tens of millions of dollars.
We are committed for the long-term because we want to be located here as an office, if we weren’t committed to being here, we wouldn’t have proceeded.
Q: Use of the public space beyond the lighter paver space? A: Absolutely, yes. That’s why we pulled the building spaces back.
Q: Are you considering unbundling your parking? A: We are open to suggestions, but generally do not unbundle because our experience is that residents will want to save $100/month and will park on the street, which creates problems.
Q: Shared parking off hours? When commercial offices are empty, are comfortable with that; have found there is a little rub in the morning around and again in the afternoon, but for 20 hours a day it is fine.
Q: Why are 274 parking spaces provided where 243 are required? A: We wanted to put together a set of drawings that showed we could achieve that if the market called for it.
Q: Any thought of providing a grocery store on the ground floor? A: Yes, we do have that option and would
248 of 324
September 26, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - Final love to have a market in there. In the end, the market will determine the uses that will work here. We have reached out to a local broker to engage with local businesses who may want to relocate here. Currently, the interest level has been cafés and restaurants. Mark and Mike (Tragoutsis) have concluded the grocery market is a tough row to hoe, given the competition that exists out there. We are hopeful, but the probability of a market is lower than preferred.
Q: What do you mean by “giving back to the community” A: We are taking 12% of the property and giving it back to the City.
Q: Will there be retail dining opportunities? A: Absolutely. With a much wider sidewalk around the entire property, the pedestrian experience will be significantly improved relative to what is there now.
Q: Will you sign a sidewalk maintenance agreement require insurance if it is used by your tenants? A: Yes, absolutely, whatever is required by the City.
Commission Comments:
Building Design: This could be a great building, work to see it fits with our historic downtown/would appreciate if you could talk to a third party about how to better integrate this building, consider how the building will change our downtown, less glass/glass is overbearing, mix materials, look into reducing bulk by stepping back on Baldwin and North B. Consider a more integrated building design within the building itself- -too much contrast between top and bottom, dark brown brick doesn’t exude the warmth of traditional brick, consider what the public is going to see from the outside. There will be a shade-study; will also take into consideration reflection, concerned about reflection and impact on neighboring residences and businesses (N. Ellsworth and N. B), a little bit of architecture for inspiration is okay, doesn’t have to be completely historical, but feels too modern for this area, show some historic features, consider presentation of the building as one comes from the transit station, reflect the eclectic style of downtown, consider culture, businesses and vibe on North B. Consider North B Street facade elevation and how it interacts with adjacent buildings, Baldwin facade needs more work, north end will need more character than flat wall.
Parking: Appreciate that more parking is provided than is required; interested in the automated parking system that will be chosen and how that will play out in the two levels of parking garage; don’t have enough information on the automated parking to comment; will evaluate parking when we look at the traffic demand management and other information, parking can be addressed with transportation demand management (TDM), they can work and are critical to the success of this project.
Ground Floor Residential Use and Site Plan/Site Access: On Ellsworth side you have ingress and egress, trash and loading, don’t feel that is a good fit for that side of the building. How will garbage be handled, consider relocation of the three backflow prevention devices, they are near the walkway that leads to the units. Ground floor residential looks good, don’t have a problem, would prefer you vary the unit size for variety, unit mix-would like if could add a few two-bedroom units.
Additional comments:Try to balance what the market will bring plus what will be right for downtown San Mateo; possibility of more units: May be able to take advantage of the state’s density bonus to add additional BMR units-look into that, satisfy the land-use and urban design elements of the General Plan, at public hearing will ask again how you responded after meeting with residents and neighborhoods, like the idea of a the grocery space. Looking forward to hearing about: Sustainability measures,TDM. Thanked for below market rate units, likes the way the space is activated on ground floor-on Baldwin and B--it is exciting and will help anchor downtown. Thanked public who spoke this evening, and for the letters which came in, hopes applicant will consider the input. Wants to approve this project when it comes back to Commission, wants to get mixed uses in downtown, exciting to see this prospect. Would like to see units for growing population of seniors and a 50-50 office/residential square footage split. Building affects the lives of people
249 of 324
September 26, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - Final in the neighborhood; difficult to balance improvements when people living next to them, be cognizant of that as we move forward, hope for participation in 100% green energy. Chair closed this item.
NEW BUSINESS
4. Election of Planning Commission Vice Chair
Commissioner Drechsler moved to continue the election of the Vice Chair to a meeting when all five Planning Commissioners are present. Second by Commissioner Whitaker, motion passes 4-0 by a voice vote.
Continued to a Date Uncertain
REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Upcoming meetings:
City Council:
October 2nd - Public Hearing to determine use of the Hillsdale Terraces required developer contribution of $400,000.
October 16th - Recommendation for 10 year time extension of Public Storage site Planning Commission:
October 10th - Findings for Denial for 4 West Santa Inez, Election of Vice Chair October 24th - Planning Commission - Annual Review Station Park Green Development October 30th - Planning Commission-City Council Study Session for the upcoming General Plan effort
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m..
250 of 324
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Regular Meeting Minutes - Final
Planning Commission
COMMISSION MEMBERS
John Ebneter, Chair
Charlie Drechsler
Pamela O'Leary
Eric Rodriguez
Dianne Whitaker
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Council Chambers 7:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairperson John Ebneter, Commissioner Dianne Whitaker, Commissioner Eric Rodriguez, and Commissioner Charlie Drechsler
Present 4 -
Commissioner Pamela O'LearyExcused 1 -
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Drechsler moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion failed for a lack of a second. Consent calendar items were reviewed individually.
1. Approval of the Minutes of the September 26, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Whitaker moved to approve the minutes with amendments noted during the meeting.
Second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Motion passes 4-0 on a voice vote.
Approved as Amended
2. Adoption of Written Findings for Denial for 4 West Santa Inez Condos - 4 West Santa Inez Avenue / 1 Engle Road (PA15-104)
Commissioner Rodriguez noted the applicant submitted a letter, received today, requesting Planning Commission deny the project without prejudice.The Chair asked if any members of the public want to comment on this request. Speakers: Arnold Rodman, San Mateo, James Cravahlo, San Mateo, Taso Zografos, San Mateo, Gerry Wentworth, San Mateo, Eileen McKague, San Mateo. Comments:This is another twist in the road, if this is to be redesigned, need to make sure: (1) the public has a chance to comment on redesign, (2) project goes through a new hearing process, (3) take into consideration everything that was discussed when it was reviewed. What does “denial without prejudice mean”? How is this different than a denial? If the applicant can come back with the same project, how can the concerns of public and commission be met? What criteria will be used to define the resubmitted project? When denied without prejudice, does that mean the neighborhood be involved, or just staff and applicant? Will the community be able to have a voice in what the resubmittal will look like? Public needs confidence that the project won’t return with only slight modifications, don’t have a good feeling about what denial with prejudice means, neighborhood is concerned about a number of factors, want a win-win, architect was asked if they would consider 7-8 units and the answer was no, fair to say the neighborhood didn’t want anything more than 5-6 units, so 7-8 isn’t going to work. If denied and applicant works with neighborhood satisfactorily, can the time be reduced?
Commission and staff responded to public comments and discussed: The manner in which items can come back to a public hearing in accordance with the municipal code, definitions and procedures, waivers of time limitations, neighborhood meetings and deliberated whether to deny with or without prejudice.
Commissioner Rodriguez moved the project be denied without prejudice, and that the wording be added to
251 of 324
October 10, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - Final the prepared resolution. Second by Commissioner Whitaker. The motion was considered "no action", following a 2-2 vote, with Commissioners Rodriguez and Whitaker voting yes and Commissioners Drechsler and Ebneter voting no. Commissioner Drechsler motioned that Item 2 be adopted as written.
Second by Commissioner Ebneter, motion passes 3-1, with Commissioner Whitaker voting no (Commissioner O'Leary absent).
Chief of Planning noted that Planning Commission’s decision is final unless appealed to the City Council in accordance with the Municipal Code.
Adopted
PUBLIC COMMENT
Speaker: Gerry Wentworth, San Mateo: Asked how the appeal process would work if one or both Planning Commissioners running for City Council were elected; also asked if a project denied by Planning Commission could be overturned by two new city council members.There being no further speakers, the Chair closed the Public Comment Period.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Election of Planning Commission Vice Chair
Staff and Commission comments: Not a full Commission at this time, when a full Commission is expected, and the upcoming Planning Commission schedule. Commissioner Drechsler moved to postpone election of the Planning Commission Vice Chair. Seconded by Commissioner Whitaker. Motion passes 4-0-1 on voice vote.
Continued to a Date Uncertain
Yes: Chairperson Ebneter, Commissioner Whitaker, Commissioner Rodriguez, and Commissioner Drechsler
4 -
Excused: Commissioner O'Leary1 -
REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Thursday, October 12th - two evening meetings: (1) St. Matthews Catholic Church bi-annual neighborhood meeting, and (2) A public information meeting regarding automobile shop vehicle lifts - 6:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers.
Tuesday, October 24th: Station Park Green Development Agreement Annual Review Monday, October 30th: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session, (upcoming General Plan update), 6:00 p.m. meeting time is preferred.
Chief of Planning has communicated to Commission, by e-mail, that there will not be a full commission until November, and due to a number of other events, Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC) matters will be moved to November. There is nothing presently scheduled for November.
For the remainder of 2017, it does not look like we will have a major proposal coming forward, with the one exception of the affordable housing site at Bay Meadows.
Commissioner Drechsler asked that the meeting be closed with respect to the victims of the California wildfires.
ADJOURNMENT
252 of 324
October 10, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - Final The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
253 of 324
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Maureen Freschet
Joe Goethals
Eric Rodriguez
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Regular Meeting Minutes
City Council
Monday, February 5, 2018
City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 PM
Regular Meeting
OPENING
Pledge of Allegiance: Operation Eagle Visit - Homecoming 50 Years Roll Call
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Present: 5 - Mayor Bonilla, Deputy Mayor Papan, Council Member Freschet, Council Member Goethals, and Council Member Rodriguez
CONSENT CALENDAR — CITY COUNCIL
The following items were considered to be routine by the City Council. After the titles of the items were read by the City Clerk, the public was invited to comment and there were no speakers.
Motion by Goethals, second by Rodriguez, to approve the CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL items 1 through 8. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 5 - Mayor Bonilla, Deputy Mayor Papan, Council Member Freschet, Council Member Goethals, and Council Member Rodriguez
1. City Council Meeting Minutes Approval
Approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular meetings of January 2, 2018.
2. Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration Agreement - Amendments Approve amendments to the Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration Agreements with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for shuttle operations and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendments; accept $ 164,800 in grant funds for the Campus Drive and Norfolk Area routes; adopt a Resolution to appropriate $ 49,000 from the General Fund to the San Mateo Commuter Shuttle project.
Enactment No: RES No. 13 ( 2018)
3. Poplar Corridor Safety Improvement Project - Budget Appropriation Adopt a Resolution to authorize a budget appropriation in the amount of $ 105,000 for the Poplar Corridor Safety Improvement Project
Enactment No: RES No. 14 ( 2018)
4. Examination of Sales or Transactions and Use Tax Records Adopt a Resolution to authorize MuniServices, LLC to examine sales or transactions and use tax records for Measure S -related revenues.
Enactment No: RES No. 15 ( 2018)
254 of 324
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 5, 2018
5. Citywide Private Sewer Lateral Cost Sharing Program - Budget Transfer Adopt. a Resolution to authorize a budget transfer of $ 140,000 from the Citywide Annual Sewer Rehabilitation Project Account to the Citywide Private Sewer Lateral Cost Sharing Program.
Enactment No: RES No. 16 ( 2018)
6. Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program - Amendment
Approve the Sustainable Solutions Turnkey program Service Agreement Amendment and Work Order with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to complete the Investment Grade Assessment for municipal energy efficiency retrofits and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.
7. City of San Mateo Annual Investment Policy - Approval Adopt a Resolution to approve the City of San Mateo 2018 Investment Policy.
Enactment No: RES No. 17 ( 2018)
8. Refunding of Golf Revenue Bonds
Authorize staff to proceed with the refunding of the Golf Course Project Revenue Bonds, Refunding Series 2007B.
End of Consent Calendar
Removed from Consent Calendar
9. Measure S Oversight Committee Appointment - Subcommittee Recommendation Motion by Papan, second by Freschet, to approve the recommendation from the Measure S Appointment Subcommittee to appoint the following five individuals to serve as the establishing members of the Measure S Oversight Committee: Rich Hedges, Naomi Chin-Fuen Hsu, Thomas Morgan, Lisa Diaz Nash, and Travis Taylor. Following the vote Hedges, Hsu, Morgan and Nash were sworn into office. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 5 - Mayor Bonilla, Deputy Mayor Papan, Council Member Freschet, Council Member Goethals, and Council Member Rodriguez
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ronald Brey stated he is against development. Thomas Weissmiller commented on taxes and fees spoke against increasing bridge tolls and aggressive sales tax.
PUBLIC HEARING
10. 4 West Santa Inez Condos - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Council Member Rodriguez recused himself from consideration of this item as he heard and voted on the project in his role as a Planning Commissioner. He left the meeting at 7:21 pm.
Associate Planner Lily Lim provided the staff presentation and outlined the process undertaken for this project. Council asked questions of staff about public outreach. The Applicant/Appellant presented information on the project. Council asked questions of staff and the applicant.
255 of 324
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 5, 2018
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing. Taso Zografos, group spokesperson, for Gramercy -Mounds, El Cerrito Neighborhood Association, asked for Council to consider denying the project with prejudice, and uphold the Planning Commission denial. Allow the applicant to file a waiver before the one year period.
In support of the project: Rafael Reyes - need housing; Mark Hassloop - conflict between zoning designation, apply rules fairly and consistently; Victoria Fierce - obligation to follow housing law; Karen Sarraf, property manager - pledges to ensure residents understand the rules; Grant Wendt - diversity of housing opportunity; Tom Thompson - project meets or exceeds all City requirements; Mike Haddock - we need more homes not lawsuits; Gina Zari, SAMCAR - much needed housing; Evelyn Stivers, Housing Leadership Council - consistent with General Plan and zoning, careful not to make a decision based on misinformation and fear; Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain - works in the transit corridor.
In opposition of the project: Ron Eicher - concem with tree impacts; Jodie Penner - too large for lot; Mary Diepenbrock - does not fit in 4 W. Inez; Eileen McKague - thanked planning commission for denying with prejudice; Brian McKague - massive with no setback; Gerry Wentworth = parking congestion; Deborah Leizgold - parking stalls; Arnold Rodman - concern with parking proposal in the building; Patricia DeMoulin - concem with automated parking impacting street parking; Michael Horrigan - concem with only one neighborhood meeting; Christopher Angelo - City Lift rebuttal to concems raised about limiting cars that can use the lift; Craig Jory - building not appropriate will impede emergency response; Lorna Shea - directly adjacent to the site never contacted by applicant; Mary Cravalho - adjacent to the project detrimental to the quality of life; James Cravalho - explain what adding without prejudice means versus with prejudice; Jackie Wentworth - asked for compromise; Linda Bogue - there is no check on this project too massive; Thomas Weissmiller - parking and traffic are a problem; Nancy de Ita - parking and traffic impacts, look at safety factor; Clair Weissmiller - no parking in the neighborhood. Virginia Mclsaac these are market rate housing.
There being no further speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council recessed at 9:17 pm and reconvened at 9:26 pm.
Applicant rebuttal - Architect Jack Matthews provided a rebuttal to the public comment.
City Attorney Shawn Mason explained that denies with prejudice means an applicant can come back after one year. Without prejudice can come back sooner than one year. He commented on the Housing Accountability Act The Planning Manager, Ron Munekawa, explained the need for objective standards, not subjective and provided information on parking requirements. Council asked questions of staff and consultants.
Council deliberated stating their appreciation of the project, the applicant, the neighbors and the Planning Commission and encouraged the applicant to come back with a different project.
Motion by Papan, second by Freschet, to Adopt a Resolution to deny the appeal without prejudice and uphold the Planning Commission decision on Planning Application ( 4 West Santa Inez and 1 Engle Road), Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a new 15,322 square foot
256 of 324
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 5, 2018
10 - unit residential condominium project; Site Development PlanningApplication for the removal of 22 trees; and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map based on the Findings for Denial. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 3 - Deputy Mayor Papan, Council Member Freschet, and Council Member Goethals No: 1 - Mayor Bonilla
Recused: 1 - Council Member Rodriguez
Enactment No: RES No. 18 ( 2018)
NEW BUSINESS
11. Consideration of Extension of Measure P General Plan Policies Commissioner Rodriguez rejoined the meeting at 10:07 pm.
City Manager Larry Patterson presented staff report and outlined the question that had been brought by residents to the Council to extend Measure P. The options up for discussion were:
Option 1. Take No Action
If sufficient signatures - Council places on November ballot If approved - Council unable to modify policies without voter approval If rejected - Council could modify policies upon Measure P expiration Option 2. Initiate CEQA process to evaluate alternative Measure Initial Study - significant impacts if approved: a) No - Negative Declaration; b) Yes - Environmental Impact Report
Council could elect to place alternative Measure on the ballot upon completion of environmental review.
Public Comment: Ken Abrey - don't do the ballot initiative, have it be part of the General Plan process; Michael Weinhauer - select the do nothing option so the initiative process can go forward; Lisa Taner - extending Measure P protects affordable housing; Justin Alley - in order to make positive improvements, we need to approach this carefully in a deliberative action and have an open, honest fact based dialogue; Rebecca Wysong - does not agree with extending Measure P; Nancy Schneider - need to be open to different options higher density and height limits in downtown makes the most sense; Jordan Grimes - Measure P has contributed to escalating housing prices; Adam Lorraine - please support option 1; Evelyn Stivers - leave options open.
Adina Levin - don't short circuit Measure P process; Maxine Temer - concerns with Measure P expiring during the General Plan process; Victoria Fierce - choose the path that gives the most density; Keith Weber - Measure P will help create affordable housing. Karen Herrel - asked Council to choose the let us do it for you option; Thomas Weissmiller commented.
Council asked questions of staff and San Mateans for Responsive Government. Council deliberated and provided their comments:
257 of 324
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 5, 2018
Deputy Mayor Papan stated she is mindful of costs, states it is inelegant to mandate a second election to change process; extending to 2025 is a better alternative, and more methodical.
Council Member Goethals stated he is prepared to move forward with the General Plan and Downtown Planning process and felt Option 1 do nothing is preferred.
Council Member Rodriguez stated he is in favor of Option 1; and he would personally prefer and request that the ballot measure be moved to five years instead of ten. He is concemed with diverting staff time from other high priorities.
Council Member Freschet stated she is in support of Option 1; not because she wants to as she is very disappointed and does not understand how tying the hands of the City until 2030 makes sense and views the initiative as robbing the City of the opportunity to have the dialogue.
Mayor Bonilla stated he does not appreciate the feeling that the City is being pushed into a comer.
He believes we can have a thoughtful, informed, considerate dialogue on the issue as part of the process. He has to to go with Option 1 because we don't have time to go through the CEQA process. There is no reasonable choice.
12. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Mid - Year Financial Summary
Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Drew Corbett and Budget Analyst Grace Castenada provided an update on the financial position at the mid - year. Council asked questions of staff.
Public comment was offered and there were no speakers.
OLD BUSINESS
13. City Council Draft Strategic Plan/City Council Priorities for Fiscal Year 2018-19 Deputy City Manager Kathy Kleinbaum provided an update on the City Council draft strategic plan.
Council asked questions and provided direction.
Public Comment: Chris Sturken, One San Mateo - affordable housing should stay on the top of the priority list. Regina Islas - engagement with people of color communities is critical, use public lands for 100% affordable housing. Drew stated the list is solid and there are several priorities he is in agreement with on the plan.
REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
The City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members reported on their various assignments and liaison roles.
258 of 324
R k onilla, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 5, 2018
ADJOURNMENT
Following a moment of silence for San Bruno City Clerk Carol Bonner who passed away peacefully on January 22, 2018 surrounded by her loved ones, the meeting adjourned at 11:56 pm in her honor.
DB SUBMI r ED BY:
Patrice M. 0'• -, City Clerk
259 of 324
260 of 324
261 of 324
262 of 324
263 of 324
264 of 324
265 of 324
266 of 324
267 of 324
268 of 324
269 of 324
270 of 324
271 of 324
272 of 324
273 of 324
274 of 324
275 of 324
276 of 324
277 of 324
278 of 324
279 of 324
280 of 324
Memorandum
Date: January 4, 2016
To: Lily Lim, City of San Mateo
From: Gary Black
Lance Knox
Subject: Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Residential Project at 4 W. Santa Inez Avenue in San Mateo, California
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a traffic study for the proposed multifamily residential project at 4 West Santa Inez Avenue in San Mateo, California. The project site is located west of El Camino Real between Engle Road and West Santa Inez Avenue (see Figure 1). The proposed project would include 10 condominium dwelling units with an underground parking garage. The project proposes six three-bedroom units, three two-bedroom units, and one one- bedroom unit. The site currently is occupied by two single-family homes. The current homes have one driveway to W. Santa Inez Avenue and one driveway to Engel Road (see Figure 2). The proposed project would have one driveway on W. Santa Inez Avenue.
The City of San Mateo has requested a traffic analysis be conducted for existing conditions as well as 2040 conditions with the project. The purpose of this traffic study is to identify whether the addition of project traffic at adjacent intersections would cause a significant impact by City standards. The study includes an evaluation of existing traffic conditions, vehicular trip generation estimates, and a qualitative analysis of traffic operations with the project.
Existing Roadway Network
El Camino Real (SR 82) is a four-lane north-south major arterial that serves the northwest residential areas of San Mateo. El Camino Real provides access to numerous residential streets within the project vicinity, as well as connects to commercial districts south of the project site.
According to the City’s General Plan, major arterial streets, such as El Camino Real, have a maximum capacity of about 50,000 vehicles per day. With an ADT of about 42,300, El Camino Real is currently operating below the capacity.
W. Santa Inez Avenue is a two-lane east-west collector street that serves the residential areas of San Mateo adjacent to Hillsboro Heights. Along the eastern edge of the project site, W. Santa Inez Avenue connects to El Camino Real via a one-way stop intersection with no turn pockets. Access to the project site is provided via one driveway along W. Santa Inez Avenue.
Project Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by common land uses. The research is compiled in a reference book published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) entitled Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012). The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development. Hexagon used the ITE trip generation rates for 281 of 324
A Traffic Analysis for the Residential Project at 4 W. Santa Inez Avenue January 4, 2016 P a g e | 2
Apartment (Land Use 220) instead of the trip generation rates for Condominium/Townhouse (Land Use 230), to generate a conservative estimate of project trips because the apartment rates are higher.
Based on average trip generation rates for Apartments (Land Use 220), the proposed development would generate a total of 67 daily trips, with 5 trips (1 in and 4 out) occurring during the morning (AM) peak commute hour and 6 trips (4 in and 2 out) occurring during the evening (PM) peak commute hour (see Table 1). It is expected that most, if not all, incoming and outgoing project traffic would use El Camino Real, since W. Santa Inez Avenue does not connect to any large destinations (i.e. retail stores, schools, or workplaces). Therefore, the project trip generation equates to one new trip on El Camino Real every 10-12 minutes. It is unlikely that such a small number of added trips would be noticeable to existing residents.
Given that the proposed project would demolish the existing buildings on-site, trip credits were taken for the trips generated by the existing two houses currently occupying the project site.
After applying the trip credits for the existing buildings on-site, the project would generate a net total of 47 daily trips, with 4 trips (1 in and 3 out) during the AM peak hour and 4 trips (3 in and 1 out) during the PM peak hour.
Table 1
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Project
Santa Inez Residential Housing 1 10 units 6.65 67 0.51 1 4 5 0.62 4 2 6 Existing Use
Single-Family Housing 2 2 units 9.52 19 0.75 0 1 2 1.00 1 1 2 Net Project Trips 47 1 3 4 3 1 4
Notes
1 Apartment (Land Use 220) based on ITE's Trip Generation, 9th Edition , average rates. 2 Single-Family Detached (Land Use 252) based on ITE's Trip Generation, 9th Edition , average rates.
Daily PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour
Size
With an estimated 47 added daily trips, the project would add traffic equal to 0.094 percent of the capacity on El Camino Real. Thus, when project trips are combined with the existing residential traffic, the road would continue to operate below capacity. 282 of 324
Clark Dr
Tilton Ave
N San Mat
eo Dr
Highla
nd A
ve
N el Camino Real
E Popla
r Ave
E Santa In
ez A
ve
Elm S
t
Monte
Diablo
Av
e
N Ell
sworth A
ve
E B
elle
vue Ave
W Santa
Inez Ave
Stat
e St
W B
ellevue
Ave
Barroilhet
Ave
Howard Ave
Baldwin
Av
e
Ba
yswater
Ave
St Matthe
ws Av
e
Peninsu
la Ave
El Cerrito AveEl Cerrito Ave
LEGEND
= City of San Mateo
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
4 W. Santa Inez Avenue Residential Project
El Cerrito Ave
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersections
X
1 2
3
283 of 324
El Camino RealEl Camino Real
W. Santa Inez AveW. Santa Inez Ave
Engle RdEngle Rd
LEGEND
= Project Site
4. W. Santa Inez Avenue Residential Project
El Camino Real
W. Santa Inez Ave
Engle Rd
Figure 2
Project Site Aerial
284 of 324
A Traffic Analysis for the Residential Project at 4 W. Santa Inez Avenue January 4, 2016 P a g e | 5
Intersection Operations
The operating conditions of the nearby intersections were qualitatively evaluated for significant impacts. Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS).
Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The City of San Mateo level of service standard is mid-LOS D (delay of 45 seconds) or better for signalized intersections. The City of San Mateo does not have standards for unsignalized intersections. City traffic policies do not consider unsignalized intersections to represent constraints to the operation of the transportation system. The nearest signalized intersections to the project site include El Camino Real/Peninsula Avenue, El Camino Real/Poplar Avenue, and El Camino Real/Tilton Avenue.
Operating conditions at these intersections are described below.
El Camino Real and Peninsula Avenue
The intersection of El Camino Real and Peninsula Avenue currently operates at LOS B during both the morning (AM) and the evening (PM) peak commute hours. The intersection would carry a small portion of the project traffic given that El Camino Real ultimately extends into the City of Burlingame and Peninsula Avenue extends to US 101. Project traffic through this study intersection would be minimal and add very little, if any, vehicle delay. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour under 2040 conditions.
El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue
El Camino Real and Poplar Avenue currently operates at LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours. Some project traffic would be expected to travel through this intersection. However, the added project traffic would not significantly impact intersection operations. The intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours under 2040 conditions.
El Camino Real and Tilton Avenue
El Camino Real and Tilton Avenue currently operates at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. Some project traffic would use southbound El Camino Real through this intersection.
However, the project would add minimal delays and would not significantly impact intersection operations. Under 2040 conditions, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours.
Conclusions
The proposed residential project at 4 W. Santa Inez Avenue would generate less than 10 trips during the AM and PM peak hours. Under existing conditions, the adjacent study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS B or better. The addition of project-generated trips to El Camino Real would be minimal and unlikely to be noticed by existing residents. The added project trips would not create a noticeable change in intersection operations at the nearby intersections. 285 of 324
Memorandum
Date: July 12, 2017
To: Ms. Lily Lim, City of San Mateo
From: Gary Black
Subject: 4 W. Santa Inez, San Mateo, California–Parking Feasibility Study Introduction
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a parking feasibility study for the proposed multifamily residential project at 4 West Santa Inez in San Mateo, California. The project site is located west of El Camino Real between Engle Road and West Santa Inez Avenue (see Figure 1). The proposed project would include 10 condominium dwelling units with an underground parking garage. The project proposes six three-bedroom units, three two-bedroom units, and one one-bedroom unit.
Project Parking Requirements and Supply
The San Mateo City Municipal Code Section 27.64.100 specifies the parking requirements for residential uses based on the number of bedrooms. The San Mateo parking requirements are:
1.6 resident parking spaces for every one-bedroom unit 1.8 resident parking spaces for every two-bedroom unit 2.0 resident parking spaces for every three-bedroom or more unit 0.2 visitor parking spaces for every residential unit To meet the San Mateo parking requirements, the project would need to provide 21 parking spaces (19 for tenants and two for visitors). One visitor space and one tenant space would need to be handicapped accessible.
The project proposes an underground parking garage with four standard parking spaces, two handicapped spaces, and 17 mechanical puzzle lift spaces (one mechanical puzzle lift with ten spaces and one mechanical puzzle lift with seven spaces) for a total of 23 spaces. In the underground garage, 21 of the parking spaces would be within a gated area and two spaces (one standard and one handicapped) would be outside the gated area.
A summary of the parking requirements and parking supply is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Parking Requirements and Supply
Residential Visitor Standard Accessible Mechanical Puzzle Lift Required
San Mateo Code1 19 2 - - - 21
Supply
Proposed Project - - 4 2 17 23
1 Parking required based on San Mateo City Municipal Code, 27.64.100.
Type Total
286 of 324
287 of 324
4 W. Santa Inez, San Mateo, CA – Parking Feasibility Study July 12, 2017 P a g e | 3
Parking Feasibility
Parking Assignment
The project parking would be divided into visitor spaces and residential assigned spaces. It is anticipated that the two spaces located outside the gated area would be allocated as visitor spots.
The gated area of the parking garage would have two, 2-level mechanical puzzle lifts, provided by CityLift, and three standard parking spaces. The puzzle lift spaces would not be assigned, which would allow residents the option to choose a space to park in. The puzzle lifts would be independently accessed, and residents would simply need to drive up to the open space provided in the puzzle lift to park. To retrieve their vehicle from a puzzle lift, residents would approach the puzzle lift their vehicle is parked in, and the puzzle lift would shift to move the requested vehicle to the floor level. Residents would then be able to get into their car and leave the space as if it were a standard parking space. According to CityLift, the average retrieval time for these puzzle lift systems is 33 seconds. The single accessible space should be assigned as needed by the tenants.
The project meets the requirements of San Mateo’s Security Code that requires all resident parking spaces to be gated.
Parking Access and Layout
The underground parking garage would be accessible from a single full access driveway on West Santa Inez Avenue in the southwest corner of the project site (see Figure 2). There are one standard parking stall and one handicapped stall shown outside the gate. The standard stall is shown to be accessed from a ramp with a slope of 1 in 15 (6.67%). While this conforms to the maximum allowable slope for parking spaces, it would involve making a multiple point turn to access the parking space. The accessible parking space outside of the gate is on a slope of ¼” in 12” (2.08%) which is allowable for an accessible parking space. The standard stall and the accessible parking space can be accessed without using the puzzle lift.
The drive/parking aisles are shown to measure 24’, which is adequate to allow vehicles to turn in and out of the parking spaces. The underground parking layout shows adequate width for spaces adjacent to walls.
An adequate pedestrian path is shown from the elevators and ramps to the bicycle storage space. 288 of 324
Figure 2Proposed Project Underground Parking Layout
4 W. Santa Inez, San Mateo, CA - Parking Feasibility Study 289 of 324
4 W. Santa Inez, San Mateo, CA – Parking Feasibility Study July 12, 2017 P a g e | 5
Mechanical Puzzle Lift Maintenance
Parking lifts are a common consideration with new projects because they increase the capacity of the parking supply while minimizing the footprint of the parking area. For the proposed residential development, mechanical puzzle lifts are a viable option. The project proposes two 2-level mechanical puzzle lifts, which would provide 17 parking spaces. The guidelines provided below would help ensure that the puzzle lifts be used effectively and efficiently. The Homeowner’s Association (HOA) should maintain the puzzle lifts and keep them operational at all times. The HOA for the project should enter into a maintenance agreement with the manufacturer of the puzzle lifts for the maintenance of all the puzzle lifts on the project site. As part of the contract with the manufacturer, the HOA should sign up for the maximum level of maintenance service provided by the manufacturer. The HOA for the project should be required to provide training in the use and operation of the puzzle lifts in accordance with the manufacturer’s standards. This training should be provided to all occupants of the building in perpetuity. The puzzle lifts should be cleaned several times a year. The cleaning should include sweeping up debris, wiping up excess water, removing oil spills, checking nuts/bolts/screws, etc.
Emergency contact information and maintenance service contact information should be posted visibly.
Conclusions
The key findings based on the parking feasibility study for the proposed multifamily project at 4 West Santa Inez in San Mateo, California are listed below. The project is required to provide 19 parking spaces for the residential tenants and two parking spaces for visitors.
The project proposes a 23 space underground parking garage, with 21 parking spaces located within a gated area and two spaces outside the gated area. Including mechanical puzzle lift spaces in the project design is feasible. The guidelines listed in this report should be followed to optimize the use of the puzzle lifts. 290 of 324
291 of 324
292 of 324
293 of 324
294 of 324
295 of 324
296 of 324
297 of 324
298 of 324
299 of 324
300 of 324
301 of 324
302 of 324
303 of 324
304 of 324
12 June 2017
John Lucchesi AIA
John Matthews Architects
335A East 4th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94401
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: 4 West Santa Inez, San Mateo, CA
Preliminary Environmental Noise Study
CSA Project No. 17-0348
Dear John:
As requested, we have conducted a preliminary environmental noise study for the project. The purpose of the study is to determine the noise environment at the proposed site, compare the noise environment with applicable standards, and propose schematic mitigation measures as necessary. For those readers unfamiliar with environmental acoustics, please see appendix I at the end of this report.
Our environmental noise study follows below.
SUMMARY
The project will comply with local and state noise standards provided it incorporates sound rated windows at the exterior facades and follows a construction noise plan limiting construction hours within the city guidelines and incorporating the noise reducing measures outlined in this report.
PROJECT CRITERIA
This project applies the following applicable criteria:
California Building Code 1207.4 – Allowable interior noise levels. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise element of the local general plan.
San Mateo Noise Element – POLICIES:
N 1.1: Interior Noise Level Standard. Require submittal of an acoustical analysis and interior noise insulation for all “noise sensitive” land uses listed in Table N-1 that have an exterior noise level of 60 dB Ldn) or above, as shown on Figure N-1. The maximum interior noise level shall not exceed 45 dB (Ldn) in any habitable rooms.
N 1.2: Exterior Noise Level Standard. Require an acoustical analysis for new parks, play areas, and multi-family common open space (intended for the use and the enjoyment of residents) that have an exterior noise level of 60 dB (Ldn) or above, as shown on Figure N-1. Require an acoustical analysis that uses peak hour Leq for new parks and play areas. Require a feasibility analysis of noise reduction measures for public parks and play areas. Incorporate necessary mitigation measures into residential 305 of 324
4 West Santa Inez Environmental Noise Study
12 June 2017 Page 2
project design to minimize common open space noise levels. Maximum exterior noise should not exceed 67 dB (Ldn) for residential uses and should not exceed 65 dB (Leq) during the noisiest hour for public park uses.
N 2.2: Minimize Noise Impact. Protect all “noise-sensitive” land uses listed in Tables N-1 and N-2 from adverse impacts caused by the noise generated on-site by new developments. Incorporate necessary mitigation measures into development design to minimize noise impacts. Prohibit long-term exposure increases of 3dB (Ln) or greater at the common property line, or new uses which generate noise levels of 60 dB (Ldn) or greater at the property line, excluding existing ambient noise levels.
San Mateo Noise Ordinance – 7.30.060 SPECIAL PROVISIONS (e) Construction
Construction, alteration, repair or land development activities which are authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of eight a.m. and five p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of noon and four p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized or restricted by the permit, if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations:
(1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible.
(2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB.
NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The project site is on El Camino Real between Engle Street and W Santa Inez Street. The major noise source in the area is traffic on El Camino Real. The project is set back approximately 56 feet from the centerline of El Camino Real
Between 7 and 8 June 2017, we conducted one continuous 24-hour noise measurement at the project site. The monitor was located along El Camino Real, 28 feet from the centerline of the roadway (LT-1 on the included site layout, Figure 1).
On 8 June 2006, we performed one short-term measurement at the project site along Engle Street.
The monitor was approximately 80 feet from the centerline of El Camino Real. (ST-1 on the included site layout, Figure 1).
We measured Ldn 76 dB along El Camino. The project is set back 56 feet from El Camino Real.
Therefore, we calculate that the units facing El Camino Real would be exposed to Ldn 73 dB due to traffic noise. Units facing Engle Street or W Santa Inez would be exposed to Ldn 68 dB. For our analysis, we added one dB to these noise levels to account for future traffic noise increases. 306 of 324
4 West Santa Inez Environmental Noise Study
12 June 2017 Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Interior – To meet the CBC and San Mateo Noise Element Ldn 45 dB requirement, it will be necessary for the facades to be sound rated. For our calculations, we used a generalized site map showing the building massing. We assumed typical bedroom and living room volumes and room treatments (carpeted bedroom, hard floor living), standard 3-coat stucco exterior wall construction and 40% glazing. The minimum STC ratings needed at exterior windows and doors are summarized in Table 1.
As the project develops, an acoustical consultant should analyze the STC requirements in detail.
Table 1: Minimum STC ratings for exterior windows and doors Façade Minimum STC Rating Minimum Corner Unit STC
North (facing El Camino Real) 35 37
West (facing Engles Road) 30 32
East (facing W Santa Inez Avenue) 30 32
South (away from El Camino Real) No minimum rating required No minimum rating required
Typical construction-grade dual-pane thermal windows achieve an STC rating of 28. It is important to note that the STC ratings are for full window assemblies (glass and frame) rather than just the glass Figure 1: Noise Measurement Locations
307 of 324
4 West Santa Inez Environmental Noise Study
12 June 2017 Page 4
itself. Tested sound-rated assemblies should be used. If non-tested assemblies were to be used, the STC rating of the glass may need to be increased.
The Building Code requires that where windows need to be closed to achieve DNL 45 dB indoors, an alternative method of supplying fresh air (e.g., mechanical ventilation) must be provided. This applies to all units in the project. This issue should be discussed with the project mechanical engineer.
Exterior – Outdoor patios facing El Camino Real, Engle Road or W. Santa Inez would be exposed to noise levels that exceed Leq 65 dB. In general, noise reduction at outdoor spaces is achieved by shielding the area from the noise source with a solid barrier. At some locations (Engle Road and W.
Santa Inez Avenue), noise barriers could be used to meet the Leq 65 dB noise goal. At other locations (facing El Camino), meeting the Leq 65 dB noise goal could only be met by completely enclosing the patios. The project may choose to incorporate interior courtyards for common outdoor space using the building as a significant noise barrier.
Construction Noise – Typical construction noise phases include demolition, grading, foundation, framing, then construction of the building. Typical noise levels from these activities are summarized in the following table.
Typical Noise Levels of Construction
Equipment at 50 feet1
Equipment Type Sound Level (dB)
Backhoe 85
Excavator 84
10 Wheel Dump Truck 85
Loader 78
Concrete Truck 82
Concrete Pump 82
Conventional Crane 85
Air Compressor 81
Welding Machine 73
Concrete Saw 83
Truck Back-up Beeper 76
Noise levels from construction could reach levels between 79 to 91 dB on the site. Unmitigated construction noise levels could temporarily exceed the levels set forth in the San Mateo Noise Ordinance. To address potential noise disturbances, we recommend the following measures.
An owner or contractor Noise Disturbance Coordinator should be appointed to act as a liaison between the condominium development and adjacent neighbors. The Disturbance Coordinator responsibilities and authority should be as follows:
1 CSA Projects 98-0352 and 01-0109, and Page 58 in “Acoustics”, Charles M Salter Associates, 1998 308 of 324
4 West Santa Inez Environmental Noise Study
12 June 2017 Page 5
1. Familiarity with the project and construction schedule, including attending weekly construction meetings.
2. An active role in monitoring project compliance with respect to noise.
3. Consider rescheduling noisy construction activities to minimize effects on surrounding noise sensitive receivers.
4. Site supervision of all potential sources of noise (e.g., material delivery, shouting, debris box pick-up and delivery) for all trades.
5. Intervene or discuss mitigation options with contractor.
The General Contractor should implement the following construction noise mitigation measures:
1. All internal combustion engine-driven construction equipment should be equipped with the best available mufflers and kept in good condition.
2. When feasible, “quiet” gasoline or electric-powered compressors should be used.
3. When feasible electric rather than gasoline or diesel-powered forklifts should be used.
However, we understand that the load demands cannot be handled by electric lifts.
4. Where feasible, welded rather than bolted steel connections should be used when possible to minimize the use of impact wrenches.
5. Where possible, barriers should be erected around stationary noise generating operations.
6. Construction vehicles should be required to turn off engines and compressors when not in operation.
7. Define truck routes to confine noisy trucks to streets that currently have the heaviest traffic. We understand that these routes will be determined by the City’s Planning Department
8. Where feasible, develop a truck staging area away from acoustically sensitive areas.
9. Where feasible, use an electric-powered tower crane instead of a diesel-powered truck crane. However, we understand that the load demands of this project require diesel- powered equipment.
10. Use structural steel frames in lieu of concrete structural frames to yield a much shorter assembly time.
11. If feasible, pre-cut metal decks and, to the extent possible, metal studs off-site to minimize on-site sawing.
12. For excavation, use drilled soldier piles with wood lagging instead of sheet pile driving techniques.
13. Avoid impact pile driving.
14. Retain an acoustical consultant to periodically measure noise levels and provide assistance with developing additional noise attenuation techniques where needed.
15. Where reasonable, avoid hammer drilling; use core bits, instead.
16. Where possible, avoid using powder-actuated fasteners; use concrete screws, instead.
17. Avoid sheet metal debris chutes; use plastic chutes, instead.
18. The General Contractor should maintain awareness among all trades of the noise sensitivity of project.
19. Where possible, avoid sand blasting.
309 of 324
4 West Santa Inez Environmental Noise Study
12 June 2017 Page 6
This concludes our environmental noise study for the West Santa Inez project. Should you have any questions, please give us a call.
* * *
This concludes our current comments on the subject project. Please contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES
Eric Yee
Vice President
2017-06-10 W Santa Inez Condo ENS
310 of 324
APPENDIX A
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
This section provides background information to aid in understanding the technical aspects of this report.
Three dimensions of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response. These are:
a) The intensity or level of the sound;
b) The frequency spectrum of the sound;
c) The time-varying character of the sound.
Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing.
The "frequency" of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of measurement is the cycle per second (cps) or hertz (Hz). Most of the sounds which we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The name of the frequency and level content of a sound is its sound spectrum. A sound spectrum for engineering purposes is typically described in terms of octave bands which separate the audible frequency range (for human beings, from about 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ten segments.
Many rating methods have been devised to permit comparisons of sounds having quite different spectra. Surprisingly, the simplest method correlates with human response practically as well as the more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that progressively de-emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz. This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range.
The weighting system described above is called "A"-weighting, and the level so measured is called the "A-weighted sound level" or "A-weighted noise level." The unit of A-weighted sound level is sometimes abbreviated "dBA." In practice, the sound level is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting characteristic. All U.S. and international standard sound level meters include such a filter. Typical sound levels found in the environment and in industry are shown in Figure A-
1. 311 of 324
Although a single sound level value may adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise is a conglomeration of distant noise sources which results in a relatively steady background noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in trees, industrial activities, etc. and are relatively constant from moment to moment. As natural forces change or as human activity follows its daily cycle, the sound level may vary slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a succession of identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These may include nearby activities such as single vehicle passbys, aircraft flyovers, etc. which cause the environmental noise level to vary from instant to instant.
To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. "L10" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period. The L10 is considered a good measure of the maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. "L50" is the A-weighted sound level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a stated time period; it represents the median sound level. The "L90" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is used to describe the background noise.
As it is often cumbersome to quantify the noise environment with a set of statistical descriptors, a single number called the average sound level or "Leq" is now widely used. The term "Leq" originated from the concept of a so-called equivalent sound level which contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same time period. In simple but accurate technical language, the Leq is the average A-weighted sound level in a stated time period. The Leq is particularly useful in describing the subjective change in an environment where the source of noise remains the same but there is change in the level of activity. Widening roads and/or increasing traffic are examples of this kind of situation.
In determining the daily measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for the different response of people to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime, exterior background noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime; however, most household noise also decreases at night, thus exterior noise intrusions again become noticeable. Further, most people trying to sleep at night are more sensitive to noise. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a special descriptor was developed. The descriptor is called the Ldn (Day/Night Average Sound Level) which represents the 24-hour average sound level with a penalty for noise occurring at night. The Ldn computation divides the 24-hour day into two periods: daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm); and nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). The nighttime sound levels are assigned a 10 dB penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels.
For highway noise environments, the average noise level during the peak hour traffic volume is approximately equal to the Ldn.
The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories:
a) Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; b) Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; c) Physiological effects such as startle, hearing loss. 312 of 324
The sound levels associated with environmental noise usually produce effects only in the first two categories. Unfortunately, there has never been a completely predictable measure for the subjective effects of noise nor of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation to noise over time.
Thus, an important factor in assessing a person's subjective reaction is to compare the new noise environment to the existing noise environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the existing, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged.
With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report:
a) Except in carefully controlled laboratory expe riments, a change of only 1 dB in sound level cannot be perceived.
b) Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-noticeable difference.
c) A change in level of at least 5 dB is re quired before any noticeable change in community response would be expected.
d) A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse community response.
FNDA2LDN
313 of 324
314 of 324
1/31/22, 3:38 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQAQAHVB3iCuvkv7oy6%2FJwnG… 1/1 Planning application PA 2015 104
Keith Jobe
Sat 1/29/2022 7:48 PM
To Laura Rich tone <lrich tone@cityof anmateo org>
Cc
Hello Laura
I am confused, and perhaps you can help me understand.
The PA-2015-104 went for review two mes, I recall. Both mes had fair hearings are were rightly subsequently denied
What was the basis the Superior Court cited in vaca ng the properly developed decision by the San Mateo Planning Commission?
I am concerned about the impact this development will have on the neighborhood. They plan to destroy five heritage trees and seventeen more I cannot count the property trees correctly, but it seems that they are removing almost all of the trees.
Also if my memory is correct, the plans do not have sufficient parking available for the reasonably an cipated vehicle load And there is insufficient free space and/or public park/playground area to support the increase in residences near the development.
Thank you
Keith Jobe
Comment #1
315 of 324
2/2/22, 11:34 AM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQAQAGsRst2wBnVBqo35YyD%2FUkQ%… 1/1 Public hearing (PA 2015 104) posting period
Eric Vallone
Tue 2/1/2022 12:12 PM
To Laura Rich tone <lrich tone@cityof anmateo org>
Hello Laura,
Hope this new year finds you and yours well during this challenging time for us all.
I wanted to reach out to follow-up on the public hearing notice my wife and I received. We are planning to attend the public hearing as we don't feel like we fully understand the benefits (e.g. is this affordable housing, which we would tend to support, although some articles state this is market-rate housing?), and we're a little concerned about potential traffic, environmental, and other impacts. As an educator focused on equity and community I want to make sure we know all the details before we advocate one way or the other.
Is there any more information that can be shared or reviewed ahead of time so we can better understand the context to inform our perspective (e.g. architectural plans, artist renderings, copy of the revised application after the 2018 denial, etc.)?
We also noticed the reference to a posting period that ends 5pm on Monday. Could you please help us understand what this is this for? Is there a website where we would post public comment ahead of time? Or do we just voice our concerns on the day of? Thanks much in advance for any support you're able to provide! There are a number of young families on our block (including us, who are expecting a new baby boy soon), and one of the reasons we moved here to this quiet dead-end street was for safety and the greenery, so we're really curious to better understand this application. Thanks again!
Warm regards,
ERIC VALLONE
Evolving learning, together
Comment #2
316 of 324
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 8
2 5
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 13 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS File ID: 22-5743 TO: City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: February 07, 2022
SUBJECT:
Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs – Study Session RECOMMENDATION:
Receive an update on the Housing Element process and provide direction to staff on Housing Goals, Policies and Programs to include in the updated Housing Element for 2023-2031.
BACKGROUND:
The City of San Mateo, along with all of the Bay Area jurisdictions, is preparing its Housing Element for the eight-year period from 2023-2031 (the Sixth Housing Cycle). The Housing Element is a "chapter” of the City’s General Plan, which focuses on the policies and strategies necessary to meet the community’s housing needs. It is the only element of the General Plan subject to State requirements for content and it must be approved by the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD).
Preliminary work to prepare the Housing Element was initiated over a year ago and started with creating a community profile and an analysis of the community’s Housing Needs and Constraints. To that end, extensive demographic data, primarily based on the Census, was compiled to create a profile of San Mateo, which includes a summary of key facts, graphs and maps about the City’s population, employment and household characteristics. A draft of this report, which includes a breakdown of this information by neighborhood, is posted on the Housing Element website:
(www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023).
A final version of this report, with more detailed information, will be included in the draft Housing Element, which is scheduled to be published in late March or early April. In general, the data demonstrate that the high cost of housing impacts a significant percentage of residents, disproportionately impacting renters, seniors, minority households and those with special needs. It also shows that geographically, the City’s northeastern neighborhoods, including North Central and North Shoreview, are disproportionately impacted by lower incomes, lower education opportunity, lower economic opportunity, lower environmental scores, and higher percentage of cost burdened households and overcrowding. They are also the City’s most racially diverse neighborhoods.
To support the preparation of the updated Housing Element, a robust and inclusive community outreach and engagement process was initiated this past summer and has been ongoing for over six months. A number of workshops, focus group discussions, small group presentations, stakeholder meetings and community surveys were conducted to promote the housing element process, gather information to supplement the demographic data, and solicit feedback on housing priorities and strategies. Surveys conducted included personal intercept surveys at “pop-up” locations as well as City events, and an online survey was posted from October 11, 2021 to January 16, 2022, which generated 594 responses.
Workshop presentations and comment summaries, as well as survey results, are posted on the Housing Element website. 317 of 324
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 8
2 5
Although there are numerous technical requirements that must be addressed for certification, the heart of the Housing Element are the policies and programs that address the housing needs of all types of households and income levels, both existing and into the future. The purpose of this study session is to get high level feedback and direction from the Planning Commission and City Council on the goals, policies and programs that will go into the updated Housing Element.
Housing Element Goals
Before the policies and programs are defined, the City must establish its overall housing goals. The existing goals in the current Housing Element, the first two of which have been in place since 1990, are as follows:
Maintain the character and physical quality of residential neighborhoods. Provide a diversity of housing types, responsive to household size, income and age needs. Ensure that all new housing is developed or remodeled in a sustainable manner. Encourage conservation improvements and measures to existing housing stock to make them more energy and water efficient.
One option is to update the goals based on the categories adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments known as the three P’s:
Production of new housing at all income levels, especially affordable housing. Preservation of existing housing that is affordable to lower- and middle-income residents. Protection of current residents to prevent displacement. Staff also recommends adding a sustainability goal.
Policies and Programs
Once the goals are established, policies and programs will need to be prepared to support the goals based on projected housing needs and community input. The final Housing Element will include the ongoing policies and programs that will carry forward or be revised, as well as new strategies with specific actions, milestones, and timelines. These policies and programs will also need to include efforts to meet the State’s Fair Housing requirements, which are based on the following:
Address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity. Replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns. Foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.
To provide additional context and to help focus the discussion around what new policies and programs should be included in the updated Housing Element, the following information is attached:
Existing policies and programs from the City’s current Housing Element (Attachment 1). The City’s existing Fair Housing Plan, which was adopted in 2017 in conjunction with the Consolidated Plan as part of the federal funding process for Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) programs (Attachment 2). New policies and programs based on initiatives that are already underway that will be completed or implemented during the upcoming Housing Cycle, and new suggestions collected during the community outreach and engagement process (Attachment 3).
Given the number of potential initiatives that can be contemplated, it is important to consider the eight-year Housing Element horizon, and the capacity to implement new programs in order to focus on the highest priorities. With that in mind, staff requests direction on the following questions:
Which of the existing Housing Element policies should be retained? 318 of 324
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 8
2 5
Which of the existing Fair Housing Plan components should be incorporated into the Housing Element? Which of the suggested new programs/polices are high priority and should be included in the updated Housing Element?
At this point, staff is only asking for high level direction on goals, policies and programs, and not specific details. The Housing Element itself does not implement programs; but rather, it provides the blueprint to deliver such programs. Each program will include a work plan and timeline, and will be considered independently for adoption, including community input and environmental review as required.
Next Steps
Based on the feedback and direction received at this study session, staff will continue preparation of the City’s draft Housing Element. The timeline for the Housing Element moving forward is as follows:
March/April 2022 Publish Draft Housing Element (30-day public comment period) April 26, 2022 Planning Commission review of Draft Housing Element May 16, 2022 City Council approval of Draft Housing Element May/June 2022 Draft Housing Element submitted to HCD for first review Summer 2022 Update Draft Housing Element in response to HCD comment and resubmit for second review Fall 2022 Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearings to review and approve final Housing Element
January 2023 Submit final Housing Element to HCD for certification It is anticipated that HCD will provide comments on the Draft Housing Element and that at least one round of revisions will be required before HCD certifies the final Housing Element, which will need to be approved by City Council and submitted to HCD by January 31, 2023.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budgetary impact related to this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This study session is not a project subject to CEQA, because the City Council and Planning Commission are providing direction to staff and are not taking action at this time. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - 2015-23 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs Att 2 - 2017 HUD Fair Housing Plan
Att 3 - Potential New Programs and Policies
STAFF CONTACT
Sandra Council, Housing Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7223
319 of 324
Attachment 1
2015-23 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs
Att 1-1
Housing Goals
Maintain the character and physical quality of residential neighborhoods.
Provide a diversity of housing types, responsive to household size, income and age needs.
Ensure that all new housing is developed or remodeled in a sustainable manner.
Encourage conservation improvements and measures to existing housing stock to make them more energy and water efficient.
Name of Program Objective
H 1.1 Residential
Protection
Consider policy during the Special Use Permit process with respect to the intrusion of incompatible uses and overconcentration of non-residential uses, during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process in regard to adequate buffers, and during design review of developments during design review process.
H 1.2 Single Family
Preservation
Consider potential impacts on intact single-family neighborhoods during the review of land use changes and special use permits for proposed development other than single family dwellings and consider buffering provisions during design review process.
H 1.3 Housing
Rehabilitation Loans and Minor Home Repairs for Low Income Households H 1.4 Code
Enforcement
Continue code enforcement efforts and provide staff as needed to improve residential areas. Continue use of administrative citations and fees, civil penalties, and civil and criminal litigation to bring about compliance.
H 1.5 Building Bulk
Through plan check review of single-family dwellings and duplex buildings, ensure compliance with both the single family and duplex regulations and design guidelines that control the bulk of and height of buildings.
H 1.6 Variances and Lot
Divisions
Consider existing neighborhood character during variance and subdivision review.
H 1.7 Retention of
Existing Lower Income
Units
Monitor affordable housing projects that are at risk of conversion to market rate.
Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing and lower income households
H 1.8 Condominium
Conversion
Continue the existing policy of protecting existing residents by offering purchase opportunities, long-term leases and relocation assistance.
H 1.9 Demolitions
Prohibit demolition of existing residences until a building permit for new construction has been issued, unless health and safety problems exist. Prevent housing stock from becoming health and safety problems through code enforcement efforts.
H 2.1 Fair Share
Housing
Monitor housing production against ABAG Fair Share Allocation. (Regional Housing Need Allocation-RHNA)
H 2.2 Jobs/Housing
Balance Maintain an overall balance of housing and employment over term of plan.
H 2.3 Public Funding of
Low/Moderate Income
Housing
Set aside 20% of general fund property tax revenues from former RDA areas aka "Boomerang Funds". Prioritize available local housing funds to assist 50 Extremely Low units, 85 Very Low units, 10 Low and 60 Moderate income units. 320 of 324
Att 1-2
H 2.4 Private
Development of
Affordable Housing
Maintain Inclusionary Housing Requirements on ownership and rental residential developments and implement Commercial Linkage Fee.
H 2.5 Distribution of
Low/Mod Housing
Attempt to distribute low- and moderate-income housing throughout the City.
Encourage mix of market rate and affordable units where feasible.
H 2.6 Rental Housing Encourage development of rental housing H 2.7 Secondary Units
(Accessory Dwelling
Units -ADU’s)
Allow creation of ADU’s and ensure compliance with regulations, H 2.8 Single Room
Occupancy
Adopt a Single Room Occupancy ordinance to allow the development of new SRO projects.
H 2.9 Multi-Family
Location
Provide for development of multifamily housing and permit reclassification that meet certain criteria.
H 2.10 Housing
Densities
Maintain density ranges with higher density to be considered base on provision of public benefits.
H 2.11 Senior Project
Location
Encourage senior housing projects within walking distance of services and transit routes.
H 2.12 Mixed Use
Permit the construction of housing or mixed-use projects in commercial areas.
Encourage mixed use in specific area plans, the El Camino Real Master Plan, and the San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Plan. Consider designation in future plans for 42 Avenue.
H 2.13 Transportation
Oriented Development
Encourage TOD in locations near transit nodes. Ensure that proposals conform to the TOD and the San Mateo Rail Corridor TOD Plan.
H 2.14 The Homeless
Continue support where feasible for programs and facilities to prevent homelessness. Allow shelters a permitted use in Regional/Community Commercial zones. Review Buffer zone and amend code if necessary. Support home sharing as alternative to homelessness.
H 2.15 Open Choice
Continue efforts toward the elimination of housing discrimination and continue, affirmative marketing of city-subsidized housing projects, and provision of available funding for private nonprofit organizations that monitor and aid those experiencing discrimination in housing choice.
H 2.16 Special Need
Groups
Continue to support programs particularly designed to accommodate special needs groups. Consider requests for Reasonable Accommodations to City zoning code in accordance with ordinance.
H 3.1 Sustainable
Housing Development Ensure future housing developed in sustainable manner.
H 4.1 Energy and
Water Efficiency Encourage energy and water efficiency in all existing residential units. 321 of 324
Attachment 2
2017 Fair Housing Plan
HUD Consolidated Plan
Att 2-1
Fair Housing Goals
Primary theme of goals: Maintain high opportunity environment the city currently offers; increase affordable housing for families.
Name of Goal Objective
Goal No. 1. Add more City supported housing with
affordability restrictions to the market.
1) Bay Meadows Project-68 units 30-50% AMI
2) Select developer to provide a range of affordable
housing units as part of mixed use/income project on
City owned Downtown former RDA sites.
Goal No.2. Attempt to distribute affordable
housing units throughout the City and encourage
mixed income developments.
Require all new housing projects in excess of 11 units
provide affordable inclusionary units scattered within
project.
Goal 3. Ensure affirmative marketing of City
assisted affordable housing is targeted to all
segments of the community.
Develop Marketing Plan with developers of affordable
housing projects during final phase of construction.
Focus outreach to those least likely to apply based on
racial make-up of neighborhood. Include Spanish
marketing materials and ensure bilingual
interpretation services are available.
Goal No. 4. Prioritize acquisition and new
construction of housing that accommodates
families (larger units) when possible.
1) Bay Meadows Project-requires 25% 3 BR units (17
units ) 2)Review City Council Resolution to establish
Community Priority for large bedroom units ,which
allows developer to provide fewer BMR units in
exchange for units with more bedrooms.
Goal 5. Fund minor home repairs and accessibility
improvements for low- and moderate-income
homeowners. Allow accessibility improvements on
rental properties with owner permission.
Annual Goal: 10 Accessible units and 32 Minor Home
Repair units.
Goal 6. Adopt additional development review
practices that facilitate housing creation including
streamlining reviews.
Draft guidelines for concurrent Planning Plan Check
and Building Permit Check process to speed up
approval process to begin construction.
Goal 7. (regional) Support and engage in efforts to
education community stakeholders and residents
about housing gaps and the effects of programs
and policies on addressing those gaps.
1)Continue Community engagement process for
Downtown Specific Plan Update. 2) Develop
Community Engagement process for General Plan
update. 3) Participate in Countywide Home For All
"Learning Network" to share best practices
Goal 8 (regional). Strengthen utilization of Section
8 program. Explore a multifamily rehabilitation and
accessibility improvement program to provide an
incentive for landlords to remain in the HCV
program and those willing to offer naturally
occurring affordable rental housing
1) Collaborate with County Housing Authority staff to
review current practices and potential options.
Complete analysis and determine program feasibility.
2) Explore Section 8 nondiscrimination policy.
322 of 324
Att 2-2
Goal 9. Assist with the retention of special needs
housing that is at risk of expiring affordability
requirements.
Outreach and negotiate with Mateo Lodge for
affordability extensions for Humboldt House (9 units),
Goal 10. (regional) Continue funding and support
for outreach services for homeowners and renters
at risk of being displaced and/or facing fair housing
challenges.
Annual Fair Housing Activity Goals: Investigate 23
cases, Provide R & I 45 individuals, Public Education/
Outreach 100 individuals. Annual legal assistance to
renters: 125 individuals
Goal 11. Continue implementation of City
Reasonable Accommodation Policy to allow for
relaxation of City zoning codes on residential
properties used by persons with disabilities.
Review requests for Reasonable Accommodations as
they are submitted.
Goal 12. (regional) Encourage development of
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) to increase lower
cost housing in the community.
Collaborate with other countywide jurisdictions.
Complete analysis and determine feasibility.
Goal 13. Minimize tenant displacement. Explore
programs to preserve properties with under
market rents at risk of redevelopment and rent
increases.
Evaluate gaps in current rental data and determine
approach to collect that data.
323 of 324
Attachment 3
Potential New Policies and Programs
New Policies and Programs
This list includes initiatives currently underway or that will be initiated this year that are targeted to be implemented during the upcoming Housing Element period (2023-2031) as well as suggestions for potential new policies or programs collected during community outreach and engagement.
Housing Production Notes
Streamline planning application process Underway
Evaluate revisions to Land Use Element as part of General Plan Update Underway Adopt updated mechanical parking lift code/policy Underway Adopt Objective Design Standards for residential projects Underway Establish minimum residential density in Mixed-Use sites Underway Establish updated Community Benefits program Underway
Implement programs to support and encourage ADU/JADU production Underway Adopt By-Right Designation for sites from prior Housing Element Required Track No Net Loss of RHNA capacity during planning period Required Update Inclusionary program to allow for options other than on-site construction Required Implement provisions of SB 9 for duplex and lot splits in single-family zones Required Amend Housing Overlay to encourage residential in commercial zones (not mixed use) Suggested Revise Floor Area Ratio (FAR) provisions Suggested
Encourage small infill residential construction (Missing Middle) Suggested Increase Commercial Linkage Fee Suggested
Affordable Housing
Develop countywide affordable rental wait list Underway Prioritize/Streamline Planning application processing for affordable housing projects Underway Increase community outreach for resources Suggested
Provide home purchase assistance Suggested
Fair Housing
Establish Right to Return policy for tenants displaced from homes due to demolition or substantial remodels.
Suggested
Priority for residents with special needs in City-assisted affordable housing projects Suggested Priority for large family units in City-assisted affordable housing projects Suggested Priority for extremely low-income units in City-assisted affordable housing projects Suggested Require tenant relocation payments for No Fault evictions for those with tenure less than one year (extend AB1482)
Suggested
Require documentation from landlords who use remodel exemption to evict tenants (AB 1482)
Suggested
Increase affordable housing options in wealthier neighborhoods Suggested Establish a rental registry to track rents and evictions citywide Suggested Increase tenant education and access to resources Suggested Increase education and visibility of Reasonable Accommodation policy Suggested Invest more resources in lower income neighborhoods (utilize federal CDBG to provide capital improvements)
Underway
Provide Flood Improvements for N.-Shoreview Underway
Sustainability
Adopt citywide Transportation Demand Management program (Public Works) Suggested Establish shuttles or other ways to encourage use of transit Suggested 324 of 324