San Mateo City Council
January 24, 2023

A. The City Includes Sites That Are Not “Suitable And Available” Because They Do Not Have A “Realistic And Demonstrated Potential” For Redevelopment During The Planning Period To Meet The Need For Housing.

One of the most concrete aspects of any housing element is the inventory of land “suitable and available” for residential development to meet the city’s regional housing need by income level. Government Code § 65583(a)(3); HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook at p. 1 (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf). The list is a specific means of evaluating whether the City has adequately planned for development of housing for all income levels.

Where nonvacant sites are listed on the sites inventory, there must be a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment” during the next eight years. Government Code § 65583(a)(3). To address past abuses – including where cities list unrealistic sites in order to avoid required rezoning – the California Legislature created a high standard for listing sites that are currently being used for something other than housing. Where nonvacant sites are used to address over 50% of the need for affordable housing for those with lower incomes, the City must show the realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment by making formal findings that the existing use does not impede residential development “based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued” during the planning period. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2) (final sentence). The City must analyze the evidence: existing leases, market demand for the existing uses, and anything else that would indicate whether existing uses will continue.

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1).

As explained below, the current draft prepared by San Mateo identifies a number of non- vacant sites that are not realistic, suitable and available for redevelopment. The City relies heavily on the speculative and unlikely assumption that existing uses will cease during the next eight years in favor of affordable housing.

1. The Bridgepointe Shopping Center
(APN 035-466-070, -080, -090, -100, -110)
The City’s draft fails to address whether the existing uses will cease during the next eight years. Absent substantial evidence that existing uses will “likely” discontinue, San Mateo cannot count the Bridgepointe Shopping Center parking lot and stores as addressing the need for sites available, realistic, and suitable for 233 units of lower income housing.

As our prior letter explained, the parcels that make up the Bridgepointe Shopping Center have existing uses, with long-term leases and likely rights to the parking lot, that preclude residential development during the period covered by the next Housing Element. While the City has now dropped the ice rink parcel, which had been unoccupied but is now back in operation as

1354 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

an ice rink, the City fails to mention, much less evaluate, evidence concerning existing leases from major national tenants in place at this power center, with existing leases extending for almost the entire period covered by the Housing Element:
 APN 035-466-070 includes current retail uses by Ross Dress for Less, Marshall’s and Total Wine & More. Total Wine & More has a lease through 2027. See Housing Action Coalition Comment Letter Dec. 16, 2022 and Appendix Tab 4.

Ross opened here in 2021. It is unlikely that Ross moved in with a short-term lease. The City does not appear to have analyzed leases to determine their effect on whether sites are available for housing, as required.  APN 035-466-080 is occupied by Hobby Lobby, with a lease through 2029. See Housing Action Coalition Comment Letter Dec. 16, 2022 and Appendix Tab 1.  APN 035-466-090 is occupied by a number of national retailers, including Verizon, Petco, Ulta Beauty, and Cost Plus World Market. Ulta Beauty is known to have a lease through 2032. See Housing Action Coalition Comment Letter Dec. 16, 2022 and Appendix Tab 2.
 APN 035-466-110 is the loading dock access for all of the stores on parcels APN 035-466-070, -080, and -090, and too narrow to feasibly develop for housing.  APN 035-466-100 is the parking lot, and is likely subject to the leases of each of the retailers. It is also likely subject to lease rights from the non-listed restaurant parcels on the periphery, and the ice rink.2 While it is theoretically possible the lease agreements for the shopping center are compatible with residential development on the parking areas that serve the shopping center, the burden is on the City to demonstrate that such development is likely during the planning period. The City has failed to analyze lease rights that may impede housing uses, as required by the statute.

Particularly given the existing uses, and the publicly known information about existing long-term leases with major national retailers that preclude building housing within the next eight years, the City cannot credibly claim that it is “likely” that these existing uses will 2 The parking lot is also larger than 10 acres, and so is subject to the additional analysis of Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) (“A site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site can be developed as lower income housing.”). No site of this size was developed for 147 units of lower (very low, low) income housing; the closest comparable size, Station Park Green, was a market rate project with only 60 units of lower income housing in a project of 599 units.

1355 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

discontinue. While the City explains that it has had “a variety of discussions with the shopping center’s ownership representatives who expressed interest in mixed-use redevelopment,” (December 2022 draft at H-36), it fails to address when redevelopment might occur. The City asserts that the General Plan Update is exploring policies to “guide redevelopment of the shopping center,” and refers to a “draft land use plan designat[ing] Bridgepoint as Mixed-Use High, which could allow up to 200 units per acre.” Id.

But given that City voters have twice
approved a cap of 50 units per acre (Measure P, extended to 2030 by Measure Y), the City’s optimism provides no realistic assurance that affordable housing will be built here before Measure Y, and the 2023-2031 draft Housing Element, expire. Finally, the City’s broad reference at page H-C-14 to a “market trend” of developers that “bought out long term businesses to allow redevelopment into housing” refers only to “underutilized” properties; the Bridgepointe Center is not underutilized. The City’s argument does not meet the substantial evidence standard for the likelihood of development of this specific site, with its specific constraints and existing uses, during the relevant planning period.

Don’t get us wrong: Housing Action Coalition also hopes that Bridgepointe will begin redevelopment within the planning period, and it hopes that the City is successful in rolling back the restrictions of Measure Y through its General Plan revision efforts so that Bridgepointe can be developed with high-density housing. But without a showing, based on substantial evidence, that it is
likely that Bridgepointe will redevelop “within the planning period,” the City should add sites to the inventory that are available to meet the need for affordable housing.

2. Hillsdale Mall
(APN 042-121-040, -060, -080; 039-490-050, -170; 039-353-010, -020, -030, - 040)
As discussed in Housing Action Coalition’s prior comment letter, the question about Hillsdale Mall is not about whether the owner is interested in some mixed use housing for the site. The issue is when and how much housing will be built, and on which parcels or portions of parcels. Here, the City lacks evidence to justify the projections on the site inventory, or to claim that the existing uses are likely to discontinue soon enough for housing to be built during the required timeframe.

Retail uses of Hillsdale Mall are almost certain to continue through the next eight years.

With the owner just having spent $240+ million on the Hillsdale North project on 12.5 acres of APN 039-490-170, including a new food court on the portion spanning 31st Avenue to connect to the even larger portion of the mall that includes Macy’s and Nordstrom, the City Council cannot credibly make findings that all existing uses of that parcel will likely discontinue in the next eight years. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2). Similarly, the substantial improvements and

1356 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

new long-term leases at Hillsdale South show that redevelopment of that portion of APN 039- 490-170 is also unlikely to take place during the period covered by the draft Housing Element.3 The City makes much of the owner’s expressed desire to build housing, including showing images of the owner’s proposals to modify the City’s general plan to allow housing of 100-200 units/acre on portions of the site. Current San Mateo law does not permit these plans to go forward. As with Bridgepointe, the reality is that the City’s voters have constrained housing production by adopting Measure P, then Measure Y, which prohibit such density until 2030.

Without knowing the outcome of a hypothetical ballot initiative in 2024 that might permit such density (see December 2022 Draft at H-B-56), the City cannot reliably predict that the owner will attempt to build before Measure Y, and the current Housing Element, expire.

3. The Atrium: 1900 South Norfolk Street
(APN 035-391-090)
As stated in Housing Action Coalition’s earlier comment letter: The executive office building located at 1900 South Norfolk Street is currently used by a large number of office tenants. The draft Housing Element does not perform any analysis of the current use, including whether existing leases would create obstacles to residential development of the site during the next eight years. Publicly available information indicates that a number of leases continue to be signed or renewed for this three-story office building, with at least one such lease publicly reported to extend until 2030. Housing Action Coalition Comment Letter Dec. 16, 2022, Appendix Tab 9. The City should perform the required analysis under Government Code section 65583.2(g)(1), and evaluate whether it has substantial evidence to make the finding that existing uses are “likely to discontinue” during the next eight years, as required by section 65583.2(g)(2).

If not, the City should not claim that this site meets the need for 99 lower income affordable housing units, even if the owner has expressed a long-term interest in redevelopment.

The site is currently zoned “executive office,” with no residential overlay to make residential housing a permitted use (except by discretionary application for a special use permit).

The City does not include a plan to rezone the site to make residential use a permitted use, as required by Government Code sections 65583.2(a)(4) and 65583(c). The owner of the property has indicated an interest in building housing if the site is rezoned; nothing suggests that the owner has an interest in going through an expensive two year gauntlet to apply for discretionary 3 Parcel 039-490-170 is also subject to the same problem as the Bridgepointe parking lot site: the City lacks any evidence that a site this large can be developed for 485 units of affordable housing. Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(B). The City has never seen a development include that much affordable housing; none of its cited examples come anywhere close. Under the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, even if all 28.91 acres of the parcel were developed and resulted in 1,199 units, only 15% of them would be required to be affordable for lower income households: 179 units, not 485. Meanwhile, the City’s citation to projects that were predominantly market-rate, with only limited numbers of lower income units, fails to meet the statutory requirement.

1357 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

permission to see if the City is willing to let residential housing be built here. The City needs substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue, paired with a rezoning of the site, in order to take credit on the site inventory towards meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

4. Borel Shopping Center (71-77 Bovet; 1750 El Camino Real) (Consolidated Site AH: APN 039-011-450, -460, -470, -480, -500, -510) As stated in Housing Action Coalition’s earlier comment letter: This site is a busy shopping center anchored by a CVS Pharmacy, a 24 Hour Fitness,4 a branch of Patelco Credit Union, a UPS store, and a separate restaurant building for Jack’s Restaurant and Bar. There is publicly available information showing that the lease for Jack’s extends well into the planning period. Housing Action Coalition Comment Letter Dec. 16, 2022, Appendix Tab 11 (indicating Jack’s lease extends from 2013-2029). The City should perform the required section 65583.2(g)(1) analysis of the existing leases, and current market demand for the retail uses at the location. The City currently lacks substantial evidence that the site’s existing use is “likely to be discontinued” during the next eight years. It should not count towards 85 units of housing affordable to lower income households.

5. The Elks and The Shriners – 229 W. 20th Street and 150 W. 20th Street (APN 037-052-350 and APN 039-030-220)
The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Lodge 1112 (“San Mateo Elks Lodge”), has been located at 229 W. 20th Street since 1954. The San Mateo Elks Lodge has a membership of over 1,100 as of earlier this year. The Elks use their lodge to operate a popular swimming center for kids and families, hold crab feeds and other events in the meeting hall, and engage in fun activities and philanthropic works.

The only suggestion that the San Mateo Elks are not likely to continue their existing use of the Elks Lodge at 229 W. 20th Street is the statement on the site inventory that “Preliminary conversations with the owner to convert to residential have occurred.” That kind of statement might sometimes go unnoticed and unquestioned by the City Council, HCD, or a court. But here, no one should take it as an adequate answer to the question of whether the San Mateo Elks will stop using their lodge in the next eight years. The reason is that the 2015 Housing Element, when listing the same site, said the same thing, word-for-word: “Existing private member club.

Preliminary conversations with the owner to convert to residential have occurred.”5 Nothing has 4 In 2008, the 24 Hour Fitness substantially modified the building it occupies when it moved into a space formerly occupied by Albertson’s. It added locker rooms, a swimming pool, basketball courts, showers, and other tenant improvements at a cost exceeding $2.2 million. BD- 2007-230493; BD-2007-230029; BD-2008-230692.
5 In order to rely on conversations purporting to express intent, the public needs to know much more. Who had the conversation cited by the City, and with whom did they have it? Has

1358 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

happened in the last eight years to suggest that “preliminary conversations” are substantial evidence on which to predict a likely discontinuation of the existing use, even if the more recent note is based on more recent preliminary conversations, instead of the “preliminary conversations” that took place eight years ago. This site should not be counted towards accommodating the need for 77 units of housing affordable to lower income households.

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2).

A second private club is located just down the street at 150 W. 20th Street: the Shriners.

The Shriners are likewise a longtime institution in San Mateo, and are likewise committed to philanthropy and social activities. The Shriners’ building is used in part for a day care center.

The site inventory provides insufficient detail to evaluate whether they plan to move out in the next eight years, saying only “Owners have considered mixed use with residential.” Without more, this is insufficient to justify concluding that the Shriners actually plan to leave or redevelop in the short or mid-term, or to treat their property as accommodating the need for 32 units of lower income housing.

The same analysis applies to other sites. See, e.g., 1500 Fashion Island Blvd. (APN 035- 550-040) (“Developer interest in redevelopment.”); Consolidated Site B (APN 032-312-250, - 270, -150, -100, -070) (“General interest in redevelopment”). Vague expressions of interest do not constitute substantial evidence that the existing use will likely cease during the next eight years. Sections 65583.2(g)(1) and (g)(2) require more analysis, more evidence, and more likelihood.

6. Mollie Stone’s – Olympic Shopping Center
(Consolidated Site AD:

APN 042-242-050, -060, -070, -160, -180;
042-243-020, 042-244-040, -050;
042-245-040, -050, -060, -070, -080, -090, -100, -110, -120, -130; 042-263-010, 042-264-010)
This site, consisting of twenty parcels, is claimed to accommodate 161 units of housing affordable to those with lower incomes. The only basis for including it appears to be the claim that there is “ownership interest in specific plan redevelopment,” which does not indicate that all of the parcels would be redeveloped as housing at the maximum density, or indicate who said what to whom, and when.6
the Lodge taken any affirmative steps toward redevelopment beyond this conversation? Without more, the vague reference to “preliminary conversations” between unidentified speakers on an unidentified date does not constitute “substantial evidence.” 6 Here too, the concern about specificity is not idle. There are five separate owners.

Carstens Realty owns most of the parcels, but CLC Investments, Sadigh Sassan, Shamco E LLC, and San Mateo Investment Co. each own one. The City does not discuss or address whether the

1359 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Meanwhile, and as discussed further in section B below, the draft Housing Element does not adequately analyze or demonstrate the realistic capacity of the site. Under section 65583.2(g)(1), for a nonvacant site like this, the city must “specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period.” The required analysis is currently missing. A realistic assessment of the current uses and market conditions would preclude listing the entire site at maximum density. Mollie Stone’s is the only full-service grocery store in the surrounding area. For households in the southwestern portion of town (for example, everyone near Laurel Elementary School and south to the Belmont border), closing Mollie Stone’s would more than double their travel times to the nearest grocery, and extend them well beyond the one-mile used to define a “food desert” – a condition no one expects to develop in this well-resourced city.7 Currently San Mateo’s land use pattern follows the predictable pattern: few, if any, households are more than one mile from a grocery. There is no reason to believe that the market need for grocery stores will make the need for Mollie Stone’s, or another grocery store, superfluous in this part of town. Particularly as San Mateo’s population grows, the need for grocery stores will increase, not diminish.

This means that any redevelopment or specific plan of the Olympic Shopping Center will almost certainly include a substantial retail component, at least on the ground floor. Mixed use may be a responsible way to increase density, but it precludes listing the site at maximum density, particularly given the constraints of Measure Y. The City must conduct further analysis, including an analysis of existing leases, common ownership, and market conditions, before claiming that this site will meet the needs for construction of 161 units of housing affordable to lower income households. And, given the substantial demand for the existing use, the City may not be able to make the required finding under section 65583.2(g)(2).

7. Site AN (4100 and 4142 El Camino Real)
(APN 042-242-170 and -080)
On the draft Housing Element site inventory, consolidated Site AN consists of a City- owned vacant site and a neighboring parcel. In a recent staff report for the November 7, 2022 meeting, the chart responding to HCD comments indicated that the City had two City-owned sites: the “Talbot’s” site (APN 034-179-050 and -060), and APN 042-242-170, which it referred five are willing or interested in a joint project, though it lists each of them as having expressed interest in a specific plan. Without evidence of what makes consolidation likely, the smaller sites are deemed insufficient to accommodate the need for lower income housing. See Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(A).
7 If Mollie Stone’s closed, and no grocery store was rebuilt in its place, it would create the unlikely situation where an affluent, urban community became a “food desert.” The United States Department of Agriculture has defined a “food desert” as an area where at least 500 people, or 33% of the tract population, reside more than one mile from a full-service supermarket. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45014/30940_err140.pdf.

1360 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

to as the “Ravioli” site. The chart indicated that staff recommended adding to the narrative about the Talbot’s site, but recommended removing the Ravioli site from discussion.

The draft Housing Element had shown the two sites APN 042-242-170 and APN -042- 242-080 as having a potential for consolidation, but if the City does not plan to sell APN 042- 242-170, and instead plans to take it off of the site inventory, it should also remove APN 042- 242-080 as unsuitably small for affordable housing.

However, the staff report is confusing on this point. It refers to APN 042-242-170 as the “Ravioli” site, and lists a street address of 505 South B Street. This is not the location of APN 042-242-170. APN 042-242-170 is located at 4140 El Camino Real. If it is indeed City-owned, we encourage the City to make plans to develop it, preferably by issuing a Request for Proposals to transfer it to a non-profit housing developer who could build a 100% affordable project on the site. If the site can be consolidated with the neighboring parcels – which have one-story commercial or professional uses, and a relatively large percentage of surface parking – the opportunity would be even more meaningful in terms of providing for the need for housing affordable to those with lower incomes. Even still, the City would need to engage in the process of determining that it is likely the existing uses on the neighboring parcels are likely to be discontinued during the planning period such that consolidation of the sites is feasible and realistic.

B. The Analysis Supporting The Government Code Section 65583.2(c) Calculation Is Insufficient.

In order to determine that the City has a sufficient number of sites to meet the need without rezoning, a key calculation is the projected number of units at each level of affordability.

If the City overestimates how many units will be built on the sites it includes, it will incorrectly conclude that it does not need to identify any more. Unfortunately, the City’s current draft makes just this error.

The estimate of units on each site is governed by Government Code section 65583.2(c), which provides:

The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site as follows:
(1) . . . If the city or county does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.
(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the realistic

1361 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

development capacity for the site, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

The draft Housing Element fails to demonstrate that the site inventory numbers reflect the realistic development capacity for each site. For sites with the potential for mixed or non- residential use, the Housing Element calculates a discounted probability of residential development, but fails to apply it. For sites zoned entirely residential, the site inventory cherry- picks the data in an effort to claim that every site is likely to be developed at the maximum density permitted by San Mateo zoning laws.

1. Mixed Use/Non-Residential Zoning.

In the site inventory guidebook, HCD explains that where a city uses sites that are zoned for nonresidential uses, the city must evaluate the capacity analysis by taking into account that some or all of the site may be developed – as city law allows – for such nonresidential uses, such as commercial or office uses.

The City discusses this issue at pages H-31 to H-34 of the draft Housing Element, using the data in table 5. It states that 80% of sites developed during 2017-2022 were developed with at least some residential housing.8 It states that to account for this, “For those sites that assume mixed-use with residential components in the site inventory, potential density is assumed more conservatively at 30 to 35 du/ac.” December 2022 draft at H-31.

Unfortunately, the City does not consistently apply the results of this analysis. Instead of applying the mixed-use density number uniformly, it picks and chooses which sites the City “assume[s]” will be mixed-use, and then ignores the prospect that others may also have mixed- use or no residential use at all. The following sites are zoned for non-residential uses per the site inventory with a reported maximum density of 50, but the City nonetheless lists them at densities higher than what it claims is the “conservative” 30-35 du/ac:
8 Note that here the City counts projects, instead of evaluating by acreage. Larger sites are more likely to be developed for commercial or office uses. Table 5 shows that while 20 of 25 sites contained at least some residential component, only 19.99 of the 80.88 acres (75%) did. A realistic calculation of the likelihood of residential development should apply the proportion developed by acreage before multiplying it times the allowable units per acre, rather than using the percentage of sites with entirely non-residential uses.

1362 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Mixed Zoning Sites With Max Of 50, Not Properly Adjusted For Mixed Zoning:

Site Zoning9 Capacity per
Inventory
Capacity at 30-35 du/ac
because of mixed or
non-residential potential
(before accounting for
site-specific factors)
G: 77 N. San Mateo E2-0.5/R5 25
[39.682
du/ac]
19-22
N: 487 S. El Camino/
62 E. 4th/E 5th and
San Mateo Dr.

CBD/R 157 94-110
1500 Fashion Island E1-0.62/R 273
[45 du/ac]
182-213
2118 El Camino:

Catrina Hotel
C3-1/R4 56
[76.71 du/ac,
despite a
City-wide
maximum of
50]
22-26
2955 El Camino TOD 114
[50 du/ac]
69-80
039-360-140 TOD 67
[50 du/ac]
40-47
AC: Parkside Plaza C1-0.5/R4 332
[50 du/ac]
200-233
220 W. 20th E1-1/R4 77
[50 du/ac]
46-54
150 W. 20th E1-1/R4 79
[40 du/ac]
59-69
2900 El Camino C3-1/R4 54
[50 du/ac]
32-38
2838 El Camino C3-1/R4 59
[50 du/ac]
35-41
4060 El Camino C3-1/R4 51
[50 du/ac]
31-36
9 E1 = Executive [Office] Park.

E2 = Executive Offices
C1 = Neighborhood Commercial
C3 = Regional/Community Commercial
TOD = Transit Oriented Development (mixed use)
/R = Residential Overlay (residential as permitted, rather than special, use)

1363 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

2028 El Camino C3-1/R4 19
[50 du/ac]
11-13
2030 S. Delaware TOD 52
[50 du/ac]
31-36
AL: Ah Sam C3-2 105
[46 du/ac]
69-80
AM: 1670 Amphlett
Blvd.

E2-1 289
[50 du/ac]
173-202
AM: 1700 Amphlett
Blvd.

E2-1 203
[50 du/ac]
122-142
AM: 1720 Amphlett
Blvd.

E2-1 230
[50 du/ac]
138-161
AN: 4100/4142 El
Camino
C1-1.5/R4 28
[39 du/ac]
22-25
Totals: 2,270 1,395-1,628
Overestimate: 642-875
units
The sites in the following chart are zoned for non-residential uses per the site inventory with a reported maximum of 30 or 35 units/acre, but the City does not discount them to take into account the possibility of non-residential development. Applying the City’s data showing that mixed zoning sites develop at less than 80% of the maximum zoning, these sites should be estimated at no more than 24-28 units/acre:

Mixed Zoning Sites With Max Of 30-35, Not Properly Adjusted For Mixed Zoning:

Site Zoning Capacity per
Inventory
Capacity at 80% of
maximum zoning
(before accounting
for site-specific
factors)
1885 S. Norfolk St.
(Fish Market)
C1-1
Neighborhood
Comm’l
105
[30 du/ac;
zoning max is 35]
98 AB: 210 S. San
Mateo
CBD “Central
Business Dist.”
35 [50.7 du/ac;
zoning max is 30]
17 AE: The Great
Entertainer
R3/C2-1
Regional
Comm’l/Medium
Density
44 [29.72 du/ac;
zoning max is 35]
41 1364 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

AF: 350 N. San
Mateo/220 E. Poplar
C2-1, C2-2
Regional
Comm’l
19 [30 du/ac;
zoning max is 35]
18 AH: 71-77 Bovet C1-2
Neighborhood
Comm’l
209
[35 du/ac;
zoning max is 35]
186
1900 S. Norfolk E1-0.5
Exec. Office
Park [no resid.
overlay]
245
[30 du/ac; zoning
max stated as 35]
229
Totals: 657 589
Overestimate: 68 units
The City also takes an inconsistent approach to “pre-application” projects. Some are estimated based on similar experience throughout the City (e.g., Fishmarket, estimated at 35 du/ac despite the owner’s proposal of 260 units).10 But for others, the City takes credit based on the projected number of units out of a “pre-application” or pending application, even though the application itself has not yet been approved or, in most cases, even submitted. While some of these sites may ultimately develop for the proposed density, using the un-approved density from a pre-application is not a realistic assessment of their likely capacity. Until entitlements issue and the projects move forward, the realistic estimate of the site’s capacity should be based on the typical capacity based on the mixed-use sites that have been approved or built, i.e., 30-35 units/acre:
“Pre-Application”/Pending, Not Properly Adjusted for Mixed Zoning:

Site Zoning Capacity per
Inventory
Capacity at 80% of
maximum zoning
(before accounting for
site-specific factors)
Site AO: Block 20 CBD/S Central
Business District
Support
84 [72.4 du/ac]
35-41
Site Y: Hillsdale
Inn (477 E. Hillsdale
Blvd.)
C2-0.5
Regional/Comm.

Comm’l
230
[75.4 du/ac]
92-107
1495 El Camino E2-1/R4
Executive
Office/High
35 20-24
10 At 260 units on 3.5 acres (75 du/ac), the owner’s proposal would appear to exceed Measure Y, and so is indeed unrealistic, at least for purposes of calculating a site inventory capacity. This also assumes that all 3.5 acres is developable, despite Bay Conservation District jurisdiction over this shoreline parcel.

1365 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Density
Residential
[51.47 du/ac]11
R: 4th/Railroad
“Bespoke”12
CBD/R
Central Business
District
60 [52 du/ac]
35-41
Site AG: Nazareth
Vista
C1-3/R5
Neighborhood
Commercial with
Residential
Overlay
48 [75 du/ac]
19-22
477 9th Ave. E2-2 [Executive
Office, No
Residential
Overlay]
120
[75 du/ac]
48-56
Totals: 577 291
Potential
Overestimate: 249-291
By failing to follow through on the HCD required analysis – that properties zoned for non-residential uses will sometimes not become housing at all – the draft overestimates the capacity of its inventory. Based on the City’s own analysis, that sites where mixed or non- residential use is permitted should be estimated at 30-35 units/acre, the City overestimated the capacity by 710-943 units, over 10% of the RHNA totals. And if the “pre-application” sites are adjusted to reflect average capacities for mixed use zoning, instead of accepting pre-application numbers at face value, the overestimate is as high as 1,234 units, constituting 17.5% of the RHNA totals. Before adopting the Housing Element, the City should adjust the site inventory capacity calculations to comply with the state law requirement of realistic, demonstrated capacities, and then identify additional sites to make up for the shortfall.

2. Residential Zoning.

For the limited number of sites on the inventory that are zoned residential without the potential for non-residential uses, the City’s analysis is also flawed. As discussed in the Housing Action Coalition’s prior comment letter, the draft “cherry-picks” data to argue that capacities should be calculated based on the maximum permitted under the City’s zoning laws. At pages H-30 through H-31, and in table 4, the City separates prior residential developments into two categories: “in-fill” and “outliers.” The so-called “outliers” represent over 20% of the units, and 46% of the residentially zoned land: it is unreasonable to disregard them when computing the 11 Note that this pre-application appears to have been submitted in 2017, suggesting that it might be a particularly poor basis for an estimate made in 2023. 12 Note: Only two of the six parcels described at page H-C-33 (narrative description of the “Bespoke” project) are listed on the site inventory.

1366 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

average. The average density for residential projects, combining both parts of table 4, is approximately 40 units/acre.

Notably, the draft applies the “outlier” density of 18.2 units/acre to only three sites, all adjacent to one another at 717-801 Woodside Road. The sites are in a residential neighborhood surrounded by other apartment buildings.

Meanwhile, the City does not apply the “outlier” density to sites that would appear to have far more in common with those on the list. The “outlier” project on Waters Park Drive was zoned “executive office”; it borders Borel Creek as it flows into Seal Slough. Less than 100 feet away, on the opposite side of Borel Creek as it flows into Seal Slough, is 1900 S. Norfolk Street, zoned “executive office.” Yet while the Waters Park Drive project developed at a density of just 17 units/acre, the City projects a capacity for 1900 S. Norfolk of 245 units on 8.18 acres: 30 units per acre. If indeed the Waters Park Drive project resulted in low density because of site- specific conditions (adjacency to the busy Highway 101-Highway 92 interchange; located in a flood zone; no residential zoning overlay), then consistency would demand similar treatment for 1900 S. Norfolk. For that matter, Parkside Plaza and Fishmarket are similarly adjacent to Seal Slough and right next to the interchange; they should also be projected at the “outlier” density.

3. Site-Specific Adjustments.

State housing law requires that site-specific conditions also be taken into account. In the narrative discussion of specific sites in draft Appendix C at pp. H-C-35 through H-C-49, the City identifies site-specific issues that should further reduce the realistic, demonstrated capacity. At the Fish Market and 1900 S. Norfolk sites, for example, there are required setbacks from Borel Creek and Seal Slough. 1900 S. Norfolk is also next to a freeway interchange, and so has restrictions on height relating to the height of the freeway railing; the site also has a long tail that winds around a PG&E substation, none of which could be developed and which should therefore be ignored in calculating realistic capacity.

See December 2022 Draft Appendix C at p. H-C-39.

Meanwhile, the City seems not to have considered the potential effect of San Mateo Zoning Code section 27.44.065 to this site (currently zoned E1): at least 35% of the parcel area must be open-space, preventing over 1/3 of the land from being developed for housing. Other sites also have odd shapes or watercourse adjacencies. Still others are subject to other rules governing setbacks or required ground-floor uses. See, e.g., San Mateo Zoning Code § 27.29.118 (prohibiting residential uses on first floor in mixed use projects in downtown), § 27.30.027 (prohibiting ground floor residential uses in the first 30 feet facing El Camino Real or 25th Avenue), § 27.39.100 (required retail frontage in downtown), 27.42.010 (“Street Wall” regulations requiring upper floor setbacks in the downtown). Meanwhile, the City mentions, but never really analyzes, how Measure Y can prevent housing from being built at the densities projected, unless state density bonuses are used to override this constraint.

Similarly, given that the $240+ million construction of Hillsdale North Block precludes use of the 12.5 acres there, and that the pedestrian bridge shows an intention to continue use of significant portions of the main mall building, the City needs to analyze which portions of the

1367 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Hillsdale site might realistically be developed as residential housing during the next eight years, then reduce the calculation to take these site constraints into account. The existing leases at Bridgepointe mean that the proper calculation for that site’s potential is to determine how large a parking structure would need to be built on the current surface lot to meet the requirements of the existing retail center, ice rink, and restaurants, and then determine the development potential of the fraction of the parking lot that would be available for housing. Applying a 30-35 unit average to these two sites seriously overstates the development capacity for all levels of affordability.

State law requires that the City develop and justify a cogent, realistic methodology to support its anticipated production calculations, and requires that it apply that methodology consistently and thoughtfully to the site inventory to yield realistic results. Unfortunately, the City’s draft fails to meet the required standard.

C. Additional Comments On Zoning Status.

As noted above, a number of sites included in the City’s inventory are zoned commercial or office without a residential overlay. We request that San Mateo rezone these sites to add a residential overlay, so that developers are assured that residential uses will be permitted, rather than hope the desired inclusion of residential uses will be permitted on a site-by-site basis as part of project-specific approvals. Uncertainty regarding the ultimate success of a rezoning effort discourages residential development in the City. December 2022 Draft at Appendix B, p. H-B-

26. The entire point of the housing inventory is to determine if there are sufficient sites that are either (1) vacant and zoned residential, (2) vacant and zoned for nonresidential use “that allows residential development,” (3) residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density, or (4) “sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element contains a program to rezone the site, as necessary, to permit residential use.” Government Code § 65583.2(a)(1)-(4). The sites zoned for commercial or office use, without a residential overlay, do not fall within section 65583.2(a)(3), because they are not zoned residential. They should therefore be included in a program to rezone to affirmatively permit residential use. Having the City retain discretion to refuse or condition residential development on these properties does not make them available as required by state housing law.13 This issue would appear to apply to the following sites14:
13 We note, for example, that the Waters Park Road project, zoned E1, sought a rezoning because it was not zoned residential, as part of its attempt to seek permission to redevelop the site. Sites listed on the inventory should not have to go through this step. 14 Under San Mateo Zoning Code section 27.44.020, permitted uses in the E1 district include “Residential units, only on parcels designated with a residential overlay district classification . . .” Id. § 27.44.020(g). For parcels “without a residential overlay district classification,” residential units are permitted only “subject to approval of a special use permit.” Id.
§ 27.44.030(g). The same rules apply to E2. See id. §§ 27.48.020(b) and 27.48.030. The same rules apply to the C1 and C2 districts, absent a residential overlay. Id. § 27.30.010(a)

1368 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Sites Where Residential Units Are Not A Permitted Use:

Site Zoning Claimed Capacity
A: 117-121 N. San Mateo E2 15
T: 1600-1620 El Camino Real, and 1535-
1541 Jasmine
E2-2 44
901 El Camino Real E2-1 17
1650 Borel Place E1-2 74
1900 S. Norfolk E1-0.5 245
477 9th Ave. E2-2 120
Portion of AI: 723 N. San Mateo Dr. E2-1.5 34
AM: 1670 Amphlett Blvd. E2-1 289
AM: 1700 Amphlett Blvd. E2-1 203
AM: 1720 Amphlett Blvd. E2-1 230
1863-1885 S. Norfolk (Fish Market) C1-1 105
Y: Hillsdale Inn, car wash C2-0.5 207
AF: 350 N. San Mateo/220 E. Poplar C2-1, C2-2 19
AH: 71-77 Bovet, 93 Bovet C1-2 243
2000 Winward Way (Residence Inn) C2-0.62 160
Portions of AI: 727 and 733 N. San Mateo C3-2 [counted above] AL: Ah Sam Florist C3-2 105
190 W. 25th Ave. C1-2 2
Total Capacity Not Zoned For Residential As A
Permitted (Not Special) Use: 2,112
In determining how to rezone to add a residential overlay, the City should also consider whether the overlay after rezoning will enable the sites to realistically achieve the density claimed on the site inventory. See San Mateo Zoning Code § 27.29.110 (imposing maximum floor area ratios).

The City should also consider the impact of Government Code section 65583.2(h).

Section 65583.2(h) provides that at least 50% of the need for very-low and low-income housing must be accommodated on sites designated for residential use where non-residential uses are not permitted. San Mateo’s site inventory does not appear to satisfy this rule, because at least 50% of the need is proposed to be met using sites that allow exclusively commercial uses. (For (permitting “residential units only on parcels designated with a residential overlay” for C1 district); § 27.32.010(n) (same for C2); 27.30.020 (requiring special use permit for “residential units on parcels without a residential overlay district classification” in C1); § 27.32.020(g) (same for C2). It does not appear that residential uses are permitted in the C3 district at all; consistent with the intention “to create and maintain major commercial centers accommodating a broad range of office, retail, and service uses of community-wide or regional significance,” residential uses are not listed as a permitted use in § 27.34.010, though they arguably could be permitted as a special use because they are special uses permitted in C1 and C2. Id. § 27.34.020(a).

1369 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

example, the Bridgepointe and Hillsdale shopping centers, zoned for commercial uses, see, e.g., City of San Mateo Zoning Code § 27.34). Meanwhile, the statutory alternative of accommodating 100% of the very low and low income need on sites designated for mixed uses, “if those sites allow 100 percent residential use,” would appear not to apply to certain City zoning designations. See, e.g., City of San Mateo Zoning Code § 27.38.110. The City should evaluate how to address the impact of this statutory provision as part of the final drafting of the Housing Element.
* * *
Based on the analysis above, San Mateo’s draft Housing Element does not comply with state law, because it proposes to meet more than 50% of the need for affordable housing with sites that are not vacant, and does so without substantial evidence that they are likely to be redeveloped. The City’s current analysis, which fails to analyze or account for leases, whether parcels proposed to be consolidated are under common ownership, recent remodeling or construction indicating that existing uses will continue, and other obstacles to development in the next eight years, is insufficient to meet its responsibility under state housing law. In particular, the City lacks substantial evidence showing that the Bridgepointe and Hillsdale shopping center sites have existing uses that are “likely to discontinue” during the next eight years, but as the other examples we cite above illustrate, the required analysis under Government Code section 65583.2(g)(1)-(2) must be done for each site separately in order to have a valid Housing Element.

Meanwhile, the City has also overestimated the capacity of the sites listed on the inventory. Correctly calculating the realistic capacity – even by using the high end of the City’s range of 30-35 units for mixed zoning sites with a maximum of 50, and 80% of the zoned capacity for sites zoned for 30 or 35 units/acre – reduces the City’s claimed buffer for all categories, and leads to a shortfall for the “very low” and “moderate” categories, even if all sites satisfied section 65583.2(g)(2). Further site-specific analysis leads to an even greater gap. The City should address these shortfalls by planning to rezone more sites. The City should also rezone the inventory sites in districts where residential is not a permitted use without a special use permit; the City itself recognizes that this is a substantial constraint on housing production, and the current zoning prevents the sites from falling into any of the categories of section 65583.2(a)(1)-(4) without rezoning under section 65583(c).

1370 of 1732

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Given these flaws, San Mateo is not yet ready to adopt its Housing Element. Additional sites will need to be identified and potentially rezoned to ensure compliance with state housing law. A more substantial inventory will avoid the possibility that the Housing Element will be invalidated in the event that HCD or a court agrees with the legal issues identified above.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas B. Mayhew
Charles J. Higley
36615\15225917.1

1371 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 3:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter comment letter re: the San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element – Updated Draft
Attachments: Comments on Updated Draft San Mateo Housing Element January 9, 2023 .pdf

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Technician Housing Dept
330 W 20th Avenue, San Mateo, Ca 94403
650‐522‐7239
[email protected]

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: Barbara Kelsey
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Gita Dev   Gladwyn d'Souza   Ken A red
James Eggers  Jennifer Hetterly  Mike Ferreira

Subject: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter comment letter re: the San Mateo 2023‐2031 Housing Element – Updated Draft

January 9, 2023

1372 of 1732

2 San Mateo City Council
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council and Planning Commission,

The Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the Updated Draft San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element.

The overall updated draft Housing Element (HE) is an improvement, but more focused and stronger policies and programs are needed to have a reasonable expectation of meeting the RHNA number of 7,015 new housing units, particularly for affordable units. Please find our full comment letter attached.

We ask that you consider this information as you finalize the Housing Element for submission to the State. SLU is prepared to help the City in advancing the HE as it is finalized and when it goes into effect.

Respectfully submitted,
Gita Dev
Co-Chair Sustainable Land Use Committee, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Cc:

James Eggers
Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Gladwyn d’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

sent by:

Barbara Kelsey
she/her/hers
Chapter Coordinator
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter

Palo Alto, CA 94303

1373 of 1732

3 1374 of 1732

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
January 9, 2023
San Mateo City Council
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

Via Email to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Subject: San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element – Updated Draft Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council and Planning Commission, The Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the Updated Draft San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element.

The overall updated draft Housing Element (HE) is an improvement, but more focused and stronger policies and programs are needed to have a reasonable expectation of meeting the RHNA number of 7,015 new housing units, particularly for affordable units.

Reaching the RHNA unit goal will require changes in the speed of development in San Mateo. In order to reach the goal of 7,015 new units from 2023-2031, the city must add almost 900 new units each year.

That is roughly the equivalent of building a new Concar Passage each year1. This will be infeasible unless a major effort is made to streamline and accelerate housing development. And, of course, it is important that new development also be thoughtfully designed to accomplish all the other General Plan goals of open space, quality of neighborhoods, etc. The HE Housing Plan (p.H-67 to H-87) needs to demonstrate a significant change to current policies and programs in order to realistically be able to reach the goal.

This will not be easy, as the new RHNA goals are well above the rate of new housing added over the last few decades2. But it must be done if we are to adequately address the housing crisis in the region and leave the city well positioned for future generations to prosper.

The HE rightly points out that the housing problem is a regional one and that each city needs to meet or exceed its goal if the housing crisis, particularly for affordable housing, is to be solved. The lack of affordable housing on the Peninsula is a significant contributor to environmental degradation as workers

1 Concar Passage is the largest housing project approved in recent years and required major time and effort for approval. Developing a project like this each year, will therefore require a major effort above the current processes.
2 The 2015-2022 RHNA was 3,164 units and with only one year left it has 2,573 units completed. This current RHNA number is less than half the new RHNA number; thus, demonstrating the steep challenge of meeting the new RHNA number of 7,015.

1375 of 1732

must commute long distances by car, emitting greenhouse gases (GHG) as well as other pollutants. It also leads to sprawl, as more development is done in areas that were open space or agricultural land.

There are specific areas that will need to be retained or expanded to make sure the final HE contains the key actions needed to make significant progress on addressing the enormous lack of affordable housing in the Bay Area. Listed below are the most important goals, policies and programs in the HE that need to be retained and strengthened in the final HE.

1. The HE aims for a 42% buffer above the RHNA, but more buffer is needed. This number is lower than in the first HE draft (56%) which was a minimum. This is concerning, as a large buffer is needed to realistically be able to meet the RHNA, as the ability to actually build out housing has proven, over time, to be very difficult.

2. Increasing affordable housing is emphasized in the draft HE and that is good, but stronger action is needed. The “buffers” for affordable housing levels are only 7%, 34% and 12%, while the buffer for market rate housing is 76%. These are all lower than was in the first HE draft and therefore it is concerning. The percentage buffer for affordable units should be at least as high as the buffer for market units since affordable units are needed more and are harder to develop.

The affordable housing should be more strongly focused on low, very low and extremely low- income housing, as these are where the largest needs are and where the lack of inventory is the largest. The very poor jobs/housing fit3 in the Peninsula can best be addressed with a focus on more affordable housing. As noted in the HE draft4, the lack of affordable housing was one of the major concerns expressed by the public.

The addition of H1.21 “Adopt San Mateo General Plan 2040” is important. It could possibly lead to a ballot measure in 2024 to update Measure Y so that significantly higher density (now 35 -50 units per acre but proposed to change to 100-200 units per acre) and height can be used in key areas, like near transit. This change will make meeting the RHNA numbers much more possible.

Funding that can be used to support affordable housing is a fundamental need and more must be done to obtain funding. Affordable housing has to be subsidized and a lack of funding will limit the ability to build the needed affordable housing, particularly for low and very low-income units. This could include establishing or increasing: Vacancy Tax, Commercial Linkage Fees, and Transfer Tax. It is particularly important that funding focus on repairing the legacy of discrimination in housing. The following policies and programs should be strengthened to accomplish this goal:
a. H 1.2 - Utilize Public Funding for Low/Moderate Income Housing b. H 1.3 - Increase Affordable Housing Production
c. H 1.18 - Permitting and Development Fee Schedule Review (Increase where necessary) d. H 3.3 – Evaluate Housing Revenue Sources (Increase)

3 Jobs/Housing Fit: Jobs/housing fit means that the majority of homes within the city are affordable to the majority of employees who work in the city, and conversely, the jobs in the city pay enough to cover the cost of housing in the city. Without an adequate jobs/housing fit, businesses find it difficult to hire and retain lower-income employees.
4 Page H-53

1376 of 1732

e. H 5.1.1 - Adjust the City's Below Market Rate (inclusionary) program to provide larger density bonuses, and/or increased city support in exchange for affordable units that address the needs of residents with unusually high housing needs f. H 5.1.2 - Participate in a regional down payment assistance program with affirmative marketing to households with disproportionately high housing needs including persons with disabilities, single parents, and Hispanic households g. H 5.1.3 - Support the design of a regional forgivable loan program for homeowners to construct an ADU that is held affordable for extremely low-income households for 15 years

3. In addition to increased funding for affordable units, the HE should prioritize policies and programs that reduce costs and streamline the processes for affordable units. The following policies and programs should be strengthened to accomplish this need:
a. H 1.6 - Streamline Housing Application Review
b. H 1.8 - Adopt Objective Design Standards
c. H 1.9 - Create Minimum Densities for Mixed-Use Residential Projects d. H 1.10 - Establish By-Right Housing Designation for Prior Housing Sites e. H 1.12 - Encourage Residential Uses within Housing Overlay

4. Almost the entire city, including R1 areas, will need to contribute to the increased housing through such mechanisms ADUs and, possibly, new mechanisms such as expanded Missing Middle Units (duplex, triplex and fourplex) . However, increased density should be focused within half mile of transit to align with Climate Action Plan goals for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.

The Climate Action Plan requires attention to creating easy pedestrian and bicycle access to reduce GHG. Therefore, while it is important to retain this broad opportunity for more housing, since R1 zoning is a major part of the total area of the city, it is important to keep in mind that easy pedestrian and bicycle access to amenities and to transit is a critically important goal for the Climate Action Plan.

The “15-minute Neighborhood”5 6 concept needs to be included in the General Plan, along with the Housing Element as it would facilitate creating more housing in R1 neighborhoods while simultaneously reducing GHG. This is a mechanism that would insert community amenities, such as small neighborhood retail nodes, into otherwise auto-dominated areas such as R1 neighborhoods.

Even more priority should be placed on these efforts. The following policies and programs should be strengthened to accomplish this need:

a. H 1.4 - Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units Development with streamlined approvals, development subsidies, or low or zero interest loans for construction cost

5 15-minute neighborhoods are being created in many cities especially post-COVID. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/9/6/7-rules-for-creating-15-minute-neighborhoods 6 Embraced by Mayors around the world, Portland and several small US cities have embraced the concept to rebuild their economizes while crating healthier cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city

1377 of 1732

b. H1.11 Implement the Zoning Code to allow duplexes and lot splits on appropriate single- family sites consistent with SB 9.
c. H1.13- Encourage Development of Missing Middle Housing within a half mile of transit. d. Include overlay zoning, in the General Plan, for “15-minute Neighborhoods” allowing insertion of small new neighborhood retail nodes with Green Streets network 7 to create walkable, bikeable neighborhoods, with the daily amenities, to reduce auto trips and create healthier walkable neighborhoods, convenient for all ages including kids and seniors.

5. Climate Change is real. 8No mention is made of how housing, particularly new housing, needs to be located so as to be resilient to climate change. Sea levels are predictably going to rise more swiftly in the coming decades, according to the California Ocean Protection Council. Wildfires are also predicted to become an increased threat with the continued drought and encroachment into the forested hill areas of our city. The increased risks of sea level rise (SLR) near the Bay and wildfires in the hilly areas make including sites in such vulnerable areas a problem and needs to be factored into identifying areas for higher density and more affordable housing.

We ask that you consider this information as you finalize the Housing Element for submission to the State. SLU is prepared to help the City in advancing the HE as it is finalized and when it goes into effect.

Respectfully submitted,

Gita Dev
Co-Chair Sustainable Land Use Committee, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Cc:

James Eggers
Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Gladwyn d’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

7 How to insert a Green Street network into an existing City. Sierra Club Loma Prieta https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce-authors/u4142/Green%20Streets%20Presentation%20-%201- 20-21%20DC.pdf
8 Ocean Protection Council- Sea Level Rise Guidance: The rate at which sea levels will rise can help inform the planning and implementation timelines of state and local adaptation efforts. Understanding the speed at which sea level is rising can provide context for planning decisions and establish thresholds for action… https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf

1378 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Melania Maldonado
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 9:30 PM
To: Housing
Subject: Housing element
City Council,

I strongly disagree with the housing approvals you are trying to pass.  The city of San Mateo does not build any “affordable” housing for anyone, and nobody in our already over crowded neighborhoods want any more apartment buildings or multi unit housing in our single family neighborhoods.  If we wanted to live like that, we would live in San Francisco or other big cities. We like our single family homes, and certainly CANNOT handle any more traffic on our already crowded streets.  You keep coming up with all these stupid ideas for building more without any room for parking or play areas for our children.  These new so called communities you are approving have inadequate parking space for these people which spill out to our neighborhoods, and then we have no parking.  You keep destroying our communities, and have totally ruined our small downtown and our small businesses.   So thank you city council, I hope the rest of you “older” council members get voted out next time!

Melania Penirian

Sent from my iPhone

1379 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 1:25 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element Update Comments
Hi Nicky,

Here is an email sent to the commissioners to add to your public comments.

Mary

From: l watanuki
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Housing Element Update Comments

Housing Element Update Comments for the Planning Commission.

1. Preservation: We would like to see our existing single family and duplex homes along 4th (south side) and north side of 5th Avenues (Delaware to Amphlett) and the west side of Delaware from 5th to 9th Avenue be preserved and not be demolished. These Italian Revival, Craftsmen, and pre-war homes represent the early part of the 20th Century architecture and contribute to the character of the east side of San Mateo and our Historic Downtown. These homes in Central are affordable homes for young families and walkable to the Downtown. The new densities and heights are too high in the General Plan and should be lowered to Measure Y standards to reduce lot accumulation and demolition. We are lacking a buffer zone for transition.

2. Protection: We would like to protect the current residents from displacement. More tall glass buildings and shadows will impact the pedestrian experience. We need to protect the 1930’s character of the historic Downtown with compatible architecture with more traditional elements.

3. The reports state the inventory of vacant sites would be adequate for additional housing. The City has the capacity to develop up to 7,934 units. This development exists within the City’s current zoned densities and doesn’t require any rezoning to achieve. There should be sufficient number of units from 2023 to 2031. There has been a significant amount of development with the current Measure Y in the Downtown areas in Central and North Central Neighborhoods.

4. Other suitable areas for housing can include S Amphlett from 5th Avenue to Folkstone where there are a mix of industrial commercial uses, including warehouses, and auto repair businesses. This is one of the two industrial areas in the Central Neighborhood which has had difficult access for large trucks from 101 through our narrow streets. This would be a win/win situation for Central and Sunnybrae Neighborhoods which have experienced 50 years of adverse environmental impacts. We would like to see low density, owner-occupied townhouses next to our Single Family/Duplex neighborhood. Ryland Bay in Bay Meadows and Arbor Rose in Sunnybrae are both owner-occupied housing next to the 101 Freeway.

Thanks.

Laurie Watanuki

1380 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 2:47 PM
To: Housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element Comments
Last comment. Nicky I will add to the public comments.

Mary

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Francie Souza
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 2:27 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element Comments

I am a resident of Central San Mateo and am giving my feedback regarding the Housing Plan.

1) My first question is if we have a high number of housing units we need to develop to meet state mandates, why are most of the new projects in downtown primarily office space (other than Kiku Crossing)?

2) PLEASE do not take away the single family and duplex/quadplex homes along north side of 5th Avenue, and south side of 4th Avenue between Amphlett & Delaware. 5th Avenue is a beautiful tree‐lined street with pre‐war homes/duplexes/quads and is one of the prime reasons we moved into the area.  They are also more affordable to those entering the housing market and are close to amenities of downtown.  DO NOT raise the height limit beyond what Measure Y was voted on.  There needs to be consideration of a transition between the large complexes, such as the one proposed for S Delaware/5th/Claremont/4th, and the less dense housing further down 5th and Delaware.

3) Please consider other areas to develop for housing which are currently a mix of industrial uses ‐ such as parts of Amphlett Blvd and El Camino

4) I am hopeful if new housing has to take over existing housing, such as along West side of Delaware between 5th & 9th and as mentioned above the north side of 5th Avenue, low density, owner occupied townhomes, not high‐rises and large complexes which destroy the nature of the neighborhood community. Alternative 3 or Residential Low is preferred if current housing does need displacement in those areas.

This development of our neighborhoods brings great stress of decisions for current homeowners to make ‐  are we living in a community which will maintain the character of the city we chose to move into, and if not, when should we move? Do we need to consider moving now before nearby construction begins tearing down historic homes in our neighborhood and how does this impact the value of our properties as homeowners?  I believe the city planning commission can find properties to develop in order to provide adequate housing that does not require ruining the character of current neighborhoods.  Please be considerate of current home‐owners and tax‐paying citizens.

Frances Souza

1381 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Martin McTaggart; Patrice Olds; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir Subject: RE: Adopt Housing Element
Another comment passing on to Eloiza and Nicky.

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:57 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Adopt Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michelle Byron
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 6:44 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Adopt Housing Element

Please adopt the Housing Element as presented.

Thank you,
Michelle Byron, San Mateo resident

1382 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Martin McTaggart; Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir Subject: RE: Housing
Passing comments on to Eloiza and Nicky.

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:56 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Mary Way <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:07 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing

To: San Mateo City Council

I Support/Request the City Council to ACCEPT the current Housing Element as presented by City staff on January 24 ‐ we have done enough to meet the requirements and our city is stretching our infrastructure.

You are voted in to represent your constituents. Please do so!

Christine Heckford

San Mateo

Sent from my iPhone

1383 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:34 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Janet Cook
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:30 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

I would like you to vote for the Housing Element before the Council.  I would like an investigation into possible bribery with the Planning Commission who went behind our backs to side with developers who care nothing about the will of the voters.  As a 45 year citizen of San Mateo, I do not want to loose our town to huge overpopulation.

Thank you,

Janet Cook

San Mateo

Sent from my iPhone

1384 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:46 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting

Dear City Council Members,

I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting on January 24th. The voters of San Mateo have repeatedly made it clear that they want managed growth, not urban sprawl.

This is evidenced by the failure of Measure R.

By voting against the Housing Element, you would be:

 Disregarding the determination of City staff that the City can meet the 7,015 unit goal even with the building height limits set by Measure Y and
 Disregarding the will of the voters in favor of builders, developers, and unions who stand to make millions of dollars.

Ultimately allowing a "Builder's Remedy" to not only take away local land use control and put our neighborhoods at risk, resulting in increased traffic congestion and strain on already stretched water and sewer infrastructure in our city.

1385 of 1732

2 I urge you to approve the Housing Element as presented and protect our neighborhoods, infrastructure, and quality of life in San Mateo.

May I remind you, It is YOUR DUTY as elected officials to carry out Measure Y and protect our neighborhoods, making San Mateo a desirable place to live, and not to allow a "Builder's Remedy" to take away local land use control and put our neighborhoods at risk.

Sincerely,

Doug D’Anna

1386 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:56 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Manira Sandhir; Zachary Dahl; Christina Horrisberger Subject: FW: Housing element
Forwarding to Eloiza and Nicky.

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:49 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Housing element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Don Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:23 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing element

As a long time resident & homeowner I urge the City Council to Adopt the Housing element as it has been presented.

Don Robertson

1387 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Support for City Council APPROVAL of the current Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:14 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Support for City Council APPROVAL of the current Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Aimee WCrollerskate
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:12 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for City Council APPROVAL of the current Housing Element

As a constituent of San Mateo, I am dismayed and concerned by the continued and inappropriate actions by members of the Planning Commission to undermine San Mateo voters and the approved Measure Y with backroom activities and thinly‐veiled attempts to hand the reins of our city over to profit‐minded developers.

Our city deserves thoughtful planning with an infrastructure to support its residents with new and affordable housing.

But it cannot subvert the will of the voters.

Trust in our local government is critical, and a rejection of the measure that voters have already approved will certainly destroy that trust. Many are already furious with the Planning Council's underhanded behavior.

I ask that the City Council uphold the will of the voters/Measure Y and ACCEPT the current Housing Element as presented by City staff on January 24th.
‐‐
Regards,
Aimee Stevland
Resident

1388 of 1732

Supplemental Sites Inventory Table
Housing Development Feasibility and
Realistic Capacity Justification Information
January 24, 2023

This table consolidates information contained in the Sites Inventory and elsewhere in the Housing Element to provide the information and evidence to justify the housing development feasibility and realistic capacity for each opportunity site listed on the Sites Inventory.

This table is still in draft format and, if the City Council supports inclusion in the Housing Element as part of the City’s response to public comments, staff will complete the table prior to submittal of the Housing Element to HCD.

1389 of 1732

Table A-1: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Supplmental Table Site Address/Intersection
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
Parcel Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Total Capacity
(units)
Realistic Capacity
Proposed
(units/acre)
Percent of
Base Density
Draft General Plan
Update (GPU)
Designation
(Proposed)
Draft GPU Density
(units/acre)
Existing Use /
Vacancy Pipeline Project Status Constraints Justification 121 N San Mateo Dr 032-292-070 A 0.59 Executive Office E2 50 15 25 51% Residential High 100 to 200 Medical office
building 0 No constraints found One story, old building, larger than .5 acre, same owner 117 N San Mateo Dr 032-292-080 A 0 Executive Office E2 50 Residential High 100 to 200 Medical office
building 0 No constraints found One story, old building, larger than .5 acre, same owner 5 N San Mateo Dr 032-312-250 B 0.98
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 35 36 71% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Med Center
surface Parking
Lot 0 No constraints found
General interest in redevelopment, large surface
parking lot, larger than .5 acre, same owner
123 Baldwin Ave 032-312-270 B 0
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Med Center
surface Parking
Lot 0 0 0
117 Baldwin Ave 032-312-150 B 0
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Med Center
surface Parking
Lot 0 0 0
26 N San Mateo Dr 032-312-100 B 0
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Med Center
surface Parking
Lot 0 0 0
27 N San Mateo Dr 032-312-070 B 0
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Med Center
surface Parking
Lot 0 0 0
402 Tilton Ave 032-331-010 C 0.76
Medium Density Multi-
Family R3 35 26 34 98% Residential Low 2 9 to 39
1 unit - Single
family residential 0
Needs consolidation, adjacent
to railway
Zoned to encourage aggregation, larger than .5 acre
consolidated, same owner
406 Tilton Ave 032-331-020 C 0
Medium Density Multi-
Family R3 35 Residential Low 2 9 to 39
1 unit - Single
family residential 0 Needs consolidation
Zoned to encourage aggregation, larger than .5 acre
consolidated, same owner
20 N Railroad 032-331-150 C 0
Medium Density Multi-
Family R3 35 Residential Low 2 9 to 39
Industrial/wareho
use 0
Needs consolidation, adjacent
to railway
Zoned to encourage aggregation, larger than .5 acre
consolidated
145 N Kingston 033-171-040 D 1.24
High Density Multi-
Family R4 50 35 28 56%
Residental
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99 2 unit - Duplex
Pre-Application completed but
project is on hold, Affordability
by Inclusionary Ordinance
Needs consolidation, AE High
Risk Floodzone Former PA19-008 Monte Diablo Townhomes
139 N Kingston 033-171-050 D 0
High Density Multi-
Family R4 50 Residential Low 1 9 to 39
5 unit - 2 story
residential apts 0 0 0
131 N Kingston 033-171-060 D 0
High Density Multi-
Family R4 50
Residental
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99
1 unit - Single
family residential 0 0 0
1218 Monte Diablo 033-171-180 D 0
High Density Multi-
Family R4 50 Residential Medium 40 to 99
Neighborhood
retail/parking 0 0 0
1731 Leslie St 035-215-060 E 0.6
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 30 50 100% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Service
commercial 0
Needs consolidation, Needs
cleanup (autoshop) Zoned TOD, larger .5 acre, old buildings 1741 Leslie St 035-221-010 E 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99
Service
commercial 0 0 0
1753 Leslie St 035-221-020 E 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99
Service
commercial 0 0 0
678 Concar Dr 035-242-090 F 14.53 Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 961 66 132% Mixed-Use Medium
40 to 99
Seven 11
Entitlement Approved;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance
1880 Grant St and 666 Concar
Dr are adjacent to State HWY
92 PA18-052, Concar Passage, consolidated site
666 Concar Dr 035-242-140 F 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99
Shopping
center/parking 0 0 0
1855 S Delaware St 035-242-160 F 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 restaurant 0 0 0 1880 S Grant St 035-242-170 F 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99
Shopping
center/parking 0 0 0
690 Concar Dr 035-242-190 F 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Shane Jeweler 0 0 0 1820 S Grant St 035-242-200 F 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Trader Joes 0 0 0 640 Concar Dr 035-242-210 F 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99
Shopping
center/parking 0 0 0
Concar Dr/S Delaware St 035-242-220 F 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 parking 0 0 0 DRAFT

1390 of 1732

77 N San Mateo Dr 032-311-140 G 0.63
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 25 40 79% Residential Medium 40 to 99 Medical office and
parking lot 0 No constraints found
One-story old medical office building; 0.4 miles to
Caltrain
Tilton Ave/N San Mateo Dr 032-311-150 G 0
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 Residential Medium 40 to 99 Medical office and
parking lot 0 No constraints found Large parking lot
229 W 20th Ave 039-052-350 H 5.4
Medium Density Multi-
Family R3 35 189 35 100% Residential Medium 40 to 99 Elks Lodge 0 Needs consolidation Preliminary conversations with the owner to convert to
residential have occurred.
205 W 20th Ave 039-060-010 H 0.25
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 4 16 32% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Single story office
building 0 Needs consolidation
One story, old building, larger than .5 acre (consolidate with Elk's)
2010 Pioneer Ct 039-060-020 H 0.22
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 3 14 27% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Single story office
building 0 Needs consolidation
One story, old building, larger than .5 acre (consolidate with Elk's)
2040 Pioneer Ct 039-060-050 I 1.4
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 40 29 57% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Two story office 0 Needs consolidation Two story, old building, larger than .5 acre 2041 Pioneer Ct 039-060-100 I 0
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Two story office 0 Needs consolidation Two story, old building, larger than .5 acre 2050 Pioneer Ct 039-060-060 I 0
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Single story office
building 0 Needs consolidation One story, old buildngs, larger than .5 acre 2070 Pioneer Ct 039-060-070 I 0
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Single story
professional office 0 Needs consolidation One story, old buildngs, larger than .5 acre 2055 Pioneer Ct 039-060-090 I 0
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Single story
medical building 0 Needs consolidation One story, old buildngs, larger than .5 acre 2075 Pioneer Ct 039-060-080 I 0
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Single story office
building 0 Needs consolidation One story, old buildngs, larger than .5 acre 151 W 20th Ave 039-060-140 J 0.36
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 9 25 50% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Single story office
building 0 Needs consolidation R-4 zoning, underutilized, common ownership, 1 story 117 W 20th Ave 039-060-150 J 0
High Density Multi-
Family R4 50
Residental
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99
1 unit - Single
family residential 0 0 0
2745 S El Camino Real 039-351-070 0 0.82
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 41 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story retail 0 Adjacent to the railroad Owner interested in housing redevelopment, see letter
dated 10/24/22; TOD Zone, larger than .5 acre, old
building (Lamps Plus)
2825 S El Camino Real 039-351-110 0 0.75
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 37 49 99% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200
Existing
retail/parking ( Big
5)
0 Adjacent to the railway TOD Zone, larger than .5 acre, old building 2833 S El Camino Real 039-351-120 K 1.08
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 54 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 small retail 0 Needs consolidation, Adjacent
to railway TOD Zone, larger than .5 acre, old building
2837 S El Camino Real 039-351-130 K 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 small retail 0 0 0 2841 S El Camino Real 039-351-999 K 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 small retail 0 0 0 3101 S El Camino Real 039-360-160 L 1.42
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 70 49 99% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200
Vacant restaurant
and large parking 0 Adjacent to the railway
Ownership interest in redevelopment, TOD zoning,
larger than .5 acre, vacant, large parking lot
3111 S El Camino Real 039-360-070 L 0
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200
Vacant restaurant
and large parking 0 0 0
200 S Fremont St 033-163-160 0 0.42
High Density Multi-
Family R4D 50 15 36 71% Residential Medium 40 to 99
1 unit - Single
family residential
Under Construction;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance No constraints found PA15-048; 200 S Fremont under construction 717 E 3rd Ave 033-163-050 M 0.58
High Density Multi-
Family R4D 50 40 69 138% Residential Medium 40 to 99
1 unit - Single
family residential
Pre-Application Completed
with formal submittal
anticipated 2023; Affordability
by Inclusionary Ordinance No constraints found
PA19-036 Pre-application for a 40-unit multifamily
housing project
222 S Fremont St 033-163-170 M 0
High Density Multi-
Family R4D 50 0 Residential Medium 40 to 99 Vacant 0
Former gas station (closed
LUST case)
0 480 E 4th Ave 034-183-060 0 1.16 Central Business Support CBD-S 50 225 194 388% Residential High 100 to 200 Parking Lot Under Construction;
Affordability by Funding
Restriction No constraints found
PA19-033; City owned site Kiku Crossing under
construction
3069 W Kyne St (BMSP - RES 6) 040-031-040 0 1.9 TOD BMSP 50 54 28 57% Residential Medium 40 to 99 Demolished Bay
Meadows Race
Track
Under Construction;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance No constraints found PA20-033; SPAR approved RES-6 under construction 487 S El Camino Real 034-144-220 N 0.42 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 20 48 95% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Retail/office 0 Needs consolidation Investor owns entire block - can build up to 75 ft height and 75 du/a with public benefits.

DRAFT

1391 of 1732

62 E 4th Ave 034-144-230 N 1.52 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 76 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Retail-4th Ave
Retail 0 Needs consolidation
Investor owns entire block - can build up to 75 ft height and 75 du/a with public benefits.

E 5th Ave/San Mateo Dr 034-144-240 N 1.2 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 60 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Parking Lot 0 Needs consolidation 80 DU mixed retail/res approved in 2017. 885 S El Camino Real 034-200-220 0 0.77
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-1 50 38 49 99% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story
office(Central park
South office)
0 No constraints found Developer-owned approved MU project not yet built. 100 E 4th Ave 034-173-100 O 0.76 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 23 30 61% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Retail-Wells fargo 0 No constraints found Downtown, combined lot size larger than .5 acre, old
building, 2 story, same ownership
San Mateo Dr/E 5th ave 034-173-110 O 0 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Wells Fargo
parking 0 0 0
168 E 4th Ave 034-173-140 P 0.14 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 2 14 29% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Restaurant/parkin
g 0 No constraints found Developer negotiating sale.
168 E 4th Ave 034-173-150 P 0.24 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 4 17 33% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 restaurant/parkin
g 0 No constraints found Developer negotiating sale.
222 E 4th Ave 034-176-050 Q 1.14 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 10 9 18% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Draeger's Entitlement Approved;
Affordability by Developer's
Choice No constraints found PA21-071; Draeger's
400 S B st 034-176-070 Q 0 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Draeger's 0 0 0 No site address 034-176-080 Q 0 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Draeger's 0 0 0 S B St/E 5th Ave 034-176-090 Q 0 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Draeger's 0 0 0 E 4th/N Railroad Ave 034-179-050 R 0.37 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 60 162 324% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Parking lot-City
Surplus Site
Pre-Application Completed
with formal submittal
anticipated early 2023;
Affordability by Funding
Restriction Adjacent to the railroad
Former Talbot's Site - City-owned, developer identified for the 100% affordable housing project. Density is
based on gross parcel size (1.16 ac) but the
commercial/office parcels are not included in this
inventory.

E 4th/N Railroad Ave 034-179-060 R 0 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Parking lot-City
Surplus Site
0 0 0
435 E 3rd Ave 034-181-160 0 0.25
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 5 20 40% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Auto repair Application under review with
entitlement anticipated Feb
2023; Affordability Not
Applicable
Smaller than .5 acre, Clean-up
needed (auto shop) PA21-081 (5 units + office)
312 S Delaware St 034-185-030 S 1.52
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 111 73 146% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200
1 unit - Single
family residential
Entitlement Approved;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance
Clean up needed (auto repair
shops, gas station)
PA21-063 proposing a new mixed-use building with
commercial/residential use; lots to be consolidated;
Windy Hill Block 21
318 S Delaware St 034-185-040 S 0
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200
1 unit - Single
family residential
0 0 0
320 S Delaware St 034-185-050 S 0
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200
1 unit - Single
family residential
0 0 0
307 S Claremont St 034-185-110 S 0
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200
Interior deisgn
home staging
0 0 0
512 E 3rd Ave 034-185-120 S 0
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story retail 0 0 0 373 S Claremont St 034-185-140 S 0
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story retail 0 0 0 507 E 4th Ave 034-185-150 S 0
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story retail 0 0 0 300 S Delaware St 034-185-160 S 0
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Gas station 0 0 0 525 E 4th Ave 034-185-170 S 0
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Auto repair 0 0 0 311 S Claremont St 034-185-190 S 0
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200
3 unit - 2 story
residential
0 0 0
315 S Claremont St 034-185-200 S 0
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Storage yard 0 0 0 5 Hayward Ave 034-275-130 0 0.31
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E2-1/R4 41 18 58 142% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 6 unit - 3 duplexes Entitlement Approved;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance Smaller than .5 acre PA19-045 1 Hayward Ave with State Density Bonus 1600 S El Camino Real 034-413-080 T 0.87 Executive Office E2-2 50 43 49 99% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story retail

project is on hold until GPU is
complete; Affordability by
Formula Calculation No constraints found
Same property owner for all parcels; former PA18-038
for a mixed-use project with Density Bonus request
1604 S El Camino Real 034-413-090 T 0 Executive Office E2-2 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 3 unit - 2 story
mixed use
retail/residential 0 0 0
DRAFT

1392 of 1732

1610 S El Camino Real 034-413-100 T 0 Executive Office E2-2 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 unit - 2 story
mixed use
retail/residential 0 0 0
1620 S El Camino Real 034-413-110 T 0 Executive Office E2-2 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 0 0 1541 Jasmine St 034-413-130 T 0 Executive Office E2-2 50 Office Medium 40 to 99 2 unit - Duplex 0 0 0 1535 Jasmine St 034-413-140 T 0 Executive Office E2-2 50 Office Medium 40 to 99 2 unit - Duplex 0 0 0 1602 S El Camino Real 034-413-150 T 0 Executive Office E2-2 50 Office Medium 40 to 99 2 unit - 2 story
mixed use
retail/residential 0 0 0
303 Baldwin Ave 032-322-230 U 0.76
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-2/R5 50 64 84 168% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Trags - retail Under Construction;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance No constraints found PA17-085; Trags
304 Baldwin Ave 032-322-230 U 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-2/R5 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Trags - retail 0 0 0 1863 S Norfolk St 035-383-200 0 3.5
Neighborhood
Commercial C1-1 50 260 74 149% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Fishmarket Application Submitted;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance
Adjacent to waterway (seal
slough), near highway 92
PA22-099 formal planning application filed 1/3/23 for a 260-unit multifamily project. Request includes a Planned Development (PD) to increase base zone from 35 du/a
to 50 du/a.
2260 Bridgepointe Pkwy 035-466-070 V 3.22
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-0.62/R 50 96 30 60% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Bridgepointe
Shopping Center-
Retail 0 Adjacent to highway 92
Mixed-use potential, larger than .5 acre, one story,
same ownership, uses in decline
2270 Bridgepointe Pkwy 035-466-080 V 1.39
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-0.62/R 50 42 30 60% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Bridgepointe
Shopping Center-
Retail 0 Adjacent to highway 92 Half vacant, larger than .5 acre, one story 3012 Bridgepointe Pkwy 035-466-090 V 2.75
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-0.62/R 50 82 30 60% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Bridgepointe
Shopping Center-
Retail 0 Adjacent to highway 92 Half vacant, larger than .5 acre, one story No site address 035-466-100 V 12.07
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-0.62/R 50 363 30 60% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Bridgepointe
Shopping Center-
parking 0 Adjacent to highway 92
Large parking lot, larger than .5 acre, potential for
structured parking with housing
No site address 035-466-110 V 2.96
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-0.62/R 50 89 30 60% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Bridgepointe
Shopping Center-
ship/Receiving 0 Adjacent to highway 92
Parking lot, larger than .5 acre, consolidation with other parcels
1500 Fashion Island Blvd 035-550-040 0 6.08 Executive Office E1-0.62/R 50 273 45 90% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 3 story Office 0 Adjacent to highway 92 Developer interest in redevelopment, larger than .5
acre, old building, large parking
1919 O'Farrell St 039-030-340 0 0.67
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 49 73 146% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story medical
office-
Entitlement Approved;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance Adjacent to highway 92 PA20-037; 1919 O'Farrell 2118 S El Camino Real 039-060-440 0 0.73
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 56 77 153% Commercial Regional 40 to 99 Catrina Hotel General Plan Conformance
request approved by City
Council in 2021 No constraints found
Motel conversion (57 guest rooms); County of San
Mateo interested in transitional/shelter housing, larger than .5 acre, old two-story building. Based on use type, affordability and conversion, project does not conflict with Measure Y density limit.
2700 S El Camino Real 039-352-060 W 0.99
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 68 69 137% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story retail Entitlement Approved;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance
Clean up needed (auto sales
with a bit of repair on-site) PA15-031; Hillsdale Terraces 2750 S El Camino Real 039-352-070 W 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story retail 0 0 0 2790 S El Camino Real 039-352-090 W 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 0 0 2955 S El Camino Real 039-360-120 0 2.29
Transit-Oriented
Development TOD 50 114 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story/parking 0 Adjacent to the railway Owner interest in redevelopment, TOD Zone, larger
than .5 acre, 1 story, large parking lot
3011 S El Camino Real 039-360-140 0 1.33
Transit-Oriented
Development TOD 50 66 50 99% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story/parking 0 Adjacent to the railway Owner interest in redevelopment, TOD Zone, larger
than .5 acre, 1 story, large parking lot
3520 S El Camino Real 042-121-040 0 1.81
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 63 35 70% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 Laurel Creek passes thru the
site (creek setbacks) One story building, larger than .5 acre DRAFT

1393 of 1732

41 W Hillsdale Blvd 039-490-170 X 28.91
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-2/Q5 50 1199 41 83% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Hillsdale Mall Developer Discussion;
Affordability by Formula
Calculation
Laurel Creek passes thru the
site (creek setbacks)
Owner interested in mixed use redevelopment. The
parcel size excludes the 11 acre mall area as requested by the owner.
2950 S El Camino Real 039-353-010 X 3.7
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 184 50 99% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 2 story retail Developer Discussion;
Affordability by Formula
Calculation No constraints
Owner interested in redevelopment, vacant two-story
building
No site address 039-353-020 X 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Parking ramp and
parking lot
Developer Discussion;
Affordability by Formula
Calculation No constraints
Owner intersted in redevelopment, parking ramp and
parking lot, larger than .5 acre
No site address 039-353-030 X 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Hillsdale Parking
Lot/Structure
Developer Discussion;
Affordability by Formula
Calculation No constraints
Owner intersted in redevelopment, parking ramp and
parking lot, larger than .5 acre
No site address 039-353-040 X 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Hillsdale Parking
Lot/Structure
Developer Discussion;
Affordability by Formula
Calculation No constraints
Owner intersted in redevelopment, parking ramp and
parking lot, larger than .5 acre
3590 S El Camino Real 042-121-080 X 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1-2 story retail 0 Laurel Creek passes thru the
site (creek setbacks)
Ownership interest, one story building, larger than .5
acre
36th Ave/Colegrove St 042-121-060 X 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Parking Lot Developer Discussion;
Affordability by Formula
Calculation
Laurel Creek passes thru the
site (creek setbacks) Ownership interest, large parking lot, larger than .5 acre S Delaware St at Landing Ave 040-031-230 0 1.17
Transit-Oriented
Development BMSP 50 67 57 115% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 vacant former
race track
Entitlement Approved;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance No constraints PA20-053; SPAR approved MU-3
341 E Hillsdale Blvd 040-102-580 Y 3.05
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-0.5 50 230 75 151% Residential Medium 40 to 99 Car wash Pre-Application Completed
with formal submittal
anticipated 2023; Affordabiliity
by Inclusionary Ordinance
Needs consolidation, Adjacent
to Highway 101, Clean up
needed (car wash service)
PA20-046; Hillsdale Inn - proposed redevelopment to
demolish existing uses (carwash, motel, and car rental) for a new 230-unit rental housing project.
477 E Hillsdale Blvd 040-102-620 Y 0
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-0.5 50 Residential Medium 40 to 99 Hillsdale Inn hotel 0 0 0 No site address 040-102-630 Y 0
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-0.5 50 Residential Medium 40 to 99 Hillsdale Inn hotel 0 0 0 2988 Campus Dr 041-521-010 Z 15.52 Executive Office E1-1 35 290 19 53% Residential Low 1 9 to 39 3 story Office Under Construction;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance
Non-contiguous parcels,
Sloped (slightly steep)
PA20-012; Peninsula Heights proposed redevelopment
of existing offices to new multifamily residential (290 for- sale units)
2800 Campus Dr 041-521-020 Z 0 Executive Office E1-1 35 Residential Low 1 9 to 39 2 story Office 0 0 0 2655 Campus Dr 041-522-010 Z 0 Executive Office E1-1 35 Residential Low 1 9 to 39 2 story Office 0 0 0 2755 Campus Dr 041-522-020 Z 0 Executive Office E1-1 35 Residential Low 1 9 to 39 3 story Office 0 0 0 401 Concar Dr 035-200-998 0 2.82
Transit-Oriented
Development TOD 50 191 68 135% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Hayward Park
Train station
parking lot
Entitlement Approved;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance
Adjacent to the railroad,
adjacent to highway 92
PA21-033 Hayward Park Caltrain parking lot to be
redeveloped as multifamily housing (191 apartment
units)
19 N Kingston St 033-191-040 AA 1.02
High Density Multi-
Family R4 50 31 30 61% Residential Medium 40 to 99 parking 0 High risk flood zone (AE),
Adjacent to 101 FWY
Large parking lot, same ownership, larger than .5 acre
consolidated, 1 story
25 N Kingston St 033-191-060 AA 0
High Density Multi-
Family R4 50 Residential Medium 40 to 99 1 story restaurant 0 0 0 3 N Kingston St 033-191-070 AA 0
High Density Multi-
Family R4 50 Mixed-Use Low 9 to 39 1 story retail 0 0 0 210 S San Mateo Dr 034-142-200 AB 0.69 Downtown Retail Core CBD 50 34 49 99% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Retail 0 No constraints found Downtown, parking lot, two stories, old building No site address 034-142-220 AB 0 Downtown Retail Core CBD 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Parking lot 0 0 0 1495 S El Camino Real 034-302-140 0 0.68
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E2-1/R4 50 34 50 100%
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99
1 story
retail/office SF
Police Credit
Union
Pre-Application Completed but
project is on hold; Affordabiliity
by Formula Calculation
No constraints found Former PA17-030
1850 S Norfolk St 035-381-020 AC 6.65
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-0.5/R4 50 332 50 100% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Parkside Plaza
shopping 0
Adjacent to highway 92, Clean-
up needed (gas station)
General interst in redevelopment, old building, larger
than .5 acre, large parking, half vacancy
1826 S Norfolk St 035-381-030 AC 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-0.5/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Parkside Plaza
shopping 0 0 0
220 W 20th Ave 039-030-400 0 1.54
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 54 35 70% Residential Medium 40 to 99 Single story office-
Andreini 0 No constraints found
Developer owned, approvals for commercial, never
built. Built high density residential on adjacent parcel.

DRAFT

1394 of 1732

150 W 20th Aveor 1925 Elkhorn C039-030-220 0 1.98
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 69 35 70% Residential Medium 40 to 99 Single story office-
Shriners 0 No constraints found Owners have considered mixed use with residential. 2900 S El Camino Real 039-353-050 0 1.08
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 54 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 One story
commercial 0 No constraints found One story building, larger than .5 acre, large parking lot 2850 S El Camino Real 039-353-060 0 0.64
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 18 28 56% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story
commercial
Pre-Application Completed but
project is on hold; Affordability
by Inclusionary Ordinance
No constraints found
Former PA19-021, proposed mixed-use
commercial/residential project with 18 units
2838 S El Camino Real 039-353-070 0 1.18
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 59 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 2 story retail 0 No constraints found Larger than .5 acre, one story, old building 4060 S El Camino Real 042-241-180 0 1.02
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 51 50 100%
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99 One story retail 0 No constraints found Larger than .5 acre, one story, large parking lot 4107 Piccadilly Ln 042-242-060 AD 6.69
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 296 44 88% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 Non-contiguous parcels Ownership interest in specific plan redevelopment 11 41st Ave 042-242-070 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 0 0 40 42nd Ave 042-242-160 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 0 0 49 42nd Ave 042-243-020 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Olympic Parking
Lot 0 0 0
42nd/El Camino Real 042-244-040 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 parking section
adjacent to CVS
parking 0 0 0
4242 S El Camino Real 042-244-050 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 CVS 0 0 0 43rd Ave 042-245-040 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99
parking section
adjacent to Round
Table
0 0 0
61 43rd Ave 042-245-050 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99
One story retail
with 2 large retail
spaces 0 0 0
55 43rd Ave 042-245-060 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 0 0
53 43rd Ave 042-245-070 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 0 0
45 43rd Ave 042-245-080 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 0 0
37 43rd Ave 042-245-090 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 0 0
25 43rd Ave 042-245-100 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99 2 story retail 0 0 0
17 43rd Ave 042-245-110 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99 2 story retail 0 0 0
4300 S El Camino Real 042-245-120 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/Medium-
High Density Multi-
Family C1-1.5/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99
Existing 2-story
commercial
building. A mixed-
use 10-units over
commercial was
approved on May
27, 2008. 0 0 0
DRAFT

1395 of 1732

85 43rd Ave 042-245-130 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium
Mollie Stone/CVS
Shopping Center 0 0 0
89 43rd Ave 042-263-010 AD 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 Residential Medium 40 to 99 Olympic Village 0 0 0 4330 Olympic Ave 042-264-010 AD 1.05
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 49 47 93% Residential Medium 40 to 99 Bel Mateo Bowl 0 Non-contiguous parcels Ownership interest in specific plan redevelopment 4150 Piccadilly Ln 042-242-050 AD 1.08
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 49 45 91% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 Non-contiguous parcels Ownership interest in specific plan redevelopment 2028 S El Camino Real 039-060-430 0 0.38
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 10 26 53% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 The Great
Entertainer 0 Smaller than 0.5 acres Large parking lot, underutilized, two story 1106 S El Camino Real 034-381-240 AE 0.64
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 19 30 59% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 2 story retail office 0 0 Same owner, One/two story, very old buildings, larger
than 0.5 acre combined
1110 S El Camino Real 034-381-250 AE 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 2 story retail office 0 Clean-Up needed (dry
cleaners) 0
1114 S El Camino Real 034-381-260 AE 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 2 story retail office 0 0 0 1116 S El Camino Real 034-381-320 AE 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 2 story retail office 0 0 0 1200 S El Camino Real 034-382-150 AQ 0.52
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 16 31 62% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Retail Commercial 0 0 Same owner, One/two story, very old buildings, 0.5 acre combined
1212 S El Camino Real 034-382-160 AQ 0
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Retail Commercial 0 0 0 901 S El Camino Real 034-275-220 0 0.57 Executive Office E2-1 50 17 30 60% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Medical office 0 0 Larger than .5 acre, one story, large parking lot 801 Woodside Way 032-122-240 0 0.31
Medium Density Multi-
Family R3 29 4 13 44% Residential Medium 40 to 99 warehouse 0 Smaller than 0.5 acres,
Adjacent to railway
Keep with 18.2 density, R-3 zoning, very underutilized, residential adjancency, near Caltrain
719 Woodside Way 032-122-250 0 0.2
Medium Density Multi-
Family R3 22 2 10 45% Residential Low 2 9 to 39 warehouse 0 Smaller than 0.5 acres,
Adjacent to railway
Keep with 18.2 density, R-3 zoning, very underutilized, residential adjancency, near Caltrain
717 Woodside Way 032-122-210 0 0.14
Medium Density Multi-
Family R3 22 2 14 65% Residential Low 2 9 to 39 auto repair 0 Smaller than 0.5 acres,
Adjacent to railway
Keep with 18.2 density, R-3 zoning, very underutilized, residential adjancency, near Caltrain
3600 S El Camino Real 042-123-420 0 0.5
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 14 28 56%
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99 FedEx 0 No constraints found .5 acre, large parking lot, one story 1311 S El Camino Real 034-301-200 0 0.54
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E2-1/R4 50 16 30 59% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Bright Horizon
Preschool 0 No constraints found
Larger than .5 acre, Housing overlay, major
thoroughfare
350 N San Mateo Dr 032-182-120 AF 0.63
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-1 35 19 30 86% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 vacant gas station 0 No constraints found Former gas station (doesn't appear on Cortese Lists),
larger than .5 acre combined, 1 story, old building
220 E Poplar Ave 032-182-130 AF 0
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-1 35 Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 Clean up needed (cleaners) 0 1 Baywood Ave 032-441-270 0 0.5
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E2-2/R5 50 12 24 48% Office High 100 to 200 2 story medical 0 0 At least 0.5 acre, large parking lot, two stories,
underutilized
406 1st Ave 034-157-140 0 0.38 Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 10 26 53% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story office 0 Smaller than 0.5 acres Downtown, next to CALTrain station, 1 story,
underutilized
600 S B St 034-194-140 AG 0.64
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-3/R5 50 48 75 150% Residential Medium 40 to 99 2-story
retail/office
Application Submitted;
Affordability by Inclusionary
Ordinance
Adjacent to railroad, Smaller
than 0.5 acres
PA21-036; Nazareth Vista proposed mixed-use
commercial/residential project, State Density Bonus
616 S B St 034-194-030 AG 0
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-3/R5 50 Residential Medium 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 No constraints found 0 93 Bovet Rd 039-011-450 AH 6.65
Neighborhood
Commercial C1-2 35 233 35 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 parking lot 0 Adjacent to highway 92 Same ownership as Bovet, parking lot, larger than .5
acre
71-77 Bovet Rd 039-011-460 AH 0
Neighborhood
Commercial C1-2 35 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story retail 0 Adjacent to highway 92 Ownership interest in redevelopment; Partial vacant,
larger than .5 acre combined, large parking lot, 1 story DRAFT

1396 of 1732

71-77 Bovet Rd 039-011-470 AH 0
Neighborhood
Commercial C1-2 35 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story retail 0 0 0 71-77 Bovet Rd 039-011-480 AH 0
Neighborhood
Commercial C1-2 35 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story retail 0 0 0 1750 S El Camino Real 039-011-500 AH 0
Neighborhood
Commercial C1-2 35 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 1 story retail 0 0 0 71-77 Bovet Rd 039-011-510 AH 0
Neighborhood
Commercial C1-2 35 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 parking 0 0 0 1650 Borel Pl 039-011-400 0 2.51 Executive Office E1-2 35 74 29 84% Office Medium 40 to 99 2 story office 0 Adjacent to highway 92 Larger than .5 acre, two story, large parking lot,
underutilized
3880 S El Camino Real 042-165-130 0 1.43
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 57 40 80%
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99 1 story retail 0 No constraints found Larger than .5 acre, one story, large parking lot,
underutilized
2000 Winward Way 035-610-030 0 4.27
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-0.62 50 160 37 75% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Residence Inn 160
hotel units 0 Adjacent to highway 92
Owner inquiries to convert to residential 120 studios/40 1-BR
1900 S Norfolk St 035-391-090 0 8.18 Executive Office E1-0.5 35 245 30 86% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 2 story office class
B 0
Adjacent to highway 92,
Adjacent to Borel Creek
Owner interest in redevelopment, two story, old
building, large parking
1801 S Grant St 035-243-050 0 1.17
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C3-1/R 50 35 30 60%
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99
1 story retail
Video Only 0 Adjacent to highway 92 Larger than .5 acre, 1 story, old building, underutilized 2030 S Delaware St 035-320-270 0 1.03 TOD TOD 50 51 50 99% Mixed-Use
Low/Medium 9 to 39; 40 to 99
plumbing supply
warehouse 0 No constraints found
TOD Zone, larger than .5 acre, 1 story, old building, large parking lot
477 9th Ave 033-281-130 0 1.6 Executive Office E2-2 50 120 75 150% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 1 story office Application Submitted;
Affordability by inclusionary
ordinance No constraints found
PA22-047; Mixed-Use Office/Residential Use, Density
Bonus and SB330; Project site within 0.5 miles of
Caltrain; Entitlement anticipated mid-2023
733 N San Mateo Dr 032-151-300 AI 1.14
Regional/Community
Commercial C3-2 50 34 30 60% Residential Medium 40 to 99 Vacant
commercial 0 No constraints found
Property owner interested in assisted living or
townhome development
727 N San Mateo Dr 032-151-130 AI 0
Regional/Community
Commercial C3-2 50 Residential Medium 40 to 99
Vacant
commercial 0 0 0
723 N San Mateo Dr 032-151-320 AI 0 Executive Office E2-1.5 50 Residential Medium 40 to 99 Vacant
commercial 0 0 0
1017 E 3rd Ave 033-134-100 AJ 0.64
Medium Density Multi-
Family R3 35 22 34 98% Residential Low 2 9 to 39 Vacant 0 No constraints found Half vacant, larger than .5 acre consolidated, two story, same ownership
1015 E 3rd Ave 033-134-110 AJ 0
Medium Density Multi-
Family R3 35 Residential Low 2 9 to 39 Vacant site 0 0 0 245 S Humboldt St 033-134-240 AJ 0
Medium Density Multi-
Family R3 35 Residential Low 2 9 to 39
4 unit - 2 story
residential apts 0 0 0
480 S Ellsworth Ave 034-173-040 AK 0.11 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 2 18 36% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Retail 0 0 Downtown, combined lot size larger than .5 acre, old
building, 1 story
159 E 5th Ave 034-173-050 AK 0.09 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 1 11 22% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 retail 0 Needs consolidation, Clean up
(dry cleaners)
Downtown, combined lot size larger than .5 acre, old
building, 1 story
150 E 4th Ave 034-173-090 AK 0.12 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 2 17 33% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Restaurant 0 Needs consolidation, Clean up
(dry cleaners)
Downtown, combined lot size larger than .5 acre, old
building, 1 story
155 E 5th Ave 034-173-130 AK 0.18 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 3 17 33% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Retail 0 Needs consolidation, Clean up
(dry cleaners)
Downtown, combined lot size larger than .5 acre, old
building, 1 story
2635 Palm Pl 039-085-280 AL 1.72
Regional/Community
Commercial C3-2 50 86 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Warehouse-
greenhouse 0 0
Ownership interest in redevelopment, larger than .5
acre,
2645 S El Camino Real 039-085-290 AL 0.57
Regional/Community
Commercial C3-2 50 19 33 67% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200
Retail-Ah Sam
Florist 0 Adjacent to the railway
Ownership interest in redevelopment, larger than .5
acre
1670 S. Amphlett Blvd 035-241-240 AM 5.78 Executive Office E2-1 50 289 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Low Rise
Office/Parking lot 0
Adjacent to highway 101,
adjacent to Leslie creek
Ownership interest in redevelopment, larger than .5
acre, old building, 3 story building; GPU land use
designation mixed use MED and High (50+ DUA)
1700 S. Amphlett Blvd 035-241-250 AM 4.07 Executive Office E2-1 50 203 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Low Rise
Office/Parking lot 0 Adjacent to highway 101
Ownership interest in redevelopment, larger than .5
acre, old building, 3 story building; GPU land use
designation mixed use MED and High (50+ DUA)
1720 S. Amphlett Blvd 035-241-260 AM 4.61 Executive Office E2-1 50 230 50 100% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Low Rise
Office/Parking lot 0 Adjacent to highway 101
Ownership interest in redevelopment, larger than .5
acre, old building, 3 story building; GPU land use
designation mixed use MED and High (50+ DUA)
4142 S El Camino Real 042-242-170 AN 0.3
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 12 40 80% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Vacant 0 Needs consolidation City owned parcel, vacant, larger than .5 acre combined 4100 S El Camino Real 042-242-080 AN 0.42
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 16 38 76% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Retail Commercial 0 Needs consolidation Large parking lot, one/two stories, adjacent to City
owned parcel, larger than .5 acre combined, separate
ownership
DRAFT

1397 of 1732

20 42nd Ave 042-242-180 AN 0.21
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 8 38 76% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 Retail Commercial 0 Needs consolidation One-story building, ADUS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 440 N/A N/A 0 0 0
1620 S Delaware St 035-200-070 0 0.3
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 8 27 53% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200
Car wash
s
tructure 0 Smaller than 0.5 acres TOD zoned, 0.4 miles from Caltrain 194 W 25th Ave 039-174-220 0 0.12
Neighborhood
Commercial C1-2 18 1 8 46% Mixed-Use Medium 40 to 99 First Presbyterian 0 Smaller than .5 acres, Clean up
needed (car wash), Adjacent to
leslie creek
Ownership interest in redevelopment
500 E 4th Ave 034-186-080 AO 1.16 Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 86 74 148% Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Taco Bell Pre-Application completed
with formal submittal
anticipated 2023; Affordability
by Inclusionary Ordinance
To be consolidated, Clean up
needed (gas station)
PA22-071, Block 20 to propose new mixed-use building
and consolidate parcels
411 S Claremont St 034-186-070 AO 0 Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Single-family
home
0 0 0
415 S Claremont St 034-186-060 AO 0 Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Japanese
american
community center 0 0 0
521 E 5th Ave 034-186-090 AO 0 Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Safari Kid 0 0 0 402 S Delaware St 034-186-110 AO 0 Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 Mixed-Use High 100 to 200 Gas station 0 0 0 4 W Santa Inez Ave 032-075-010 AP 0.25
High Density Multi-
Family R4 44 10 40 91% Residential Medium 40 to 99
Single family
h
ome Entitlement Approved No constraints found PA15-104, building permits submitted 1 Engle Rd 032-075-100 AP 0
High Density Multi-
Family R4 44 Residential Medium 40 to 99
Single family
h
ome 0 0 0
DRAFT

1398 of 1732

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC

COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED

FOLLOWING THE PUBLICATION

OF THE AGENDA PACKET

1399 of 1732

From: LOUISE BEKINS
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Your support for Current Housing Element
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 11:46:53 AM
Dear Councilmembers
I urge you to adopt the current housing element.

Thank you.

Louise Bekins
San Mateo

1400 of 1732

From: Evan Powell
To: Housing; City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: writing in support of a democratic process & the approval of the housing element Date: Sunday, January 22, 2023 8:33:41 PM
Dear Council and members of staff
Thank you for your service to the city.

In short, I am writing to express my support for the staff's findings that the City of San Mateo CAN meet the state mandated housing requirements while complying with Measure Y.

It is the right thing to do - to support this finding is consistent with our democratic processes.

As you know, there have been approximately 19 public meetings concerning housing and more than two years of effort have gone into the housing element.

I would simply remind you that you do have the power to do the right thing, to vote in accordance with the recommendations of staff - thereby enabling a compromise position.

Thank you again for your work.

Please support the work of your staff and the process
countless citizens have participated in to arrive at the housing element.

Best regards,
Evan
--
Evan Powell

1401 of 1732

From: Rick Moody
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: We need better housing access in San Mateo
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:01:35 AM
Jan. 24, 2023
To the San Mateo City Council:

I'm writing to urge you to take steps to improve access to housing in the City of San Mateo.

Providing safe and comfortable housing for residents and workers in San Mateo is important.

We
need safe and comfortable homes for everyone, a step that would also help reduce greenhouse

gas
emissions.

The fact

is that San Mateo has not provided enough housing,

especially for people with low incomes.

That is a serious problem which you can act to correct.

You are well aware that California State law now requires San Mateo to provide viable solutions to the housing deficiency as part of the City's

General Plan process.

Please do what's needed to address this problem.

Harry R. Moody

1402 of 1732

From: Rick Moody
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: We need better housing access in San Mateo
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:01:33 AM
Jan. 24, 2023
To the San Mateo City Council:

I'm writing to urge you to take steps to improve access to housing in the City of San Mateo.

Providing safe and comfortable housing for residents and workers in San Mateo is important.

We
need safe and comfortable homes for everyone, a step that would also help reduce greenhouse

gas
emissions.

The fact

is that San Mateo has not provided enough housing,

especially for people with low incomes.

That is a serious problem which you can act to correct.

You are well aware that California State law now requires San Mateo to provide viable solutions to the housing deficiency as part of the City's

General Plan process.

Please do what's needed to address this problem.

Harry R. Moody

1403 of 1732

From: Elaine Salinger
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: San Mateo"s Housing Element requested actions
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:13:07 AM
Attachments: Image 10-24-21 at 11.45 AM-9.jpeg
Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. We request the following actions:

1. Please submit to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Housing Element as presented by staff and written by the City's consultant. By doing this and thus "self certifying" what most consider to be a flawed Housing Element, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

By submission of the Housing element to HCD, the City is assumed to be compliant until someone (HCD or a judge) says otherwise. Because HCD must respond to San Mateo's submission within 60 days of submission (Approximately April 1), this strategy has two benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

2. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

We also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

5. We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when they come.

I am writing as a representative of Citizens Climate Lobby with 200 members living in the City of San Mateo.

Sincerely

1404 of 1732

Elaine Salinger, San Mateo Chapter Leader

1405 of 1732

From: Helen Young
To: Patrice Olds
Subject: Revised HE please!
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:42:56 PM
Dear Pstrice Olds,
Please please accept (1) the revised Housing Element ( HE ) because it complies with ALL the requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE. The HE identifies 9,934 units or 142% of the City's required housing allocation of 7,015 units. (2) the Council should find the Housing Element is compliant with the HCD requirements and approve the Housing Element to avoid the builder's remedy that will further take away local control of our city. (3) Please remove the rental restrictions from the HE including the rental registry. The restrictions would invade privacy, reduce supply, punish good landlords, and remove property rights. The rental restrictions are not required and do not belong in the housing element. (4) the Planning Commissioners' conclusion that the Housing Element is not in compliance is incorrect. They did not offer any suggested revisions.

Please consider these (4) points as you meet tonight.

Regards,
Helen Young

1406 of 1732

From: b bta
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 5:48:08 PM
Dear City Council Members:

I urge you to support the Housing Element that meets the state requirements, which also protects Measure Y building height limits, voted by the San Mateo residents. It is important to safeguard the existing zoning codes. The local residents should have a voice in the future of their city and not out-run by developers.

Thank you in advance for your support!
Respectfully,
barbara

1407 of 1732

From: Trina Pierce
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Trina [email protected]
Subject: Please Approve the Housing Element Plan
Date: Saturday, January 21, 2023 10:29:51 AM
>
> To The San Mateo City Council
>
> Please approve the Housing Element that has been presented in 2022. > What San Mateo residents need is more affordable housing, not just a 3% or 5% of the new development. > San Mateo is losing good teacher’s, professional’s, qualified nurses and business’s due to the high cost of housing. Many families live in residential homes with several families. I have lived in San Mateo, (North Central) for over 60 years and have seen so many changes. This plan is for over a 10 year period, this can only be a positive for our city, not to mention how the Housing Element plan will be a positive for so many residents in San Mateo County.
>
> Please approve the plan, so San Mateo can maintain a small area and not like San Francisco with a lot of high rises, which removes visibility for neighborhoods to enjoy the views when they originally moved to the San Mateo area.
>
> Trina Pierce
> North Central
>
> Sent from my iPhone

1408 of 1732

From: Pete Bertrand
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Please approve the Housing Element at the next City Council Meeting Date: Saturday, January 21, 2023 5:59:10 PM
Dear Council Members,
Don't let developers have the freedom to build whatever they like in our community.

Please vote to

approve

the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings.

Thank you,

Pete Bertrand

1409 of 1732

From: Martha Park
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Please accept the revised Housing Element
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:12:29 PM
Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Nash, and Council Members Loraine, Newsom Jr., and Hedges,
I am writing to request that you accept the revised Housing Element prepared by staff. I'm concerned that our City won't come up with a final plan to submit to the state by January 31st, and we'll be subject to the Builder's Remedy, which will further take away local control from this issue.

Also, please remove the rental restrictions. This should be considered as a separate issue. Further study (including discussion, debate, and public comment) should be done before approving more restrictions.

Thank you,
Martha Park

1410 of 1732

From: mark de paula
To: City Council (San Mateo); Patrice Olds
Subject: Planning
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:40:28 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to strongly advocate for your

acceptance

of the current Housing
Element when staff presents it at your January

24th City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and
exceed
the mandated
housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Whereas the Planning

Commission does not support

acceptance of these
labors, the People do.

Last summer, the first draft of the Housing Element draft was met with a long list of comments and requests for changes, which have now been addressed. Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January

31st.

Since we've forged a practical and operable

Housing Element,
residents need to have faith that the

Council will accept this updated draft in
time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element

on January 24th.

Thank you,
Mark De Paula

1411 of 1732

From: mary cravalho
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Letter enclosed requesting approval of Housing Element at 1/24/2023 meeting.

Date: Sunday, January 22, 2023 5:25:11 PM
Attachments: CCHELetter.docx
Dear City Council Members,
Please see the attached letter requesting the approval of the Housing Element as presented at the Council's 1/24/2023 meeting.

Sincerely,
Mary Cravalho

1412 of 1732

1/22/2023

San Mateo City Council
City Hall - City Council Chambers
330 W 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

RE: Please Approve the Housing Element as presented by staff on 1/24/2023

Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

City staff, facilitators and stakeholders spent months and extraordinary effort to provide input and formulate their Housing Element recommendations for the Council’s approval, which reportedly exceeds the mandatory housing unit goals required by the state.

Additionally, it has been widely reported and specifically covered in the Los Angeles Times July 29,2022 article that Californians are leaving the Golden State due to various reasons including but not limited to affordability, quality of life and remote work options , “California exodus continues, with L.A., San Francisco leading the way: “Why are we here?” https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-29/california-exodus-continues-l-a-san- francisco-lead-the-way . These recent trends are not accounted for in the General Plan; therefore, it is possible that the projected housing targets may be lower in the future given the recent trends.

Additionally, several news reports have highlighted the possibility of an upcoming recession, higher inflation and layoffs at major technology companies in our local area including but not limited to Google, Facebook, Twitter and Salesforce, which may impact the housing picture further. Delaying the passing of the Housing Element now, may have the unintended consequence of having developers lower their housing commitments due to financial constraints as they adjust to the future economical landscape. It is time to move forward and accept the Housing Element.

Please approve the Housing Element as presented by staff at your upcoming meeting on 1/24/2023 without delay.

Sincerely,

Mary Cravalho

1413 of 1732

1414 of 1732

1415 of 1732

1416 of 1732

1417 of 1732

From: Lisa Taner
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Leadership & Membership of Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association Request City Council Accept Housing Element 1/24
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:36:53 PM
Attachments: BHNA Membership Supports Acceptance of Housing Element .pdf Dear Council,
Attached please see our Membership letter from the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association, whose members voted overwhelmingly to send this correspondence urging the City Council to accept the current Housing Element on January 24, 2023.

Thank you,
Lisa Taner
Past President
BHNA

1418 of 1732

January 19, 2023

SAN MATEO CITY COUNCIL
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
Via Email

Re: BHNA Membership Urges Council Acceptance
of Current Housing Element at January 24th Meeting

Dear San Mateo City Council,

The Membership of the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association urges you to move forward to accept the Housing Element at your January 24th meeting.

The creation of the current Housing Element has been exhaustive and inclusive.

The BHNA Membership respects the extended period of time invested by City staff to produce our Housing Element, including incorporating valuable community input after arduous outreach efforts. We recognize staff has worked diligently to ensure we are in compliance with the 7,015 units mandated for San Mateo and has a sound Housing Element that can be submitted by the January 31st deadline.

The BHNA Membership is aware of the ramifications should the Council fail to accept this working Housing Element, including the Builder’s Remedy.

Therefore, the Membership of the BHNA strongly supports and urges the Council’s full approval of the Housing Element at your upcoming January 24th meeting.

Sincerely,

The Membership & Board of the
Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association

1419 of 1732

From: Jen Paiva
To: City Council (San Mateo); Patrice Olds
Subject: land development
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:49:03 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Jennifer Paiva
--
Jen Paiva

1420 of 1732

From: Stephen Chen
To: Patrice Olds
Cc: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: January 24 City Council Special Meeting Agenda item#2 Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:26:41 PM
Dear Ms. Olds,
In lieu of attending the zoom meeting tomorrow, I’m submitting my comments as follows:
(1) now that we are the largest city in San Mateo county, we have an even more urgent need to build more AFFORDABLE HOUSING than before.
(2) regarding the city measure Y of November 2020, the Yes votes won by only 43 out of a total of 46033 casted votes, that is just 0.09% or less than 0.1%.
(3) AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT THE SAME AS PUBLIC HOUSING. We do need affordable housing for our teachers, policemen, firemen, first responders as well as healthcare workers. It will also benefit our own younger generations in the future.
(4) with ever-increasing costs for labor, materials , regulations and other factors, the increase in building height and density allowance would make the building project financially more attractive to the builders who might be interested in it. If you are so worried about the height-density issue, take a leisure drive along the VETERANS BLVD and neighboring streets in our next city south, the RWC, it could give you a rather eye-opening experience.

Besides, if you and your neighbors keep your properties tidy and neat, there is no way somebody will build a high density unit next to you.
(5) many recent studies have shown the very restrictive LOCAL ZONING MANDATES played a key role in our current acute housing shortage situation nationwide, which in turn also makes the HOMELESS problem worse.

Sincerely,
Stephen Chen
San Mateo

1421 of 1732

From: l watanuki
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: [email protected]; Patrice Olds
Subject: Item #1 - General Plan Amendment to Adopt the City of San Mateo"s Housing Element for 2023-2031 Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:22:26 PM
Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the City Council,

1. The revised Housing Element substantially complies with the requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE. The Housing Element identifies on Table 2 - San Mateo Sites Inventory Breakdown: 9,934 total units which is 142% of the City’s RHNA number at 7015 units. There is a buffer of 2,919 units.

2. This Housing Element (2023-2031) is compliant with the Housing Community Development requirements and please approve the Housing Element to avoid the builder’s remedy which will further take away local control of our City.

3. Please remove the rent control and tenant protection restrictions in the Housing Element including the rental registry. There has been no debate or outreach to smaller mom and pop property owners who cannot afford these kinds of restrictions of property rights. I don’t think many property owners in San Mateo are even aware of the 5 rental restrictions in the Housing Element. This would be an invasion of privacy, reduce the supply of good affordable housing, punish the good landlords, remove our property rights, and create a huge bureaucracy in City Hall.

4. The Planning Commissioners’ conclusion that the Housing Element is not in compliance is not true. We can make our RHNA numbers without rezoning.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Laurie Watanuki

1422 of 1732

From: Roger Smale
To: City Council (San Mateo); Patrice Olds
Subject: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:45:32 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Roger Smale

1423 of 1732

From: Jennifer Pacholuk
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds; Richard Hedges
Subject: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:14:05 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Jennifer Pacholuk

1424 of 1732

From: Tony Pacholuk
To: City Council (San Mateo); Patrice Olds
Cc: Richard Hedges
Subject: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:49:03 AM
Dear City Council Members,
I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Tony Pacholuk

1425 of 1732

From: [email protected]
To: City Council (San Mateo); Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element Vote Tonight
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:00:07 AM
Attachments: 1674579073870blob.jpg
Dear Council,
Please approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and Consultant. It will never be a document that will make all parties happy. Any changes do not guarantee HCD approval, and may actually open up the City to further scrutiny if the plan becomes too specific and the Council can not deliver what is being promised. Policy changes should be discussed and have public outreach versus being added at the 11th hour as a mitigating measures in hopes of getting the housing element through. I believe if there are issues with this version we will be allowed more time to address, versus being deemed out of compliance based on the passage of time. This version is an improvement over the previous version.

Regarding Measure Y if changes are to be made it should be discussed and put to the voters. Changes at Hillsdale Mall will likely result in a ballot measure as is common with shopping mall redevelopments. The most recent I can think of is Valco Mall in Cupertino. This will ensure the City of San Mateo is a great place to live for all, versus the need by a development group to push a projects across goal lines defined by themselves. We do not need to get rid of Measure Y for changes to happen in any of the plan areas including Hillsdale Mall.

I would also like to request Mayor Lee recuse herself from voting on this and other General Plan votes for a period of at least one year (or longer, if council decides) for the recent GoFundMe campaign launched unilaterally by Mayor Lee. I 100% support the cause but feel that this should have been done by the Council as a whole and run through a non-profit organization such as Samaritan House or other agreed upon not-for-profit entity. This was appearing to have been done by Supervisor Corzo for her recent advocacy for the flood victims in Belmont. Reviewing the top donors, a significant portion has come from the developer community Bohannon and Windy Hill both contributed $10K and Lane Partners contributed $5K. A week ago, half the donations were from these developers. This creates and cast doubt for me as it will for many others as it appears Mayor Lee now appears to have a conflict in relation to these donations. GoFundMe also appears to have a 15% surcharge which I would prefer go to the victims.

1426 of 1732

Inline image

Thank you,

Thomas Morgan
San Mateo

1427 of 1732

From: Jean Dail
To: Lisa Diaz Nash
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:26:33 PM
Dear Honorable Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash:

So glad your run for City Council was successful this time! There are more issues I am sure to be
concerned about than I could possibly know; but I am writing specifically to address the current Housing Element being presented on Tuesday, January 24th for the City Council’s vote. I am strongly advocating for you to accept staff’s presentation of the current Housing Element on January 24th.

I have much respect for the hours of hard work staff, the Planning Commission and City Council have put into our General Plan.

Why Planning Commissioners Adam Nugent and Seema Patel circumvented your authority regarding the critical Housing Element due January 31st is beyond my comprehension. My understanding is that by NOT accepting staff’s presentation of our Housing Element on January 24th, it puts the City of San Mateo in the position of having to accept the Builders’ Remedy and loss of local control of our own development.

Lastly, please get back to me on the status of removing Adam Nugent from the Planning Commission, due to his alleged illegal actions of removing political signs during this past November 2022 election.

Commissioner Nugent’s further circumventing City Council on our Housing Element only adds to reasons for his removal.

I understand that the previous City Council could not find its way forward to even agreeing to investigate Mr. Nugent’s actions.

But I am extremely hopeful that this new City Council will take appropriate actions to determine if removal of Planning Commissioner Nugent is appropriate.

Thank you,
Jean Dail –

1428 of 1732

From: Jean Dail
To: Amourence Lee
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:31:47 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor Lee:

Congratulations on your unanimous vote for Mayor!
I am hoping you will be open to the concerns of all
residents and weigh decisions regarding our city’s development with local control in mind.

I am writing specifically to address the current Housing Element being presented by staff at the meeting on Tuesday, January 24
th for the City Council’s vote. I am strongly advocating for you to accept staff’s presentation of the current Housing Element on January 24th.

I have much respect for the hours of hard work staff, the Planning Commission and City Council have put into our General Plan.

Why Planning Commissioners Adam Nugent and Seema Patel circumvented your authority regarding the critical Housing Element due January 31st is beyond my comprehension. My understanding is that by NOT accepting staff’s presentation of our Housing Element on January 24th, it puts the City of San Mateo in the position of having to accept the Builders’ Remedy and loss of local control of our own development.

Lastly, please get back to me on the status of removing Adam Nugent from the Planning Commission, due to his alleged illegal actions of removing political signs during this past November 2022 election.

Commissioner Nugent’s further circumventing City Council on our Housing Element only adds to reasons for his removal.

I understand that the previous City Council could not find its way forward to even agreeing to investigate Mr. Nugent’s actions.

But I am extremely hopeful that this new City Council will take appropriate actions to determine if removal of Planning Commissioner Nugent is appropriate.

Thank you,
Jean Dail –

1429 of 1732

From: Jean Dail
To: Rob Newsom
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:32:52 PM
Dear Honorable City Council Member Newsom::

Congratulations on your election to City Council!
I am hoping you will be open to the concerns of all
residents and weigh decisions regarding our city’s development with local control in mind.

I am writing specifically to address the current Housing Element being presented by staff at the meeting on Tuesday, January 24
th for the City Council’s vote. I am strongly advocating for you to accept staff’s presentation of the current Housing Element on January 24th.

I have much respect for the hours of hard work staff, the Planning Commission and City Council have put into our General Plan.

Why Planning Commissioners Adam Nugent and Seema Patel circumvented your authority regarding the critical Housing Element due January 31st is beyond my comprehension. My understanding is that by NOT accepting staff’s presentation of our Housing Element on January 24th, it puts the City of San Mateo in the position of having to accept the Builders’ Remedy and loss of local control of our own development.

Lastly, please get back to me on the status of removing Adam Nugent from the Planning Commission, due to his alleged illegal actions of removing political signs during this past November 2022 election.

Commissioner Nugent’s further circumventing City Council on our Housing Element only adds to reasons for his removal.

I understand that the previous City Council could not find its way forward to even agreeing to investigate Mr. Nugent’s actions.

But I am extremely hopeful that this new City Council will take appropriate actions to determine if removal of Planning Commissioner Nugent is appropriate.

Thank you,
Jean Dail –

1430 of 1732

From: Jean Dail
To: Adam Loraine
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:34:33 PM
Dear Honorable City Council Member Loraine:

Being my district’s City Council Member, I felt it important to send you my concerns regarding the current status of the Housing Element for our General Plan.

I am strongly advocating for you to accept staff’s
presentation of the current Housing Element on January 24th.

I am sure you are aware that the Beresford / Hillsdale area not only strongly supported Measure Y, but had much to do with its continuation from the original Measure H.

Without the approval of the staff’s
current Housing Element on January 24th, all the work of residents to continue local control of our development is likely to be lost.

I have much respect for the hours of hard work staff, the Planning Commission and City Council have put into our General Plan.

Why Planning Commissioners Adam Nugent and Seema Patel circumvented your authority regarding the critical Housing Element due January 31st is beyond my comprehension. My understanding is that by NOT accepting staff’s presentation of our Housing Element on January 24th, it puts the City of San Mateo in the position of having to accept the Builders’ Remedy and loss of local control of our own development.

Lastly, please get back to me on the status of removing Adam Nugent from the Planning Commission, due to his alleged illegal actions of removing political signs during this past November 2022 election.

Commissioner Nugent’s further circumventing City Council on our Housing Element only adds to reasons for his removal.

I understand that the previous City Council could not find its way forward to even agreeing to investigate Mr. Nugent’s actions.

But I am extremely hopeful that this new City Council will take appropriate actions to determine if removal of Planning Commissioner Nugent is appropriate.

Thank you,
Jean Dail –

1431 of 1732

From: Jean Dail
To: Richard Hedges
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:36:18 PM
Dear Honorable City Council Member Hedges::

Congratulations on your selection to City Council!
I am hoping you will be open to the concerns of all
residents and weigh decisions regarding our city’s development with local control in mind.

I am writing specifically to address the current Housing Element being presented by staff at the meeting on Tuesday, January 24
th for the City Council’s vote. I am strongly advocating for you to accept staff’s presentation of the current Housing Element on January 24th.

I have much respect for the hours of hard work staff, the Planning Commission and City Council have put into our General Plan.

Why Planning Commissioners Adam Nugent and Seema Patel circumvented your authority regarding the critical Housing Element due January 31st is beyond my comprehension. My understanding is that by NOT accepting staff’s presentation of our Housing Element on January 24th, it puts the City of San Mateo in the position of having to accept the Builders’ Remedy and loss of local control of our own development.

Lastly, please get back to me on the status of removing Adam Nugent from the Planning Commission, due to his alleged illegal actions of removing political signs during this past November 2022 election.

Commissioner Nugent’s further circumventing City Council on our Housing Element only adds to reasons for his removal.

I understand that the previous City Council could not find its way forward to even agreeing to investigate Mr. Nugent’s actions.

But I am extremely hopeful that this new City Council will take appropriate actions to determine if removal of Planning Commissioner Nugent is appropriate.

Thank you,
Jean Dail –

1432 of 1732

From: Valerie Oblath
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element Vote
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:10:01 AM
To all City Council members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you at tonight’s meeting to vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by our City Staff, following two years of community meetings and discussion. If it is not approved, San Mateo will be subject to automatic implementation of the “Builders’ Remedy” which, it is my understanding, allows developers of residential projects to bypass the zoning code and General Plan. This must not happen!! Respectfully,
Valerie Oblath
District 4
Sent from my iPad

1433 of 1732

From: sue
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Housing Element Plan
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:17:44 AM
Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. We request the following actions:

1. Please submit to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Housing Element as presented by staff and written by the City's consultant. By doing this and thus "self certifying" what most consider to be a flawed Housing Element, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

By submission of the Housing element to HCD, the City is assumed to be compliant until someone (HCD or a judge) says otherwise. Because HCD must respond to San Mateo's submission within 60 days of submission (Approximately April 1), this strategy has two benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

2. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

We also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

5. We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when

1434 of 1732

they come.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request

Sincerely
Sue Blockstein

1435 of 1732

From: sue
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Housing Element Plan
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:17:44 AM
Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. We request the following actions:

1. Please submit to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Housing Element as presented by staff and written by the City's consultant. By doing this and thus "self certifying" what most consider to be a flawed Housing Element, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

By submission of the Housing element to HCD, the City is assumed to be compliant until someone (HCD or a judge) says otherwise. Because HCD must respond to San Mateo's submission within 60 days of submission (Approximately April 1), this strategy has two benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

2. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

We also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

5. We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when

1436 of 1732

they come.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request

Sincerely
Sue Blockstein

1437 of 1732

From: Gary Germano
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element January 24 meeting
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:56:38 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
Please support and accept the current Housing Element being presented at your January 24th meeting that meets our requirements for housing numbers Without Changing the Existing Zoning.

We absolutely need this submitted "on time" so as not to trigger anything that allows developers or anyone else to bypass our zoning codes and General Plan.

Those two items are critical to having a future for San Mateo spelled out with a goal in mind that has been professionally researched with consultants, council, staff and citizen input and planned for ongoing sustainability and safety for the whole City cumulatively in balance.

Arbitrary project specific "spot" zoning and arbitrary General Plan change could destroy this City by not taking the overall "big picture" of what is being done into account. This would create a disaster in terms of overall infrastructure capacity, such as accessibility to services, retail outlets, traffic, and emergency evacuations.

Please responsibly build within our existing zoning guidelines and General Plan, and do what our residents and your constituents have consistently approved for the good and safety of all people living here.

Sincerely,

Gary and Janet Germano

1438 of 1732

From: Maxine Terner
To: Clerk
Subject: Housing Element comments
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:01:17 AM
Please ensure that the Council sees these comments prior to their meeting on January 24th.

Dear new City Council members - as you start your terms representing the residents and voters of San Mateo I urge you to place honoring the will of the voters, which is the core of our fragile democracy, and healing the current distrust of government as the meta-values through which you consider all your decisions. Knowing most of you well, I am hopeful that this will be the case. Adopting the Housing Element tonight, which complies with State law and is in conformance with voter-approved Measure Y, will be a place to start.

The City staff report states that the revised draft Housing Element implements all changes requested by HCD and is consistent with State law, as extensively documented in the proposed City Council resolution. It provides for 9,934 new housing units, greatly exceeding San Mateo's required housing allocation (RHNA) of 7,015 new units. All 9,934 housing units could be accommodated under the City’s existing land use and zoning designations which comply with Measure Y.

Adopting the Housing Element also makes San Mateo eligible, or with higher priority, for numerous sources of funding, as enumerated in the staff report. Not adopting the Housing Element places the City at risk for significant fines imposed by the State. The pros clearly outweigh the cons.

Of more concern is that San Mateo may lose the right to exercise local land use control over housing projects. Under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision in the Housing Accountability Act if a jurisdiction has a noncompliant housing element, the city must approve any housing development project, regardless of the local General Plan and Zoning requirements.

You know, and the voters will know, that not adopting the Housing Element which complies with all state requirements, is a backdoor effort to suppress the will of the voters and to give developers a blank check to override Measure Y. Please do not fall for the misleading rhetoric of the pro-growth YIMBY extremists.

I urge you to adopt the Housing Element tonight.

Sincerely,
Maxine Terner

1439 of 1732

From: Felicia Schipper
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element approval vote for Parkside Neighborhood Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:29:36 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Felicia M. Schipper
Resident on Clipper Street in Parkside

1440 of 1732

From: Michelle Hudson
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:08:40 AM
Dear San Mateo City Council,

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. I respectfully request the following actions:

1. Please submit to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Housing Element as presented by staff and written by the City's consultant. By doing this and thus "self certifying" what most consider to be a flawed Housing Element, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

By submission of the Housing element to HCD, the City is assumed to be compliant until someone (HCD or a judge) says otherwise. Because HCD must respond to San Mateo's submission within 60 days of submission (Approximately April 1), this strategy has two benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

2. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

I also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

5. We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when they come.

Thank you,
Michelle Hudson
Resident of San Mateo

1441 of 1732

From: Michelle Hudson
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:08:42 AM
Dear San Mateo City Council,

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. I respectfully request the following actions:

1. Please submit to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Housing Element as presented by staff and written by the City's consultant. By doing this and thus "self certifying" what most consider to be a flawed Housing Element, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

By submission of the Housing element to HCD, the City is assumed to be compliant until someone (HCD or a judge) says otherwise. Because HCD must respond to San Mateo's submission within 60 days of submission (Approximately April 1), this strategy has two benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

2. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

I also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

5. We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when they come.

Thank you,
Michelle Hudson
Resident of San Mateo

1442 of 1732

From: Robert Whitehair
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:18:15 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. I respectfully request the following actions:

1. Please submit to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Housing Element as presented by staff and written by the City's consultant. By doing this and thus "self certifying" what most consider to be a flawed Housing Element, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

By submission of the Housing element to HCD, the City is assumed to be compliant until someone (HCD or a judge) says otherwise. Because HCD must respond to San Mateo's submission within 60 days of submission (Approximately April 1), this strategy has two benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

2. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

We also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

5. We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when they come.

Thank you
Robert Whitehair, on behalf of San Mateo Climate Action Team

1443 of 1732

From: Ricki McGlashan
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:07:24 AM
Dear San Mateo City Council,

Tonight, Jan. 24, the City Council has an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo and I urge the following strategy.

1. As deficient as the Housing Element as written is, I urge you to submit it now to the California Housing and Community Development Department with the goal of delaying the "Builders Remedy” and other penalties long enough for the City of San Mateo to write an improved Housing Element that has a better chance of being approved by the state and a better chance of actual adequate housing.

While the HDC is evaluating San Mateo’s plan In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (e.g. Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

4. Direct staff that if and when San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

We also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

5. We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when they come.

Ricki and Doug McGlashan

1444 of 1732

From: Rustard Mustard
To: Patrice Olds; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:23:52 AM
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
In regards to the Housing Element, I respectfully request that the City of San Mateo take guidance and consultant assistance from individuals and organizations who have worked with cities that are already in compliance with the Housing Element.

Please have a public meeting with representatives from Emeryville, Alameda and Redwood City with all Council members present so residents can hear how these cities were able to move forward quickly, ask and have questions answered.

Housing Organizations have been working on these issues for years, please give them a seat at staff's table so the public can clearly hear their proposals and solutions.

Regarding legal fines and fees how much money has Redwood City, Alameda and Emeryville saved from being in compliance? What is our budget for not being in compliance? What is the cost benefit analysis for being in and not being in compliance? Sincerely yours,
Suzanne Bonilla

1445 of 1732

From: Robert Whitehair
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:18:15 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. I respectfully request the following actions:

1. Please submit to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Housing Element as presented by staff and written by the City's consultant. By doing this and thus "self certifying" what most consider to be a flawed Housing Element, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

By submission of the Housing element to HCD, the City is assumed to be compliant until someone (HCD or a judge) says otherwise. Because HCD must respond to San Mateo's submission within 60 days of submission (Approximately April 1), this strategy has two benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

2. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

We also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

5. We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when they come.

Thank you
Robert Whitehair, on behalf of San Mateo Climate Action Team

1446 of 1732

From: R Colpitts
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:53:17 PM
To the City Council,
My wife Dolores and I strongly support the Housing Element as presented to you by City

staff, and we urge you to adopt it as presented, at your meeting on January 24,2023.

Thank you,
Robert F Colpitts

1447 of 1732

From: Danny Guiney
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:56:19 PM
Council,
Please remove the rental oversight from the housing element.

These were not necessary or
required.

Then approve the Housing Element as previously suggested.

There is no reason we can not do as directed by the state in a timely manner.

At some point
out leaders have to stop being activists and do what is right for the greater good of our community.

Thank you all for your service.

Dan Guiney
San Mateo City Resident

1448 of 1732

From: HOLLY HEWITT
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:43:25 AM
Good Morning,
I want to add my name in support of the Housing Element.

As an over 60 year resident of the City of San Mateo, let’s move beyond the YIMBY position and do all we can to save the city from over building.

Please accept the staff recommendation.

Regards,
Holly H. Hewitt
Sent from my iPad

1449 of 1732

From: ROB GIBSON
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:26:27 PM
San Mateo City Council,
The research that I've done has led me to believe that we can meet the states housing requirement and still implement the parameters of measure Y. But that doesn't seem to be what we're doing.

If I didn't know better I'd wonder if a small group of powerful dissidents is trying to force their personal agenda on our city, against the will of the voters, and the rest of the council is going along with it.

But we know that couldn't be true don't we?
Rob Gibson

1450 of 1732

From:

To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:52:57 PM
Dear City Council Members:

I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at the January 24th council meeting. It is incumbent upon the council to accept the recommendation of City Staff and to ensure our City does not fall prey to the Builder’s Remedy.

The voters have time and again made it clear that they desire responsible growth along with the protection of neighborhoods. Elected officials were given this mandate by the passage of Measure Y and the failure of Measure R. Voters objected to Measure R that would have allowed city council to approve height increases in designated areas; voters do not want discretionary decisions delegated to any authority including those under the Builder’s Remedy. It is your duty to defend the will of your constituents.

The only benefactors of the Builder’s Remedy are developers and builders whose sole purpose is profit. Under the Builder’s Remedy, the City would be at risk of uncontrolled growth, increased traffic and the overburdening of our infrastructure as well as any unforeseen consequences. It is simply irresponsible to expose the City to unidentified risks.

The City staff has determined that the City can meet the 7,015-unit goal with Measure Y in place.

Please regard the experience and intellect of the staff making this decision; they have spent the most time studying this and are in the best position to make this determination.

I urge you to approve the Housing Element as presented by City staff at the meeting of January 24 th.

Thank you,
Lisa M. Maley

1451 of 1732

From: Helen Young
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: HE
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:11:20 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council member,
I have read the revised Housing Element (HE) and would plead that you accept it in your council meeting tonight. We are property owners and we provide the housing you desperately need. Many friends have liquidated their apartments and left California for friendlier property rights states. Soon corporations will take over housing and believe me, it would devastate the housing supply and you will have tenants also fleeing California. Protect us and tenants as well.

Regards,
Helen Young
resident of San Mateo CA

1452 of 1732

From: Kitty Van Beckum
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: General Plan/Housing Element
Date: Saturday, January 21, 2023 2:52:48 PM

Dear San Mateo City Council,
Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th. The current draft meets the State housing units requirement without changing the existing zoning.

Sincerely,
Katherine Van Beckum

1453 of 1732

From: Laurie Hietter
To: City Council (San Mateo); Patrice Olds
Cc: Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir Subject: General Plan Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:53:35 AM
Dear Mayor Lee and Council Members:

I have lived in San Mateo for 42 years and send my thanks to the planning staff and General Plan team for the extraordinary effort required to produce the Housing Element and respond to HCD comments. The plan is well written and clearly shows the responses to HCD comments.

Please approve the Housing Element on January 24, 2023 so San Mateo does not fall prey to the builder's remedy and the city maintains control of our zoning and construction. The staff report outlines in detail how the revised draft Housing Element implements all changes requested by HCD and complies with the applicable State laws.

I strongly disagree with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the Housing Element and their statements regarding the Element's compliance. The Planning Commission did not provide any useful recommendations to improve the Element.

The revised Housing Element (HE) substantially complies with the requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE. The HE includes identifies 9,934 units or 142% of the City’s required housing allocation of 7,015 units. The RHNA allocations can be met without overturning Measure Y.

Please remove the rental restrictions from the HE including the rental registry. The restrictions would invade privacy, reduce supply, punish good landlords, and remove property rights.

The rental restrictions are not required and do not belong in the housing element. Please remove Policy H5.4.1 - Establish tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB 1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases. It is not necessary for San Mateo to go beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
San Mateo

1454 of 1732

From: Daniel Shefer
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: General Plan Housing Element
Date: Sunday, January 22, 2023 9:05:35 AM
Council Members,
Please pass the Housing Element. Whatever faults, real or imagined, the Planning Commission found in it, it is a solid plan and prima facie, passes state requirements and then some. Yes, I actually read it. Not approving the Housing Element will trigger the Builders Remedy and spell disaster to any planning and zoning constraints the city is trying to implement to keep San Mateo liveable.

If the Planning Commission or the City Council feel that we need more residential projects, there is a process and forum for discussing this. Using the nuclear option of rejecting the Housing Element is nothing more than cutting one's nose to spite their face.

Also, an accusation has been made of improper behavior where members of the Planning Commission took it upon themselves to contact the state's Dept. of Housing and Community Development to say that the Housing Element is insufficient. Please look into this and if substantiated, take corrective actions.

I hope you will do the right thing.

Daniel Shefer

1455 of 1732

From: Genel Morgan
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Fwd: Housing Element
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:45:44 PM
Dear City Council,
Below is the email I sent to the suggested email address with my position on the proposed Housing Element.

I want to be sure you also received a copy of my email for the record.

Sincerely,
Genel Morgan
San MAteo
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Genel Morgan
Date: Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 1:20 PM
Subject: Housing Element
To: <
[email protected]>

To whom it may concern,
I am a long time resident of San Mateo. I understand the need for more housing, but I want to see it done in a responsible way, free from influence of special interests (especially builders).

I want the City Council to approve

the Housing Element as drafted. It meets the 7,015
housing units required by the state while honoring Measure Y, which was passed by the voters.

The Planning Commission overstepped its boundaries by appealing to the state. Their recommendation that the City Council decline to adopt the Housing Element draft is irresponsible and would lead to San Mateo losing local control of

housing built in the city in
the future. I do not see that the Planning Commission is advocating for the residents of the city.

Sincerely
Genel Morgan
San Mateo

1456 of 1732

From: Patrice Olds
To: Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Cc: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: Support for accepting the current housing element.

Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:02:26 PM

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA

94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Jim Schwandt
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 3:11 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Support for accepting the current housing element.

My position is to support the current Housing Element which has been thoughtfully worked out by the City. It meets the state's mandate and works within Measure Y which voters passed. How can the citizens of a community vote for a plan then have those elected go against the citizens?
Sounds like a lawsuit

to me.

Is it legal

for just a few to overturn the preference of the people? Please support the current and recently accepted Housing Element.

Jim Schwandt
San Mateo, CA
Since 1976

--

1457 of 1732

View this email in your browser
From: LOUISE BEKINS
To: Jon Mays
Cc: LOUISE BEKINS; City Council (San Mateo); Patrice Olds; Drew Corbett Subject: Fw: Public Hearing on the 2023-2031 Housing Element Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 11:40:41 AM
Hi Jon,
Here is an idea for an article...

See email from the City below
Note the line stating "
Protection: Protect current residents to prevent displacement.

This problem of being priced beyond one's
income is growing for many of us.

Taxes
(property, etc.) are going up, inflation,

electricity bills, cost of home repairs (and
labor).....add all this up.....and people are being forced to move.

Perhaps an article in the SMDJ would bring awareness and help to thisi problem.

Thank you,
Louijse BEkins
San Mateo
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: City of San Mateo <[email protected]> To:

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:59:11 AM PST
Subject: Public Hearing on the

2023-2031 Housing Element

1458 of 1732

City Council Meeting to Consider Adoption of
San Mateo's 2023-2031 Housing Element
The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider adoption of the City's 2023-2031 Housing Element on Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 6:00pm.

The City’s Updated Housing Element
, a state-mandated plan for how San
Mateo can accommodate at least 7,015 new homes over the next eight years, has been revised in response to comments from the State Housing and Community development Department (HCD); and was published for second round of public review on December 30, 2022. The 2023-2031 Housing Element establishes goals, policies and programs to help address the City’s current and future housing needs. The second formal public review period was

1459 of 1732

between December 30, 2022 and January 9, 2023, however comments are still being accepted. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 12, 2023 and recommended that the City Council decline to adopt the Housing Element as drafted. The City Council will hold a public hearing on January 24 th
to receive public comments, consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation and take action on the Updated Housing Element.

How to Get Involved
The Housing Element is available for public review at City Hall and posted online
.
​Send written comments with subject line “Housing Element” By email to: [email protected]
By mail to: Housing Manager, City of San Mateo, Planning Division, 330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403
Online: on our Housing Element website
Attend an upcoming public hearing:

City Council – January 24, 2023 at 6:00 p.m.

Meeting info will be posted on the Public Meeting Portal at least 72 hours
in advance.

Background
The State requires cities to plan for future growth by updating their Housing Elements every eight years. In this cycle, the City of San Mateo is required to demonstrate our zoning has enough capacity for at least 7,015 new housing units to meet our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element is the only element of our General Plan that is subject to State review and approval.

Housing needs in the City are significant, especially for low- and middle-income households. These needs affect the entire community, but disproportionately impact our underrepresented and ethnically-diverse populations. Over the last year, we’ve conducted extensive community outreach to inform this Housing Element during 19 meetings, four surveys, two hearings, several study sessions, and numerous pop-up events.

1460 of 1732

The plan articulates five goals to shape policy and programs moving forward:

Production: Facilitate the production and development of new housing at all income levels, especially affordable housing.

Preservation: Preserve existing housing that is affordable to lower- and middle-income residents.

Protection: Protect current residents to prevent displacement.

Promotion: Promote community engagement and public outreach to increase education and awareness.

Fair Housing: Ensure fair housing laws proactively protect residents:
(Affirmatively further fair housing)
THANK YOU!
Questions? Contact:

Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager and Zoning Administrator, tel: (650) 522-7203, fax: (650) 522-7201, email: [email protected]
office: City Hall-Planning Division, 330 W. 20th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403 Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

This email was sent to [email protected]
why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences City of San Mateo · 330 W 20th Ave · San Mateo, CA 94403-1338 · USA

1461 of 1732

1462 of 1732

From: Patrice Olds
To: Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Cc: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: Housing Element
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:01:35 PM

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA

94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Jim Schwandt
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 3:14 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Jim Schwandt 3:10 PM (0 minutes ago)
to

CITYCOUNCIL
My position is to support the current Housing Element which has been thoughtfully worked out by the City.

It meets the state's mandate and works within Measure Y which voters passed. How can the citizens of a

community vote for a plan then have those elected go against the citizens? Sounds like a lawsuit

to me.

Is it legal

for just a few to overturn the preference of the people? Please support the current and recently accepted Housing Element. --
Jim Schwandt
San Mateo, CA
Since 1976

1463 of 1732

From: Patrice Olds
To: Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Cc: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: Housing Element
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:51:12 PM

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA

94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Deborah Kohn
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:49 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your

acceptance

of the current Housing Element when staff
presents it at your January

24th City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and
exceed

the mandated housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Whereas the Planning

Commission does not support the acceptance of these labors, the People do.

Last summer, the first draft of the Housing Element draft was met with a long list of comments and requests for changes, which have now been addressed. Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January

31st.

Since we've forged a practical and
operable

Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the

Council will accept this updated
draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element

on
January 24th.

Thank you,

--

1464 of 1732

Deborah Kohn

1465 of 1732

From: Patrice Olds
To: Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Cc: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: Housing Element
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:01:24 PM

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA

94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Angie Fuqua
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:55 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

I would like to request the City Council accept the current housing element as presented by city staff at the January 24, 2023 Council Meeting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Angie and Mark Fuqua

1466 of 1732

From: Patrice Olds
To: Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Cc: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine - Vote to Approve Housing Element Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:02:49 PM

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA

94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Lisa Taner
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:02 AM
To: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine - Vote to Approve Housing Element

Dear Councilmember Loraine,
You may not be aware, but Measure Y’s origins emanate from District 5 when Measure H was created by concerned residents in this southwest region of San Mateo.

The measure that limits
heights and densities and requires affordable housing - before it became the thing to do - runs in our veins and represents our historical and current values: protecting the character of our community and city.

The Council will soon be receiving a letter from the membership of the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association, urging Council to vote to accept the Housing Element at the January 24th Council meeting.

Just last night, the news again reported the huge layoffs of tech workers in the Bay Area.

Our future
needs for market rate housing are uncertain at best.

And we no longer live with the fantasy that we
can build our way to affordable housing by increasing market rate housing units.

Yet, we are
currently tasked to identify 7,015 units of housing.

City staff has done a fine job of this, including the
buffer, but you will no doubt be pressured by YIMBY regulars not to accept the Housing Element on January 24th.

Much compromise went into the pot as this Element was painstakingly crafted and recrafted, considering all the resident input, all the needs, and suggestions upon the first draft.

It more than
fulfils our requirement, and all was produced before the upcoming deadline.

I can only think that the Planning Commission, with their recommendation to reject the Housing Element, join with the unwavering YIMBY goal to remove all local power and provide yet another opening for developers to have their way with our city.

I can only think that any councilmember
voting to reject the current Housing Element and causing us to miss the crucial state deadline, regardless of how that decision would be explained, is choosing the same goal, and actively choosing to fail the residents of San Mateo.

Our true affordable housing will not come to fruition with the likes of the Builder’s Remedy.

It will
come by thinking outside the box and rolling up our sleeves to work with the County, builders, community organizations and residents.

It will come when we balance the “commercial
development crisis” so we balance regular folks with those who fill those commercial buildings and pay top dollar for housing, squeezing out the rest.
th

1467 of 1732

As our councilmember, January 24 presents you with an opportunity to put to rest doubts surrounding your move to District 5 – doubts that you truly desire to represent your constituents here. They and I urge you to vote to accept the Housing Element this month and close the door firmly on punitive actions by the state.

Sincerely,
Lisa Taner

1468 of 1732

From: Patrice Olds
To: Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Cc: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023 Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:57:24 PM

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA

94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Jeff Lowenstein
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:46 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff present it at your January

24th City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and exceed
the
mandated housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process
forward by approving the Housing Element

on January
24th.

Thank You,
Jeff
Jeff Lowenstein

1469 of 1732

From: Patrice Olds
To: Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Cc: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents - housing element approval Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:56:09 PM

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA

94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 6:19 PM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Cc: Laurie Strange <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Drew Corbett <[email protected]>; City Attorney's Office <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Critical to SM Residents - housing element approval

Dear San Mateo City Council,

Re: Lisa Taner’s Submitted Letter (below)

I have been alerted and apprised by my Neighborhood Association on the potential issue of NOT acting to approve the General Plans which is very concerning and in my assessment would be a dereliction of duty - I raise my voice in support or performing your function as our representatives and support for approval of the City of San Mateo’s general planning process.

I along with many
others in our community are concerned that some of our representatives may have conflicts of interest on this topic and are allowing their recusal to drive their end goal - please consider this topic when voting and know that we seek sunlight across the entire decision making process.

Thank you for your attention in this matter and are confident that you will act in the best interest of the residents.

Kind regards,

Robert Sellers

1470 of 1732

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and exceed the mandated housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Whereas the Planning Commission does not support acceptance of these labors, the People do. Last summer, the first draft of the Housing Element draft was met with a long list of comments and requests for changes, which have now been addressed.

Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January 31st. Since we've forged a practical and operable Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the Council will accept this updated draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th.

Thank you,

Lisa Taner

1471 of 1732

From: Patrice Olds
To: Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Cc: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: Approve Current Housing Element
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:57:58 PM

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA

94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Lisa Taner
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Approve Current Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your

acceptance

of the current Housing Element when staff
presents it at your January

24th City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and
exceed
the mandated housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Whereas the Planning

Commission does not support

acceptance of these labors, the People do.

Last summer, the first draft of the Housing Element draft was met with a long list of comments and requests for changes, which have now been addressed.

Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January

31st.

There is zero reason for that to happen.

Since we've forged a practical and
operable

Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the

Council will accept this updated
draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element

on January 24th.

Thank you,

1472 of 1732

Lisa Taner

1473 of 1732

From: Patrice Olds
To: Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Cc: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: ACCEPT current Housing Element @ Jan 24 CC meeting Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:58:11 PM

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA

94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Alicia Woodfall-Jones
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: ACCEPT current Housing Element @ Jan 24 CC meeting

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your

acceptance

of the current Housing Element when staff
presents it at your

January

24th

City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and
exceed
the mandated housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Whereas the Planning

Commission does not support

acceptance of these labors, the People do.

Last summer, the first draft of the Housing Element draft was met with a long list of comments and requests for changes, which have now been addressed. Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by

January

31st.

Since we've forged a practical
and operable

Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the

Council will accept this
updated draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element

on January 24th.

Thank you,

———————
Alicia Woodfall-Jones

1474 of 1732

1475 of 1732

From: Judith Paton
To: Patrice Olds
Subject: For January 24 meeting
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 8:27:19 PM
Please adopt the Housing Element so that we are not forced into the Builders’ Remedy. The latter will not provide the affordable housing we need. With the layoffs now starting with our local dot-coms we don’t need a new wave of market-rate apartments.

Thank you
Judith Paton
Sent from my iPhone

1476 of 1732

From: Chuck Kabala
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Current Housing Element
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 7:15:28 AM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
As 26 year San Mateo City residents We strongly urge you to accept the current housing element at your January 24 meeting. We need to protect our wonderful city from outside building interests that simply see dollar signs in planning for the future of San Mateo.

Sincerely, Beth & Chuck Kabala
Sent from my iPhone

1477 of 1732

From: Property Service Company
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023 Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:14:26 PM
Members of the San Mateo City Council -

It is my understanding that the City is required to submit a City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

If this is not submitted by the deadline we will be
subject to automatic implementation of “the Builders Remedy,” which allows developers of residential projects to bypass our zoning code and general plan.

I am writing to ask you to
please
approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings.

Please help to ensure that developers of residential projects will not be able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight.

Best Regards -

John & Christine O'Dea

1478 of 1732

1/22/2023

San Mateo City Council
City Hall - City Council Chambers
330 W 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

RE: Please Approve the Housing Element as presented by staff on 1/24/2023

Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

City staff, facilitators and stakeholders spent months and extraordinary effort to provide input and formulate their Housing Element recommendations for the Council’s approval, which reportedly exceeds the mandatory housing unit goals required by the state.

Additionally, it has been widely reported and specifically covered in the Los Angeles Times July 29,2022 article that Californians are leaving the Golden State due to various reasons including but not limited to affordability, quality of life and remote work options , “California exodus continues, with L.A., San Francisco leading the way: “Why are we here?” https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-29/california-exodus-continues-l-a-san- francisco-lead-the-way . These recent trends are not accounted for in the General Plan; therefore, it is possible that the projected housing targets may be lower in the future given the recent trends.

Additionally, several news reports have highlighted the possibility of an upcoming recession, higher inflation and layoffs at major technology companies in our local area including but not limited to Google, Facebook, Twitter and Salesforce, which may impact the housing picture further. Delaying the passing of the Housing Element now, may have the unintended consequence of having developers lower their housing commitments due to financial constraints as they adjust to the future economical landscape. It is time to move forward and accept the Housing Element.

Please approve the Housing Element as presented by staff at your upcoming meeting on 1/24/2023 without delay.

Sincerely,

Mary Cravalho

1479 of 1732

1480 of 1732

January 19, 2023

SAN MATEO CITY COUNCIL
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
Via Email

Re: BHNA Membership Urges Council Acceptance
of Current Housing Element at January 24th Meeting

Dear San Mateo City Council,

The Membership of the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association urges you to move forward to accept the Housing Element at your January 24th meeting.

The creation of the current Housing Element has been exhaustive and inclusive.

The BHNA Membership respects the extended period of time invested by City staff to produce our Housing Element, including incorporating valuable community input after arduous outreach efforts. We recognize staff has worked diligently to ensure we are in compliance with the 7,015 units mandated for San Mateo and has a sound Housing Element that can be submitted by the January 31st deadline.

The BHNA Membership is aware of the ramifications should the Council fail to accept this working Housing Element, including the Builder’s Remedy.

Therefore, the Membership of the BHNA strongly supports and urges the Council’s full approval of the Housing Element at your upcoming January 24th meeting.

Sincerely,

The Membership & Board of the
Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association

1481 of 1732

From: Mareva
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Approve updated draft of Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:23:47 AM
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Lee,
Laguna Vista residents are counting on your approval of the Housing Element draft so zoning is protected and SM has control of current and future building projects.

Don't miss the opportunity to vote in alignment with San Mateans' majority opinion after extensive community input over the last year.

In anticipation, many thanks,
Mareva Godfrey
Laguna Vista HOA Marina Lagoon Committee
District 4
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android

1482 of 1732

From: Barbara Whiteside
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Approve Housing Element presented by staff tomorrow! Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:37:26 PM
1/23/2023
San Mateo City Council
City Hall - City Council Chambers
330 W 20th Avenue
San Mateo
, CA 94403

RE: Please Approve the Housing Element as presented by staff on 1/24/2023 Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I have had my home in San Mateo for 35 years and raised our three children here.

Please approve the Housing Element recommendations created by stake-holders, staff, and facilitators to meet the housing unit goals determined by the state. Please note that these recommendations actually exceed the mandatory unit goals required by the state.

Given the economy in California with the mass exodus continuing as more people can work remotely, along with the higher inflation, interest rates, and layoffs that are sure to increase as this recession takes hold, it seems prudent to not bite off more than is necessary.

Please vote to approve the Housing Element tomorrow

on January 24, 2023. We need to have
council members we can trust to consider the good of all including residents and single family dwelling home owners.

Thank-you,
Barbara Whiteside

1483 of 1732

From: Cynthia Prien
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Approve Housing Element
Date: Sunday, January 22, 2023 3:45:33 PM
I urge you to approve the Housing Element (with the exclusion of rent restrictions) at your January 24th meeting. City Staff determined that the City will meet the required number of housing units (plus a buffer) within Measure Y standards allowing the Housing Element to meet state requirements. Failure to timely approve the Housing Element puts the City and residents at risk for a Builder’s Remedy resulting in the loss of local control, increased strain on infrastructure and traffic congestion.

Also, the rent restrictions were included in the Housing Element by advocate groups and unelected appointees without proper and open debate or outreach to housing providers.

It is your duty as elected officials to carry out the will of San Mateo voters and ensure compliance with Measure Y and maintain current zoning protections of single-family neighborhoods. San Mateo voters made it abundantly clear they want managed growth and not a developer free-for-all as evidenced by the failure of measure R.

Please approve the Housing Element.

Thank you.

1484 of 1732

From: Mara Castillo
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Approve Housing Element
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:57:46 AM
Dear Sirs,
I am requesting
the
Council approve the Housing Element (so we are not faced with the "Builder's Remedy" that eliminates the ability of the City to impose any conditions on a project). Do not destroy our lovely city with out of control building! Thank you,
Mara Castillo

1485 of 1732

From: Ronnie Eaton
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Adoption of San Mateo"s Housing Element
Date: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:22:48 PM
Honorable Members of the San Mateo City Council:

We understand that there has been an effort to derail the adoption of the current version of the City of San Mateo Housing Element Plan and we are very concerned to see that this is where we now find ourselves. For the past couple of years the community has worked with city staff through numerous workshops and surveys to craft a housing element that will meet State- mandated housing numbers while protecting our single family neighborhoods that ALL people in the city cherish.

It has come to light that some individuals on the Planning Commission contacted the state HCD and claimed that our Housing Element plan is insufficient. These individuals acted outside the public forum and the City Council and apparently feel that they can upend the public process and push their own agenda over and above every person in this city. This is outrageous behavior and cannot be condoned by the council or anyone who lives in this city.

The Housing Element was amended to address previous concerns and questions put forth by HCD when it was initially reviewed. City staff worked to correct those concerns and have shown that San Mateo can meet housing requirements and even have a buffer. This is what we have all been trying to achieve. Meeting housing needs and keeping San Mateo a livable place for all.

We want to see the council approve our current Housing Element Plan so that this city can move forward. People are not going to tolerate some roque individuals going around the public process. The council must now show it's support for the public's input and approve the plan.

Thank you,
Ronnie and Bruce Eaton
San Mateo
Get BlueMail
for Desktop

1486 of 1732

From: Mike Manely
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Adopt the housing element
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:16:07 PM
Please represent the exist residents and not bow to the big-money developers and their future (or past) campaign contributions to you who have accepted their dirty money. We are watching all your actions/votes very closely. You must abide by the current building height restrictions and "ADOPT THE HOUSING ELEMENT", as it will be sufficient enough housing for the State housing mandate and not expose San Mateo to "The Builders Remedy" as it is NOT DEMOCRATIC!!! (Taxation without representation).

Thank You, Michael Manely (35 year resident)

1487 of 1732

From: Dorothy Radyk
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Accept the Current Housing Element
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:39:08 PM
As a long-time resident of San Mateo, I request that you accept the current Housing Element. The future of San Mateo should be decided by San Mateo residents, not the developers.

Thank you,
Dorothy Radyk

1488 of 1732

From: John Radyk
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Accept Current Housing Element
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:04:21 PM
City of San Mateo Council Members,
Please vote to accept the current Housing Element. The current Housing Element meets the number of mandated housing units while working within voter approved Measure Y. San Mateo should never be subjected to the Builder's Remedy. Remember that the citizens of San Mateo elected you to represent them, not developers.

Thank you,
John Radyk

1489 of 1732

From: Devra Harris
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds; Housing
Subject: 1/24, Council mtg. Housing Element
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:15:15 AM
Re: San Mateo City Council Meeting 1/24/23 Agenda Item #2 Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing in regards to the General Plan Amendment to adopt the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element for 2023-2031.

I have participated in many of our City’s community outreach opportunities with heartfelt concern for the future of our community. I want to know that my and all of the residents' time and input in this process is appreciated and taken into consideration by the Council. Voting YES to adopt the Updated Housing Element presented by Staff at Tuesday's meeting will confirm that your constituents have been heard and matter.

I urge you to approve adoption of the Housing Element as the alternative will be seen as a direct and regrettable choice against the needs of the citizens you represent.

Kindly,
Devra Harris

1490 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Jeff Lowenstein
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:46 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff present it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and exceed the mandated housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th.

Thank You,

1491 of 1732

2 Jeff
Jeff Lowenstein

1492 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents - housing element approval

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents ‐ housing element approval

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 6:19 PM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Laurie Strange <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Drew Corbett <[email protected]>; City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Critical to SM Residents ‐ housing element approval

Dear San Mateo City Council,

Re: Lisa Taner’s Submitted Letter (below)

I have been alerted and apprised by my Neighborhood Association on the potential issue of NOT acting to approve the General Plans which is very concerning and in my assessment would be a dereliction of duty ‐ I raise my voice in support or performing your function as our representatives and support for approval of the City of San Mateo’s general planning process.  I along with many others in our community are concerned that some of our representatives may have conflicts of interest on this topic and are allowing their recusal to drive their end goal ‐ please consider this topic when voting and know that we seek sunlight across the entire decision making process.

Thank you for your attention in this matter and are confident that you will act in the best interest of the residents.

1493 of 1732

2 Kind regards,

Robert Sellers

Dea
r San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and exceed the mandated housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Whereas the Planning Commission does not support acceptance of these labors, the People do.  Last summer, the first draft of the Housing Element draft was met with a long list of comments and requests for changes, which have now been addressed. Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January 31st.  Since we've forged a practical and operable Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the Council will accept this updated draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th.

Thank you,

Lisa Taner

1494 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Current Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Current Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Approve Current Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and exceed the mandated housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Whereas the Planning Commission does not support acceptance of these labors, the People do.  Last summer, the first draft of the Housing Element draft was met with a long list of comments and requests for changes, which have now been addressed.

Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January 31st.  There is zero reason for that to happen.  Since we've

1495 of 1732

2 forged a practical and operable Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the Council will accept this updated draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th.

Thank you,

Lisa Taner

1496 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: ACCEPT current Housing Element @ Jan 24 CC meeting

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: ACCEPT current Housing Element @ Jan 24 CC meeting

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Alicia Woodfall‐Jones
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: ACCEPT current Housing Element @ Jan 24 CC meeting

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and exceed the mandated housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Whereas the Planning Commission does not support acceptance of these labors, the People do.  Last summer, the first draft of the Housing Element draft was met with a long list of comments and requests for changes, which have now been addressed. Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January 31st.  Since we've forged a practical and operable Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the Council will accept this updated draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th.

1497 of 1732

2 Thank you,

———————
Alicia Woodfall‐Jones

1498 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Tom Brady
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element

Dear Councilmembers,

It's been brought to my attention that January 24th will be a critical meeting for you to approve San Mateo's Housing Element so we do not suffer punishments from the state, including the Builder's Remedy.

I know that this part of our General Plan has been in the making for a very long time.  I know residents contributed to it and that this is a revised version after additional input.

I'm very concerned about failing to meet the state deadline at the end of this month.  For all that has gone into the creation of this Housing Element, I am advocating for your "Yes" vote to accept it at your next Council meeting.

Thanks ‐ Tom

Thomas E. Brady
Chairman & Principal
Thomas Brady & Associates

1499 of 1732

2 www.tbradyandassociates.com

1500 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Angie Fuqua
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:55 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element

I would like to request the City Council accept the current housing element as presented by city staff at the January 24, 2023 Council Meeting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Angie and Mark Fuqua

1501 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:52 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Deborah Kohn
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:49 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Resident input for this critical piece of our General Plan was sought after and highly valued by the City Council, and just one of the many moving parts City staff considered and integrated in order to reach and exceed the mandated housing units goal. Both staff and the many participating residents are to be commended.

Whereas the Planning Commission does not support the acceptance of these labors, the People do.  Last summer, the first draft of the Housing Element draft was met with a long list of comments and requests for changes, which have now been addressed. Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January 31st.  Since we've forged a practical and operable Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the Council will accept this updated draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

1502 of 1732

2 Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th.

Thank you,

‐‐
Deborah Kohn

1503 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine - Vote to Approve Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:03 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine ‐ Vote to Approve Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:02 AM
To: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine ‐ Vote to Approve Housing Element

Dear Councilmember Loraine,
You may not be aware, but Measure Y’s origins emanate from District 5 when Measure H was created by concerned residents in this southwest region of San Mateo.  The measure that limits heights and densities and requires affordable housing ‐ before it became the thing to do ‐ runs in our veins and represents our historical and current values: protecting the character of our community and city.  The Council will soon be receiving a letter from the membership of the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association, urging Council to vote to accept the Housing Element at the January 24th Council meeting.

Just last night, the news again reported the huge layoffs of tech workers in the Bay Area.  Our future needs for market rate housing are uncertain at best.  And we no longer live with the fantasy that we can build our way to affordable housing by increasing market rate housing units.  Yet, we are currently tasked to identify 7,015 units of housing.  City staff has done a fine job of this, including the buffer, but you will no doubt be pressured by YIMBY regulars not to accept the Housing Element on January 24th.

Much compromise went into the pot as this Element was painstakingly crafted and recrafted, considering all the resident input, all the needs, and suggestions upon the first draft.  It more than fulfils our requirement, and all was produced before the upcoming deadline.

1504 of 1732

2 I can only think that the Planning Commission, with their recommendation to reject the Housing Element, join with the unwavering YIMBY goal to remove all local power and provide yet another opening for developers to have their way with our city.  I can only think that any councilmember voting to reject the current Housing Element and causing us to miss the crucial state deadline, regardless of how that decision would be explained, is choosing the same goal, and actively choosing to fail the residents of San Mateo.

Our true affordable housing will not come to fruition with the likes of the Builder’s Remedy.  It will come by thinking outside the box and rolling up our sleeves to work with the County, builders, community organizations and residents.  It will come when we balance the “commercial development crisis” so we balance regular folks with those who fill those commercial buildings and pay top dollar for housing, squeezing out the rest.

As our councilmember, January 24th presents you with an opportunity to put to rest doubts surrounding your move to District 5 – doubts that you truly desire to represent your constituents here.  They and I urge you to vote to accept the Housing Element this month and close the door firmly on punitive actions by the state.

Sincerely,
Lisa Taner

1505 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Zachary Dahl
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:51 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please Approve the Housing Element of the General Plan As Is at Next Council Meeting Public comment on the HE.

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:27 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Mary Way <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please Approve the Housing Element of the General Plan As Is at Next Council Meeting

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Connie Weiss
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:25 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Please Approve the Housing Element of the General Plan As Is at Next Council Meeting

Hello Members of the San Mateo City Council,

I am hopeful with this new Council that the bad behaviors of the past will stay in the past. Because, all too often, San Mateo residents have been overrun by outside, paid and unpaid lobbyists and big developers, saying San Mateo must rezone and build aggressively to meet state demands. San Mateo voters passed Measure Y for a reason. San Mateo voters want measured growth and true affordable housing, not big‐block developments with office, luxury apartments, and offering only roughly 10% affordable housing. This is not what San Mateo needs and we need to stand firm on what is best for the City.

The San Mateo City staff has put together a plan to comply with the state’s 7,015 housing units, including a buffer, to comply with the state’s requirement for housing. Please respect the work of the staff and the San Mateo voters and approve the housing element as presented by staff. While big developer Bohannon has tried to undercut this by saying Measure Y will allow for just 1,200 units vs. a planned 2,000 for Hillsdale Mall, this is not an issue as the buffer still covers the state requirement.

Further review should be conducted on what is really needed for San Mateo’s success in the future. It should not include any strong‐arming by large developers and/or aggressive outside interests looking to take away local land use control and undercut the will of San Mateo residents and voters.

1506 of 1732

2 It is also disconcerting that at least one member of the Planning Commission decided to take it upon themselves to disrespect the work of City staff and contact the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to say that our Housing Element is insufficient. It seems Council needs to course‐correct errant Planning Commissioner(s) and make changes as needed to ensure that everyone working within the San Mateo City government understands big developers and outside lobbying interests are not to be prioritized over the voters and residents of San Mateo.

Thank you,

Connie Weiss

1507 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:29 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Mara Castillo
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:58 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Approve Housing Element

Dear Sirs,
I am requesting the Council approve the Housing Element (so we are not faced with the "Builder's Remedy" that eliminates the ability of the City to impose any conditions on a project). Do not destroy our lovely city with out of control building!
Thank you,
Mara Castillo

San Mateo

1508 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:26 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:30 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Jean Dail
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:36 PM
To: Richard Hedges <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023

Dear Honorable City Council Member Hedges::

Congratulations on your selection to City Council! I am hoping you will be open to the concerns of all residents and weigh decisions regarding our city’s development with local control in mind.

I am writing specifically to address the current Housing Element being presented by staff at the meeting on Tuesday, January 24th for the City Council’s vote. I am strongly advocating for you to accept staff’s presentation of the current Housing Element on January 24th.

I have much respect for the hours of hard work staff, the Planning Commission and City Council have put into our General Plan. Why Planning Commissioners Adam Nugent and Seema Patel circumvented your authority regarding the critical Housing Element due January 31st is beyond my comprehension. My understanding is that by NOT accepting staff’s presentation of our Housing Element on January 24th, it puts the City of San Mateo in the position of having to accept the Builders’ Remedy and loss of local control of our own development.

Lastly, please get back to me on the status of removing Adam Nugent from the Planning Commission, due to his alleged illegal actions of removing political signs during this past November 2022 election. Commissioner Nugent’s further circumventing City Council on our Housing Element only adds to reasons for his removal. I understand that the previous City Council could not find its way forward to even agreeing to investigate Mr. Nugent’s actions. But I am extremely

1509 of 1732

2 hopeful that this new City Council will take appropriate actions to determine if removal of Planning Commissioner Nugent is appropriate.

Thank you,
Jean Dail –

1510 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Technician Housing Dept
330 W 20
th Avenue, San Mateo, Ca 94403
650‐522‐7239
[email protected]

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: brigid doherty
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Hello,

My name is Brigid Doherty and I am a homeowner in the Sunnybrae neighborhood, along with my husband.  We have been residents of San Mateo since 2007.  We were renters before becoming homeowners. We have 2 daughters.

I have spoken at past City Council meetings, particularly regarding the Passages project and its impact on the 19th Ave Park, Fiesta Gardens, and Sunnybrae neighborhoods.

1511 of 1732

2 According to the Housing Element, it appears that the creation of affordable housing in San Mateo is of upmost importance.  However, why is there such a small percentage of units at Passages that will be affordable/low income?  This makes no sense to me.

We need more projects like Kiku Crossing in our city, not huge,  mostly market‐rate projects, like Passages. Please take this into consideration when approving projects.

An additional topic to consider:  Following the 12/31/22 flooding, much of which impacted Shoreview, Sunnybrae, 19th Ave Park, and Fiesta Gardens neighborhoods (amongst others), how will all of the new construction address this?   As residents, we need to be reassured that infrastructure will be in place to reduce the chance of this happening again.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warmly,
Brigid Doherty

1512 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:25 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Adoption of San Mateo's Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:25 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Adoption of San Mateo's Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Ronnie Eaton
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:22 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Adoption of San Mateo's Housing Element

Honorable Members of the San Mateo City Council:

We understand that there has been an effort to derail the adoption of the current version of the City of San Mateo Housing Element Plan and we are very concerned to see that this is where we now find ourselves.  For the past couple of years the community has worked with city staff through numerous workshops and surveys to craft a housing element that will meet State‐mandated housing numbers while protecting our single family neighborhoods that ALL people in the city cherish.

It has come to light that some individuals on the Planning Commission contacted the state HCD and claimed that our Housing Element plan is insufficient.  These individuals acted outside the public forum and the City Council and apparently feel that they can upend the public process and push their own agenda over and above every person in this city.  This is outrageous behavior and cannot be condoned by the council or anyone who lives in this city.

The Housing Element was amended to address previous concerns and questions put forth by HCD when it was initially reviewed. City staff worked to correct those concerns and have shown that San Mateo can meet housing requirements and even have a buffer.  This is what we have all been trying to achieve.  Meeting housing needs and keeping San Mateo a livable place for all.

1513 of 1732

2 We want to see the council approve our current Housing Element Plan so that this city can move forward.  People are not going to tolerate some roque individuals going around the public process.  The council must now show it's support for the public's input and approve the plan.

Thank you,

Ronnie and Bruce Eaton
San Mateo

Get BlueMail for Desktop

1514 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:12 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Technician Housing Dept
330 W 20
th Avenue, San Mateo, Ca 94403
650‐522‐7239
[email protected]

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: Edward Evans
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Dear City Council, Housing Manager and Staff,
As you are aware, almost every city and town in the county is going through the same process of drafting a general plan and a specific housing element. The lack of any kind of Labor Standards language in San Mateo's current Draft Housing Element is troubling to us. Through cooperation with Redwood City staff, the Carpenters Union was recently

1515 of 1732

2 successful in getting Labor Standards language into Redwood City's latest Draft Housing Element and we would like to strongly encourage San Mateo to do the same. For reference, here is the Redwood City language:

POLICY H‐5.7: Encourage developers and contractors to evaluate hiring local labor, hiring from or contributing to apprenticeship programs, increasing resources for labor compliance, and providing living wages. (Page 49: 00_RWC_HE‐1‐6‐23.pdf (welcomehomerwc.org))

We ask that you delay approval of the current Draft Housing Element until it contains some form of meaningful Labor Standards Language similar to that in Redwood City's draft. Thank you for your consideration.

All the best,

Ed Evans
Senior Field Representative/Financial Secretary-Treasurer Local 217, San Mateo County
Nor Cal Carpenters Union

"Any time you have an opportunity to make a difference in this world and you don't, then you are wasting your time on earth." Roberto Clemente

1516 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: Fwd: Current Housing Element

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Current Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Chuck Kabala
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 7:15 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Current Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

As 26 year San Mateo City residents We strongly urge you to accept the current housing element at your January 24 meeting.    We need to protect our wonderful city from outside building interests that simply see dollar signs in planning for the future of San Mateo.

Sincerely, Beth & Chuck Kabala

Sent from my iPhone

1517 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:53 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Dear City Council Members:

I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at the January 24th council meeting. It is incumbent upon the council to accept the recommendation of City Staff and to ensure our City does not fall prey to the Builder’s Remedy.

The voters have time and again made it clear that they desire responsible growth along with the protection of neighborhoods. Elected officials were given this mandate by the passage of Measure Y and the failure of Measure R.

Voters objected to Measure R that would have allowed city council to approve height increases in designated areas; voters do not want discretionary decisions delegated to any authority including those under the Builder’s Remedy. It is your duty to defend the will of your constituents.

1518 of 1732

2 The only benefactors of the Builder’s Remedy are developers and builders whose sole purpose is profit. Under the Builder’s Remedy, the City would be at risk of uncontrolled growth, increased traffic and the overburdening of our infrastructure as well as any unforeseen consequences. It is simply irresponsible to expose the City to unidentified risks.

The City staff has determined that the City can meet the 7,015‐unit goal with Measure Y in place. Please regard the experience and intellect of the staff making this decision; they have spent the most time studying this and are in the best position to make this determination.

I urge you to approve the Housing Element as presented by City staff at the meeting of January 24th.

Thank you,
Lisa M. Maley

1519 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Technician Housing Dept
330 W 20
th Avenue, San Mateo, Ca 94403
650‐522‐7239
[email protected]

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: Genel Morgan
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 1:20 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

To whom it may concern,

I am a long time resident of San Mateo. I understand the need for more housing, but I want to see it done in a responsible way, free from influence of special interests (especially builders).

I want the City Council to approve the Housing Element as drafted. It meets the 7,015 housing units required by the state while honoring Measure Y, which was passed by the voters.

1520 of 1732

2 The Planning Commission overstepped its boundaries by appealing to the state. Their recommendation that the city Council decline to adopt the Housing Element draft is irresponsible and would lead to San Mateo losing local control of  housing built in the city in the future. I do not see that the Planning Commission is advocating for the residents of the city.

Sincerely
Genel Morgan
San Mateo

1521 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:31 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: For January 24 meeting

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:31 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: For January 24 meeting

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Judith Paton
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 8:27 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: For January 24 meeting

Please adopt the Housing Element so that we are not forced into the Builders’ Remedy. The latter will not provide the affordable housing we need. With the layoffs now starting with our local dot‐coms we don’t need a new wave of market‐rate apartments.

Thank you
Judith Paton

Sent from my iPhone

1522 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Technician Housing Dept
330 W 20
th Avenue, San Mateo, Ca 94403
650‐522‐7239
[email protected]

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: sean schochet
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:30 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Hello,

Can the housing committee please consider connecting campus drive and the new housing complexes there to San Mateo College via a walking/biking bridge over 92? PLEASE. Thanks.

-Sean

1523 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:30 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: General Plan/Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: General Plan/Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Kitty Van Beckum
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 2:53 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan/Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th. The current draft meets the State housing units requirement without changing the existing zoning.

Sincerely,

Katherine Van Beckum

1524 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:11 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Technician Housing Dept
330 W 20
th Avenue, San Mateo, Ca 94403
650‐522‐7239
[email protected]

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: William Williams
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 10:45 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

When the Bay Meadows Racetrack / Aquifer was developed into buildings and roads, nuisance flooding in San Mateo changed to damaging flooding.

The major hindrance to acceptance of the current San Mateo Housing Element is how many housing units will replace the Hillsdale Mall. Property owners analyze costs and seek profitability. Housing advocates look at the number of units created as a measure of success. Residents who argue for a livable community are not exclusionary racists. We believe "towers of toilets" in tall buildings will lead to sewage and drainage

1525 of 1732

2 problems. Electrifying Caltrain will not solve traffic and mobility issues. Underground parking has been approved for a large development on Concar Drive (Rite Aid). This parking will flood. Do we just build it and have new residents suffer because they were unaware of potential problems?

The Housing Element should promote livable accommodations. It should not be based on profitability.

Numbers on housing advocates charts do not guarantee livable units will be created.

Sustainability gets a lot of lip service. How much energy demand, water and sewer service, and transportation infrastructure can the natural environment support here in San Mateo?

x Bill Williams, San Mateo

Sent from Outlook

1526 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:49 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: writing in support of a democratic process & the approval of the housing element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:49 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: writing in support of a democratic process & the approval of the housing element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Evan Powell
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 8:33 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: writing in support of a democratic process & the approval of the housing element

Dear Council and members of staff

Thank you for your service to the city.

In short, I am writing to express my support for the staff's findings that the City of San Mateo CAN meet the state mandated housing requirements while complying with Measure Y.

It is the right thing to do ‐ to support this finding is consistent with our democratic processes.  As you know, there have been approximately 19 public meetings concerning housing and more than two years of effort have gone into the housing element.

I would simply remind you that you do have the power to do the right thing, to vote in accordance with the recommendations of staff ‐ thereby enabling a compromise position.

Thank you again for your work.  Please support the work of your staff and the process countless citizens have participated in to arrive at the housing element.

Best regards,

1527 of 1732

2 Evan

‐‐

Evan Powell

1528 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:31 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Cynthia Prien
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 3:45 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Approve Housing Element

I urge you to approve the Housing Element (with the exclusion of rent restrictions) at your January 24th meeting.  City Staff determined that the City will meet the required number of housing units (plus a buffer) within Measure Y standards allowing the Housing Element to meet state requirements.  Failure to timely approve the Housing Element puts the City and residents at risk for a Builder’s Remedy resulting in the loss of local control, increased strain on infrastructure and traffic congestion.

Also, the rent restrictions were included in the Housing Element by advocate groups and unelected appointees without proper and open debate or outreach to housing providers.

It is your duty as elected officials to carry out the will of San Mateo voters and ensure compliance with Measure Y and maintain current zoning protections of single‐family neighborhoods.  San Mateo voters made it abundantly clear they want managed growth and not a developer free‐for‐all as evidenced by the failure of measure R.

Please approve the Housing Element.

Thank you.

1529 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: January 24 City Council Special Meeting Agenda item#2

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:07 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: January 24 City Council Special Meeting Agenda item#2

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Stephen Chen
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:26 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: January 24 City Council Special Meeting Agenda item#2

Dear Ms. Olds,

In lieu of attending the zoom meeting tomorrow, I’m submitting my comments as follows:
(1) now that we are the largest city in San Mateo county, we have an even more urgent need to build more AFFORDABLE HOUSING than before.
(2) regarding the city ڲڱڰگڮڭ measure Y of November 2020, the Yes votes won by only 43 out of a total of 46033 casted votes, that is just 0.09% or less than 0.1%.
(3) AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT THE SAME AS PUBLIC HOUSING. We do need affordable housing for our teachers, policemen, firemen, first responders as well as healthcare workers. It will also benefit our own younger generations in the future.
(4) with ever‐increasing costs for labor, materials , regulations and other factors, the increase in building height and density allowance would make the building project financially more attractive to the builders who might be interested in it.  If you are so worried about the height‐density issue, take a leisure drive along the VETERANS BLVD and neighboring streets in our next city south, the RWC, it could give you a rather eye‐opening experience. Besides, if you and your neighbors keep your properties tidy and neat, there is no way somebody will build a high density unit next to you. (5) many recent studies have shown the very restrictive LOCAL ZONING MANDATES played a key role in our current acute housing shortage situation nationwide, which in turn also makes the HOMELESS problem worse.

Sincerely,

Stephen Chen
San Mateo

1530 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: R Colpitts
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:53 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

To the City Council,
My wife Dolores and I strongly support the Housing Element as presented to you by City staff, and we urge you to adopt it as presented, at your meeting on January 24,2023.

Thank you,
Robert F Colpitts

1531 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:18 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Accept the Current Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:52 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Accept the Current Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Dorothy Radyk
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:39 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Accept the Current Housing Element

As a long‐time resident of San Mateo, I request that you accept the current Housing Element.  The future of San Mateo should be decided by San Mateo residents, not the developers.

Thank you,
Dorothy Radyk

1532 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:10 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element January 24 meeting

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element January 24 meeting

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Gary Germano
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element January 24 meeting

Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

Please support and accept the current Housing Element being presented at your January 24th meeting that meets our requirements for housing numbers Without Changing the Existing Zoning.

We absolutely need this submitted "on time" so as not to trigger anything that allows developers or anyone else to bypass our zoning codes and General Plan.

Those two items are critical to having a future for San Mateo spelled out with a goal in mind that has been professionally researched with consultants, council, staff and citizen input and planned for ongoing sustainability and safety for the whole City cumulatively in balance.

Arbitrary project specific "spot" zoning and arbitrary General Plan change could destroy this City by not taking the overall "big picture" of what is being done into account. This would create a disaster in terms of overall infrastructure capacity, such as accessibility to services, retail outlets, traffic, and emergency evacuations.

1533 of 1732

2 Please responsibly build within our existing zoning guidelines and General Plan, and do what our residents and your constituents have consistently approved for the good and safety of all people living here.

Sincerely,

Gary and Janet Germano

San Mateo

1534 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:19 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: 1/24, Council mtg. Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:19 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: 1/24, Council mtg. Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Devra Harris
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:15 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Housing <[email protected]> Subject: 1/24, Council mtg. Housing Element

Re: San Mateo City Council Meeting 1/24/23 Agenda Item #2

Dear Councilmembers,

I am writing in regards to the General Plan Amendment to adopt the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element for 2023‐ 2031.

I have participated in many of our City’s community outreach opportunities with heartfelt concern for the future of our community. I want to know that my and all of the residents' time and input in this process is appreciated and taken into consideration by the Council. Voting YES to adopt the Updated Housing Element presented by Staff at Tuesday's meeting will confirm that your constituents have been heard and matter.

I urge you to approve adoption of the Housing Element as the alternative will be seen as a direct and regrettable choice against the needs of the citizens you represent.

Kindly,

Devra Harris

San Mateo

1535 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Accept the Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:53 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Accept the Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Christine Heiss
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:51 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Accept the Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,
As a San Mateo county homeowner since 2005, please consider the following when deciding to accept the Housing Element:

1. The revised Housing Element (HE) substantially complies with t he requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE. The HE identifies 9,934 units or 142% of the City’s required housing allocation of 7,015 units.

2. The Council should find the Housing Element is compliant with the HCD requirements and approve the Housing Element to avoid the builder's remedy that will further take away local control of our city.

3. Please remove the rental restrictions from the HE including th e rental registry. The restrictions would invade privacy, reduce supply, punish good landlords, and remove property rights. The rental restrictions are not required and do not belong in the housing element.

4. The Planning Commissioners' conclusion that the Housing Elemen t is not in compliance is incorrect.

They did not offer any suggested revisions.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
Christine Heiss

1536 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Accept Current Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:05 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Accept Current Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: John Radyk
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:04 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Accept Current Housing Element

City of San Mateo Council Members,

Please vote to accept the current Housing Element. The current Housing Element meets the number of mandated housing units while working within voter approved Measure Y.  San Mateo should never be subjected to the Builder's Remedy. Remember that the citizens of San Mateo elected you to represent them, not developers.

Thank you,
John Radyk

1537 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:03 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Adopt the housing element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:01 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Adopt the housing element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Mike Manely
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:16 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Adopt the housing element

Please represent the exist residents and not bow to the big‐money developers and their future (or past) campaign contributions to you who have accepted their dirty money. We are watching all your actions/votes very closely. You must abide by the current building height restrictions and "ADOPT THE HOUSING ELEMENT", as it will be sufficient enough housing for the State housing mandate and not expose San Mateo to "The Builders Remedy" as it is NOT DEMOCRATIC!!! (Taxation without representation).

Thank You, Michael Manely (35 year resident)

1538 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:49 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: City Council‐approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Property Service Company
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:14 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council‐approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023

Members of the San Mateo City Council -

It is my understanding that the City is required to submit a City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023. If this is not submitted by the deadline we will be subject to automatic implementation of “the Builders Remedy,” which allows developers of residential projects to bypass our zoning code and general plan. I am writing to ask you to please approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. Please help to ensure that developers of residential projects will not be able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight.

Best Regards -

John & Christine O'Dea

1539 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:50 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: land development

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:50 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: land development

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Jen Paiva
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:49 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: land development

Dear City Council Members,

I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council- approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Jennifer Paiva

‐‐
Jen Paiva

1540 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:22 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please accept the revised Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:20 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please accept the revised Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Martha Park
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:12 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Please accept the revised Housing Element

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Nash, and Council Members Loraine, Newsom Jr., and Hedges,
I am writing to request that you accept the revised Housing Element prepared by staff. I'm concerned that our City won't come up with a final plan to submit to the state by January 31st, and we'll be subject to the Builder's Remedy, which will further take away local control from this issue.

Also, please remove the rental restrictions. This should be considered as a separate issue.  Further study (including discussion, debate, and public comment) should be done before approving more restrictions.

Thank you,

1541 of 1732

2 Martha Park

1542 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element approval vote for Parkside Neighborhood

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element approval vote for Parkside Neighborhood

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Felicia Schipper
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:29 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element approval vote for Parkside Neighborhood

Dear City Council Members,

I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council- approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Felicia M. Schipper
Resident on Clipper Street in Parkside

1543 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:48 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Roger Smale
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:43 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

Dear City Council Members,

I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Roger Smale

1544 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:49 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element presented by staff tomorrow!

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:48 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element presented by staff tomorrow!

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Barbara Whiteside
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:34 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Approve Housing Element presented by staff tomorrow!

1/23/2023
San Mateo City Council
City Hall - City Council Chambers
330 W 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

RE: Please Approve the Housing Element as presented by staff on 1/24/2023

Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I have had my home in San Mateo for 35 years and raised our three children here.

1545 of 1732

2 Please approve the Housing Element recommendations created by stake‐holders, staff, and facilitators to meet the housing unit goals determined by the state. Please note that these recommendations actually exceed the mandatory unit goals required by the state.

Given the economy in California with the mass exodus continuing as more people can work remotely, along with the higher inflation, interest rates, and layoffs that are sure to increase as this recession takes hold, it seems prudent to not bite off more than is necessary.

Please vote to approve the Housing Element tomorrow  on January 24, 2023. We need to have council members we can trust to consider the good of all including residents and single family dwelling home owners.

Thank‐you,
Barbara Whiteside

1546 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:02 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: William Cendak
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element

City Council members,

The residents of San Mateo provided comments and requested changes to the General Plan which the City staff implemented.

Tonight when the City staff presents the current Housing Element we implore you to accept it and move it forward.

Apparently the Planning Commission does not support the General Plan, is this a case of "the tail wagging the dog?"
I assumed the Planning Commission worked for the City Council and the residents of the city of San Mateo,
they appear out of touch with both.

The clock is ticking, as you drive past South San Francisco, Millbrae, and Burlingame and see the ugly new construction of housing is this what you foresee for San Mateo? Lord help me I hope not.

Thank you for attention to this urgent matter,

W. J. Cendak

1547 of 1732

2 San Mateo,CA

1548 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve updated draft of Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:31 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve updated draft of Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Mareva
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:24 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Approve updated draft of Housing Element

Dear City Council Members and Mayor Lee,
Laguna Vista residents are counting on your approval of the Housing Element draft so zoning is protected and SM has control of current and future building projects.

Don't miss the opportunity to vote in alignment with San Mateans' majority opinion after extensive community input over the last year.

In anticipation, many thanks,

Mareva Godfrey
Laguna Vista HOA Marina Lagoon Committee
District 4

Sent from the all new AOL app for Android

1549 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:42 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: 1/24/2023 Council meeting - approve draft Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:39 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: 1/24/2023 Council meeting ‐ approve draft Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:15 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: 1/24/2023 Council meeting ‐ approve draft Housing Element

Dear Council members,

Tonight you make a major decision on doing all in your power to keep local control of San Mateo's future or allow it to become a "builders remedy" free for all. I urge you to approve the draft Housing Element, as presented by staff, and forward it to the state for their acceptance.

As you know, City staff has worked hard to modify the original submission to respond to Sacramento's stated concerns.

And they have succeeded. The staff report documents that the revised draft Housing Element implements all changes requested by HCD. The draft is consistent with state law. It provides for 7104 new units, meeting San Mateo's RHNA requirements, and on top of that, allows for a buffer of 2830 more units to assure the ability to comply with San Mateo's housing allocation. The element also acknowledges the development controls adopted by the voters in 2020 as Measure Y.

I know many are urging you to reject this draft as inadequate. As my mother liked to say, "consider the source". Are those you are hearing from people who will benefit from the imposition of the builders remedy? Or are these people whose livelihood depends on presenting positions opposed to what this housing element represents? Are these people who believe in housing at any cost (ignoring the need to step up affordable housing production), leaving San Mateo to deal with the negative impacts of market rate and luxury building that outpaces our infrastructure and natural resources?

A particular word about the recommendation from the Planning Commission to reject this draft. It is truly unfortunate that only 3 commissioners attended that meeting. We deserved the opinion of all five. The council ended up with a "unanimous" decision from three commissioners who represent approaches which are possibly the most out of sync with

1550 of 1732

2 most San Mateans. One has used every opportunity over the past 4-5 years to castigate large swaths of our residents as "racist". Another recently attacked speakers at a meeting as "racist" and then embarked on an extended rant based on personal history. The third is serving under the cloud of a District Attorney investigation into possible illegal activities during the recent Council campaign. Two of these commissioners have become so activist as to directly contact HDC, laying out their views against the draft Housing Element, while also making it clear that they are Planning Commissioners.

Does this seem like the actions of people who are appointed to advise the Council - not usurp the Council's decision making powers?

I served this city as a Planning Commissioner for 14 years. I served with many people representing a variety of viewpoints and approaches. But I assure, you none of them would have taken such egregious positions or actions to undermine our city and its residents and City Council. Again, I urge you to consider the source - and reject their "advice".

Please approve the draft Housing Element tonight and forward it to the state for acceptance.

Karen Herrel
San Mateo resident since 1963

1551 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: General Plan Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:30 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: General Plan Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:51 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Cc: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Housing Element

Dear Mayor Lee and Council Members:

I have lived in San Mateo for 42 years and send my thanks to the planning staff and General Plan team for the extraordinary effort required to produce the Housing Element and respond to HCD comments. The plan is well written and clearly shows the responses to HCD comments.

Please approve the Housing Element on January 24, 2023 so San Mateo does not fall prey to the builder's remedy and the city maintains control of our zoning and construction. The staff report outlines in detail how the revised draft Housing Element implements all changes requested by HCD and complies with the applicable State laws.

I strongly disagree with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the Housing Element and their statements regarding the Element's compliance. The Planning Commission did not provide any useful recommendations to improve the Element.

The revised Housing Element (HE) substantially complies with the requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE. The HE includes identifies 9,934 units or 142% of the City’s required housing allocation of 7,015 units. The RHNA allocations can be met without overturning Measure Y.

1552 of 1732

2 Please remove the rental restrictions from the HE including the rental registry. The restrictions would invade privacy, reduce supply, punish good landlords, and remove property rights. The rental restrictions are not required and do not belong in the housing element. Please remove Policy H5.4.1 ‐ Establish tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB 1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases. It is not necessary for San Mateo to go beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
San Mateo

1553 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: [email protected]

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:41 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: [email protected]

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:26 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: [email protected]

Dear City Council,

I strongly support the current City Staff Housing Element plan, but with the removal of rental property restrictions. This does not belong in the same conversation as housing development and will seriously negatively impact small ma and pa property owners (and many retired) the most. How this got in there I do not know. It’s definitely gross government overreach.

If we do not adhere to this by January 31, 2023, developers can bypass our zoning code and general plan and create projects good for them, but not for our city, and we will have a real urban mess on our hands. The Planning Commission, who are not elected, intentions are self interest motivated and do not represent the hard work of City Staff and all the residents who provided input to help shape the Plan.

Here are some principles I hope you adhere to:

1554 of 1732

2 -Keep voter approved Measure Y in tact

-Protect existing single family zoning

-Listen to people who actually live in San Mateo

-Support smart balanced growth independent of developer interference

-Protect small ma and pa rental property owners who are the key engine for rental availability, from restrictions which will cripple them.

-Conduct outreach and get public input from rental housing providers before any future rental restrictions (and registry which could be used for further restrictions) are even proposed.

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

Gary Isoardi

1555 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:00 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Sean Lacson
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:42 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am submitting this letter in the hope that the City Council will make some difficult, but incredibly important decisions regarding the housing affordability of our city for years to come. My own family's ability to purchase a home in this city is dependent on your vote.

As it stands, the Planning Commission has voted to reject the Housing Element as it underdelivers on new housing stock and it does not “affirmatively further housing” by creating more equity in land use (e.g. increasing density west of El Camino.

Should the Council vote to pass the Housing Element, I ask that the Council encourage the city staff the prepare by:

1. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

2. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

1556 of 1732

2 3. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

Sincerely,
Sean Lacson

1557 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element Vote Tonight

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:29 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element Vote Tonight

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:00 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element Vote Tonight

Dear Council,
Please approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and Consultant. It will never be a document that will make all parties happy. Any changes do not guarantee HCD approval, and may actually open up the City to further scrutiny if the plan becomes too specific and the Council can not deliver what is being promised. Policy changes should be discussed and have public outreach versus being added at the 11th hour as a mitigating measures in hopes of getting the housing element through. I believe if there are issues with this version we will be allowed more time to address, versus being deemed out of compliance based on the passage of time. This version is an improvement over the previous version.

Regarding Measure Y if changes are to be made it should be discussed and put to the voters. Changes at Hillsdale Mall will likely result in a ballot measure as is common with shopping mall redevelopments. The most recent I can think of is Valco Mall in Cupertino. This will ensure the City of San Mateo is a great place to live for all, versus the need by a development group to push a projects across goal lines defined by themselves. We do not need to get rid of Measure Y for changes to happen in any of the plan areas including Hillsdale Mall.

I would also like to request Mayor Lee recuse herself from voting on this and other General Plan votes for a period of at least one year (or longer, if council decides) for the recent GoFundMe campaign launched unilaterally by Mayor Lee. I 100% support the cause but feel that this should have been done by the Council as a whole and run through a non-profit organization such as Samaritan House or other agreed upon not-for-profit entity. This was appearing to have been done by Supervisor Corzo for her recent advocacy for the flood victims in Belmont. Reviewing the top donors, a significant portion has come from the developer community Bohannon and Windy Hill both contributed $10K and Lane Partners

1558 of 1732

2 contributed $5K. A week ago, half the donations were from these developers. This creates and cast doubt for me as it will for many others as it appears Mayor Lee now appears to have a conflict in relation to these donations. GoFundMe also appears to have a 15% surcharge which I would prefer go to the victims.

Thank you,

Thomas Morgan
San Mateo

1559 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:40 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo's Housing Element requested actions

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:37 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo's Housing Element requested actions

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Elaine Salinger
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:13 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo's Housing Element requested actions

Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. We request the following actions:

1. Please submit to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Housing Element as presented by staff and written by the City's consultant. By doing this and thus "self certifying" what most consider to be a flawed Housing Element, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

By submission of the Housing element to HCD, the City is assumed to be compliant until someone (HCD or a judge) says otherwise. Because HCD must respond to San Mateo's submission within 60 days of submission (Approximately April 1), this strategy has two benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

2. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

1560 of 1732

2 4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

We also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

5. We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when they come.

I am writing as a representative of Citizens Climate Lobby with 200 members living in the City of San Mateo.

Sincerely

Elaine Salinger, San Mateo Chapter Leader

1561 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element comments

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element comments

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Karen S
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element comments

Dear City Council,

I am writing to ask you to please adopt the Housing Element as presented since we are able to meet all current state requirements with the current Housing Element.

Please carry out the will of the voters and follow through on Measure Y.

We are counting on you to represent us well and with integrity.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Karen Sid

1562 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:01 PM
Cc: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element comment

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element comment

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Maxine Terner
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element comment

In case you didn't see or get my previous email sent last night to clerk@city...

Clerk ‐ Please ensure that the Council sees these comments prior to their meeting on January 24th.

Dear new City Council members ‐ as you start your terms representing the residents and voters of San Mateo I urge you to place honoring the will of the voters, which is the core of our fragile democracy, and healing the current distrust of government as the meta‐values through which you consider all your decisions. Knowing most of you well, I am hopeful that this will be the case. Adopting the Housing Element tonight, which complies with State law and is in conformance with voter‐approved Measure Y, will be a place to start.

The City staff report states that the revised draft Housing Element implements all changes requested by HCD and is consistent with State law, as extensively documented in the proposed City Council resolution. It provides for 9,934 new housing units, greatly exceeding San Mateo's required housing allocation (RHNA) of 7,015 new units. All 9,934 housing units could be accommodated under the City’s existing land use and zoning designations which comply with Measure Y.

Adopting the Housing Element also makes San Mateo eligible, or with higher priority, for numerous sources of funding, as enumerated in the staff report. Not adopting the Housing Element places the City at risk for significant fines imposed by the State. The pros clearly outweigh the cons.

1563 of 1732

2 Of more concern is that San Mateo may lose the right to exercise local land use control over housing projects. Under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision in the Housing Accountability Act if a jurisdiction has a noncompliant housing element, the city must approve any housing development project, regardless of the local General Plan and Zoning requirements.

You know, and the voters will know, that not adopting the Housing Element which complies with all state requirements, is a backdoor effort to suppress the will of the voters and to give developers a blank check to override Measure Y. Please do not fall for the misleading rhetoric of the pro‐growth YIMBY extremists.

I urge you to adopt the Housing Element tonight.

Sincerely,
Maxine Terner

1564 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:41 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element.

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Tech| Housing
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650‐522‐7239| [email protected]

From: Kristen Watts‐Penny
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:29 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element.

Please adopt San Mateo’s 2023-2031 Housing Element.

1565 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element 2023-2031
Attachments: San Mateo City Council 1.24.23.docx

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element 2023‐2031

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Dianne Whitaker
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; ldiaz‐[email protected]; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element 2023‐2031

Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz-Nash, Councilmembers Hedges, Lorraine and Newsom –

I am submitting the attached document for tonight’s Special City Council Meeting regarding the City’s Housing Element.

Thank you for your service.

-Dianne

Dianne R. Whitaker, AIA
Dianne Whitaker Architect

1566 of 1732

Mayor Lee,
Deputy Major Diaz-Nash,
Council Members Hedges, Lorraine and Newsom
January 24, 2023

Housing Element Acceptance and Approval

California State Legislators are on a mission to remove more and more local control away from our cities regarding land use decisions.

Once size does not fit all.

Each Californian community is unique, with different existing conditions, challenges, and goals.

Please accept City staff’s recommendation by Approving the proposed Housing Element tonight, so that San Mateo is not found out of compliance by HCD, and therefore subject to the “builder’s remedy” contained within the 1990 Housing Accountability Act, allowing developers to bypass San Mateo’s Zoning Code and General Plan.

Thank You,

Dianne Whitaker
San Mateo

1567 of 1732

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: The Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: The Housing Element

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Teri Whitehair
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: The Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. I request the following actions:

1. Please submit to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Housing Element as presented by staff and written by the City's consultant. By doing so, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

2. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

3. If San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request

Sincerely

1568 of 1732

2 Teri Whitehair

Elders Action Network
EAN National Gathering Coordinator
Elders for Social Justice Co‐coordinator

The great work now is to carry out the transition from a period of human devastation of the earth to a period when humans would be present to the planet in a mutually beneficial manner.

Thomas Berry

1569 of 1732

From: Teri Whitehair
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: The Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:55:57 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. I request the following actions:

1. Please submit

to the California Housing and Community Development
Department (HCD), the Housing Element

as presented

by

staff and written by
the City's consultant.

By doing so, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and
other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

2. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

3. If San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request

Sincerely
Teri Whitehair
Elders Action Network
EAN National Gathering Coordinator
Elders for Social Justice Co-coordinator
The great work now is to carry out the transition from a period of human devastation of the earth to a period when humans would be present to the planet in a mutually beneficial manner.

Thomas Berry

1570 of 1732

From: Dianne Whitaker
To: Amourence Lee; [email protected]; Richard Hedges; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element 2023-2031
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:51:15 PM
Attachments: San Mateo City Council 1.24.23.docx
Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz-Nash, Councilmembers Hedges, Lorraine and Newsom –

I am submitting the attached document for tonight’s Special City Council Meeting regarding the City’s Housing Element.

Thank you for your service.

-Dianne

Dianne R. Whitaker, AIA
Dianne Whitaker Architect

1571 of 1732

From: Sean Lacson
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:42:27 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am submitting this letter in the hope that the City Council will make some difficult, but incredibly important decisions regarding the housing affordability of our city for years to come. My own family's ability to purchase a home in this city is dependent on your vote.

As it stands, the Planning Commission has voted to reject the Housing Element as it underdelivers on new housing stock and it does not “affirmatively further housing” by creating more equity in land use (e.g. increasing density west of El Camino.

Should the Council vote to pass the Housing Element, I ask that the Council encourage the city staff the prepare by:

1. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

2. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

3. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

Sincerely,
Sean Lacson

1572 of 1732

From:

To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:26:06 PM
Dear City Council,
I strongly support the current City Staff Housing Element plan, but withthe removal of rental property restrictions. This does not belong in the same conversation as housing development and will seriously negatively impact small ma and pa property owners (and many retired) the most. How this got in there I do not know. It’s definitely gross government overreach.

If we do not adhere to this by January 31, 2023, developers can bypassour zoning code and general plan and create projects good for them, but not for our city, and we will have a real urban mess on our hands.

The Planning Commission, who are not elected, intentions are self interest motivated and do not represent the hard work of City Staff and all the residents who provided input to help shape the Plan.

Here are some principles I hope you adhere to:
-Keep voter approved Measure Y in tact
-Protect existing single family zoning
-Listen to people who actually live in San Mateo
-Support smart balanced growth independent of developer interference -Protect small ma and pa rental property owners who are the key enginefor rental availability, from restrictions which will cripple them. -Conduct outreach and get public input from rental housing providersbefore any future rental restrictions (and registry which could be used for

further restrictions) are even proposed.

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

Gary Isoardi

1573 of 1732

From: Valerie Fox Carlos
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Please submit to HCD the "Housing Element" for reasons and information stated below Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:00:33 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, this is an important night that may impact

the
future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. We request the following actions:

1. Please submit

to the California Housing and Community Development
Department (HCD), the Housing Element

as presented

by

staff and written by
the City's consultant.

By doing this and thus "self certifying" what most consider to be a flawed Housing Element,
I

believe San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and
other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

By submission of the Housing element to HCD, the City is

assumed to be compliant
until someone

(HCD or a judge) says otherwise. Because HCD must respond to San Mateo's submission within 60 days of submission (Approximately April 1), this strategy has two benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

2. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

We also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

5. We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when they come.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request

Respectfully,
Valerie Fox Carlos

1574 of 1732

1575 of 1732

From: Karen S
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element comments
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:56:15 PM
Dear City Council,
I am writing to ask you to please adopt the Housing Element as presented since we are able to meet all current state requirements with the current Housing Element.

Please carry out the will of the voters and follow through on Measure Y.

We are counting on you to represent us well and with integrity.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Karen Sid

1576 of 1732

From: Maxine Terner
To: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element comment
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:55:45 PM
In case you didn't see or get my previous email sent last night to clerk@city...

Clerk - Please ensure that the Council sees these comments prior to their meeting on January 24th.

Dear new City Council members - as you start your terms representing the residents and voters of San Mateo I urge you to place honoring the will of the voters, which is the core of our fragile democracy, and healing the current distrust of government as the meta-values through which you consider all your decisions. Knowing most of you well, I am hopeful that this will be the case. Adopting the Housing Element tonight, which complies with State law and is in conformance with voter-approved Measure Y, will be a place to start.

The City staff report states that the revised draft Housing Element implements all changes requested by HCD and is consistent with State law, as extensively documented in the proposed City Council resolution. It provides for 9,934 new housing units, greatly exceeding San Mateo's required housing allocation (RHNA) of 7,015 new units. All 9,934 housing units could be accommodated under the City’s existing land use and zoning designations which comply with Measure Y.

Adopting the Housing Element also makes San Mateo eligible, or with higher priority, for numerous sources of funding, as enumerated in the staff report. Not adopting the Housing Element places the City at risk for significant fines imposed by the State. The pros clearly outweigh the cons.

Of more concern is that San Mateo may lose the right to exercise local land use control over housing projects. Under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision in the Housing Accountability Act if a jurisdiction has a noncompliant housing element, the city must approve any housing development project, regardless of the local General Plan and Zoning requirements.

You know, and the voters will know, that not adopting the Housing Element which complies with all state requirements, is a backdoor effort to suppress the will of the voters and to give developers a blank check to override Measure Y. Please do not fall for the misleading rhetoric of the pro-growth YIMBY extremists.

I urge you to adopt the Housing Element tonight.

Sincerely,
Maxine Terner

1577 of 1732

From: Ted McKinnon
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Housing Element Agenda Item
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:13:57 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
To any informed observer, the Housing Element of San Mateo’s General Plan, as presented at the Planning Commission meeting of January 12th, will not pass muster with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), leaving the City in substantial non-compliance with California state law.

My understanding is that the City Council intends on passing a resolution tonight (January 24th) recommending the City submit the Housing Element anyway. I’m personally unclear of the utility of doing this, whether it temporarily shields us from the Builder’s Remedy and so forth, so I won’t weigh in on that.

Whatever temporary measures are taken, for either substantial or for face-saving purposes, it’s clear that the serious work of affirmatively furthering fair housing, as the state mandates, is still before us.

Accordingly, I recommend the following.
· In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)

· Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

· Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

·
We also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

·
We ask that the City be fully committed to resolving these lawsuits, when they come.

Sincerely,

Ted McKinnon

1578 of 1732

From: William Cendak
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:57:13 PM
City Council members,
The residents of San Mateo provided comments and requested changes to the General Plan which the City staff implemented.

Tonight when the City staff presents the current Housing Element we implore you to accept it and move it forward.

Apparently the Planning Commission does not support the General Plan, is this a case of "the tail wagging the dog?"
I assumed the Planning Commission worked for the City Council and the residents of the city of San Mateo,
they appear out of touch with both.

The clock is ticking, as you drive past South San Francisco, Millbrae, and Burlingame and see the ugly new construction of housing is this what you foresee for San Mateo? Lord help me I hope not.

Thank you for attention to this urgent matter,
W. J. Cendak

1579 of 1732

From: Michael
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Council Meeting 1/24/23 Housing Element Approval Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:18:28 PM
Dear Council - Once again I find myself rather stunned that residents have to write in on something that should be ministerial after all of the staff, council, and community input, but here we are. Ignoring that entire process because Planning Commissioners Patel, Nugent and Ebneter once again feel they can legislate from their unelected positions would be the acme of irresponsibility, subjecting San Mateo to the "Builders Remedy", and perhaps more importantly, jeopardizing millions in funding due to a non-compliant housing element. Even recommending this, much less going all the way to the HCD suggesting they reject our housing element, should be grounds for their immediate removal for conduct detrimental to the City of San Mateo and dereliction of duty. We had a special council meeting to address literally this very issue within the last year. Apparently they did not get the message.

Unchecked bad behavior begets more such behavior. But, I digress.

You have a housing element that is substantially in compliance with HCD requirements, which is the product of a methodical process conducted by our competent and professional staff, consultants, and the community.

Your job tonight is simple - approve the housing element.

Sincerely - Michael Weinhauer

1580 of 1732

From: [email protected]
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: 1/24/2023 Council meeting - approve draft Housing Element Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:15:31 AM
Dear Council members,
Tonight you make a major decision on doing all in your power to keep local control of San Mateo's future or allow it to become a "builders remedy" free for all. I urge you to approve the draft Housing Element, as presented by staff, and forward it to the state for their acceptance.

As you know, City staff has worked hard to modify the original submission to respond to Sacramento's stated concerns. And they have succeeded. The staff report documents that the revised draft Housing Element implements all changes requested by HCD. The draft is consistent with state law. It provides for 7104 new units, meeting San Mateo's RHNA requirements, and on top of that, allows for a buffer of 2830 more units to assure the ability to comply with San Mateo's housing allocation. The element also acknowledges the development controls adopted by the voters in 2020 as Measure Y.

I know many are urging you to reject this draft as inadequate. As my mother liked to say, "consider the source". Are those you are hearing from people who will benefit from the imposition of the builders remedy? Or are these people whose livelihood depends on presenting positions opposed to what this housing element represents? Are these people who believe in housing at any cost (ignoring the need to step up affordable housing production), leaving San Mateo to deal with the negative impacts of market rate and luxury building that outpaces our infrastructure and natural resources? A particular word about the recommendation from the Planning Commission to reject this draft. It is truly unfortunate that only 3 commissioners attended that meeting. We deserved the opinion of all five. The council ended up with a "unanimous" decision from three commissioners who represent approaches which are possibly the most out of sync with most San Mateans. One has used every opportunity over the past 4-5 years to castigate large swaths of our residents as "racist". Another recently attacked speakers at a meeting as "racist" and then embarked on an extended rant based on personal history. The third is serving under the cloud of a District Attorney investigation into possible illegal activities during the recent Council campaign. Two of these commissioners have become so activist as to directly contact HDC, laying out their views against the draft Housing Element, while also making it clear that they are Planning Commissioners. Does this seem like the actions of people who are appointed to advise the Council - not usurp the Council's decision making powers?
I served this city as a Planning Commissioner for 14 years. I served with many people representing a variety of viewpoints and approaches. But I assure, you none of them would have taken such egregious positions or actions to undermine our city and its residents and City Council. Again, I urge you to consider the source - and reject their "advice".

Please approve the draft Housing Element tonight and forward it to the state for acceptance.

Karen Herrel
San Mateo resident since 1963

1581 of 1732

PUBLIC COMMENTS

RECEIVED DURING COUNCIL

MEETING

1582 of 1732

From: Louise A Duncalf
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: city council meeting
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 5:26:56 PM
PLEASE A[PPROVE HOUSING ELEMENT. LOUISE DUNCALF

1583 of 1732

From: ROBERT SELLERS
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: City Council Special
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:29:37 PM
What happened to city independence - I thought we were incorporated as the City of San Mateo, we are getting railroaded by communities that have a labor and contractor focus — please show some leadership and represent the City of San Mateo!!

1584 of 1732

From: ROBERT SELLERS
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Council Special Meeting
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:13:20 PM
Approve the plan - as bad as it is, it avoids the builder remedy

1585 of 1732

From: Scott Stoeckle
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:00:11 PM
As a San Mateo resident, at 2301 Clipper St., I am urging City Council to approve, the Housing Element, as prepared by city staff and two years of community meetings.

Thank you, Scott Stoeckle

Sent from Mail
for Windows

1586 of 1732

From: ROBERT SELLERS
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Special Council
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:48:01 PM
It seems that 7k housing is arbitrary number needs to be challenged - potential remedies are just that, potential. Why do we find ourselves in a reactive mode rather than being proactive with a comprehensive plan that is built by our the will of the community… I love a statistically relevant study comment for more affordable housing, please explain what that means and please provide a link for this study if you are placing this out as your foundation of decision.

1587 of 1732

From: ROBERT SELLERS
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Special Council
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:21:54 PM
Where do you get your growth numbers that support this unabated growth? Where do you have a quality of life provision? You relay on Bay Area metrics not San Mateo specific needs - you do realize that the micro climates of commerce and want to dilute our quality of life and become another Richmond. This one size fits all does not work - if your force it into this model it is destine to fail and yes we too will be another failed community.

1588 of 1732

2023
-
2031
Housing Element
City Council
January 24, 2023
Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Housing Manager
Zachary Dahl, Deputy Director
Community Development Department
1 1589 of 1732

Housing Element Team
City of San Mateo
• Zachary Dahl, Deputy Director
• Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Housing Manager
• Manira Sandhir , Planning Manager
• Sandra Council, Housing Manager
(retired)
• Julia Klein, Principal Planner
• Linda Ly, Associate Planner
• Nicholas Vu, Housing Specialist
Consultants
• Diana Elrod, Diana R. Elrod Consulting
• Nicholas Hamilton, Good City Co.
• Root Policy
• 21 Elements (San Mateo County
Planning Collaborative)

1590 of 1732

Tonight's Agenda and Presentation Overview
• Staff Presentation
• Housing Element Background
• Draft Housing Element Timeline and Revisions
• Sites Inventory Overview
• Revised Draft Housing Element Overview
• Public Comments and Responses
• Planning Commission Recommendation
• Next Steps
• Clarifying Questions
• Public Comment
• City Council Deliberation and Action

1591 of 1732

Housing Element Background
• Required Element of the General Plan
• Requires Certification by State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD)
• 6th Housing Element Cycle – 2023-2031
• Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• Bay Area – 441,176 units
• City of San Mateo – 7,015 units

1592 of 1732

City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Income
Category​​
Very Low​​
50% AMI​​
Low​​
80% AMI​​
Moderate​​
120% AMI​​
Above​​
Moderate
Income
Total​​
2023-31​
Allocation​ 1,777​​ 1,023​​ 1,175​​ 3,040​​ 7,015​​
AMI – Area Median Income
County of San Mateo AMI is $166,000 for a 4-person household

1593 of 1732

Draft Housing Element
Timeline and Revisions
• Housing Element Timeline
• HCD First Review Letter
• Past City Council Direction
• Overview of Housing Element
Revisions

1594 of 1732

Draft Housing Element Timeline
• April 6 Draft Housing Element Published
• April 6 – May 6 30-day Public Comment Period
• April 26 & May 3 Planning Commission Public Hearings
• May 23 City Council Public Hearing
• July 1 Updated Draft HE submitted to HCD
• September 28 HCD First Review Letter Received
• November 7 City Council Study Session

1595 of 1732

HCD First Review Letter
• HCD Review Letter included 91 comments
• Comments included consideration of comments made by organizations and individuals • Revisions in response to HCD Comments (Attachment 2, Exhibit B) • Each comment numbered and categorized with applicable HE section • City response
• Location of changes within Housing Element
• Comment areas include:
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
• Constraints Analysis
• Goals, Policies and Programs (GPPs)
• Sites Inventory

1596 of 1732

Past City Council Direction – May 23, 2022
Council provided direction for staff to proceed with submitting the Draft Housing Element to HCD with some additions:
• Evaluate minimum residential requirements in mixed-use zoning districts
• Prioritization of senior housing
• Evaluation of parking standards for sites near transit • Exploration of ways to support non-profits and faith-based organizations to produce affordable housing

1597 of 1732

Past City Council Direction – Nov. 7, 2022
City Council Study Session on HCD Review Letter
• Generally supported staff draft responses
• Provided direction for staff to make revisions necessary to address HCD comments
• Prioritize submitting Updated Housing Element to HCD by January 31, 2023 deadline

1598 of 1732

Key Housing Element Revisions
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• More information on development and the prioritization of contributing factors in the City
• More detail on fair housing legal cases and inquiries • Expanded data on changes in racial composition in the City • Enhanced discussion of special needs groups
• Greater analysis of R/ECAPs and RCAAs

1599 of 1732

Key Housing Element Revisions
Constraints Analysis
• More information on the City’s land use controls
• Which ones constrain/impact housing development
• For identified constraints, linked program(s) to address/reduce • Evaluated R3 open space and design review constraints • Updated Policies H1.8 and H1.13 accordingly
• Added additional information about the General Plan Update (GPU) and how Measure Y will be addressed as part of the GPU adoption process in 2023/24

1600 of 1732

Key Housing Element Revisions
Goals, Policies and Programs
• Updated and clarified timelines for various programs
• Moved up implementation targets for various programs to occur earlier in the cycle per HCD’s comments
• Added two new policies to Goal H1 (Production) and one new policy to Goal H4 (Promotion)
• Many of the policies and program measures under all five goals were revised to provide additional clarity, increase commitment and outline how they address identified constraints

1601 of 1732

Key Housing Element Revisions
Housing Sites Inventory
• Included more detail on pipeline projects
• Detailed narrative explaining each site individually and outlined basis for the realistic capacity calculation
• More information on affordable housing projects in the pipeline and proposed on City land
• Kiku Crossing and Bespoke (public parking lot adjacent to Talbot’s building)

1602 of 1732

Key Housing Element Revisions
Housing Sites Inventory (cont.)
• Updated narrative and methodology section for development on nonvacant sites
• Added background information on age/size of building demolished for recently entitled development, existing versus allowable floor area, etc. • Detailed descriptions of existing uses and maximum redevelopment potential
• New policy for outreach to owners of properties on the Sites Inventory

1603 of 1732

Sites Inventory Overview
• Statutory Requirements
• Methodology
• Realistic Capacity
• Non-Vacant Sites
• Pipeline Projects
• Accessory Dwelling Units

1604 of 1732

Sites Inventory Statutory Requirements
• Purpose of the sites inventory is to ensure there is enough land zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate RHNA allocation, plus a buffer
• It is not a list of all sites that may be developed; some identified sites will not be developed with housing, while some sites not identified in the inventory will be developed with housing
• The Housing Element’s policies and programs focus on
encouraging new housing production, increasing development feasibility and expanding new housing opportunities

1605 of 1732

Sites Inventory Methodology
• Sites were identified through a methodical review of individual parcels, primarily within the ten GPU study areas
• Initial vetting of site typologies approved by HCD
• Sites ranked as to likelihood of redevelopment, with"1" being least likely (sites with substantial constraints, location of chain retail, etc.) to "5", which include pipeline projects or with owner/developer interest • Other sites were included, primarily in the "4" category (for example, those with vacant uses, low FAR, older developments, etc.) • Met with developers to discern what they look for to redevelop sites

1606 of 1732

Sites Methodology (cont.)
• Reviewed zoned versus built density to determine assumptions • Continued revisions to the inventory mean some units/sites were removed while otherswere added
• Recent developments average well over 100% of zoned density because of density bonus
• Relatively low density of 50 du/acre results in high probability of projects utilizing density bonus and maximizing available density
• Using conservative estimate of 100% for larger sites, 50% for smaller sites; this approach, with evidence to support, confirmed by HCD

1607 of 1732

1608 of 1732

Multi-Family Residential Realistic Capacity
• Residential Development Approvals (2017-2022)
• 11 of 14 infill projects exceeded 100% of zoned density (50 du/ac) • Aggregate: 58.3 units/acre (112% of max density)
• Three outlier development projects with much lower densities than the infill housing projects (Avg. 18.2 du/ac)
• Specific site and use related restrictions - flood zone, located far away from transit, and/or being ownership instead of rental
• Residential Realistic Capacity:
• 100% of base zoned density for multi-family (R3, R4, R5) infill sites • 50 du/ac or 35 du/ac in accordance with base zoning
• For sites smaller than 0.5 acre, 50% of base density
• For sites similar to the outlier projects, density estimated at 18.2 du/ac.

1609 of 1732

Mixed-Use/Commercial Realistic Capacity
• Mixed-Use/Commercial Approvals (2017-2022)
• 20 of 25 projects included residential uses
• 9 projects 100% residential and 11 mixed-use
• 11 projects exceeded 100% of base density
• Avg density was 49 units/acre (98% of base zoned density) • Mixed-Use/Commercial Realistic Capacity
• State guidance: 80% of trend, which results in 39 du/ac • For mixed-use sites, potential density estimated at 30 to 35 du/ac • For sites smaller than 0.5 acre, 50% of base density

1610 of 1732

Non-Vacant Sites
• Guidance from HCD articulates the factors
to look for in determining redevelopment
potential
• "Gold standard" is owner or developer
interest
• Things to consider: age of development;
local development trends; market
considerations; land value
information; known leases; degree of
underutilization, etc.

1611 of 1732

Non-Vacant Sites (cont.)
• Any individual factor cannot be taken alone, but rather in the context of the market and development trends
• For example, presence or absence of long leases is not, by itself, determinative
• Current owner disinterest does not necessarily prevent inclusion on the Sites Inventory
• Must consider the extent to which residential is highest and best use, plus experience with development on similar sites in the City and regionally

1612 of 1732

Pipeline Housing Projects
• Projects that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA period (after June 30, 2022) can be credited toward meeting the City’s RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. • New development currently in the pipeline:
• 640 new housing units under construction
• 1,580 new housing units approved
• 680 new housing units under review
• The total pipeline project units is 2,915 (42% of the City’s total RHNA)

1613 of 1732

Accessory Dwelling Units
• ADU/JADU Annual Permit Data – four-year avg
*Updated final numbers including December 2022
• Estimate of 55 new ADUs annually
• 440 new ADUs estimated over the eight-year cycle
• Using very conservative assumptions to estimate ADU affordability mix • 5% Very Low, 30% Low, 50% Moderate and 15% Above Moderate • Both 2021 and 2022 exceed the annual estimate of 55 ADU permits • Updated ADU programs to support achievement of this production target 2019 2020 2021 2022 4-Year Ave.

Applications Submitted 56 94 94 115* 90
Permits Issued 44 47 66 84* 60

1614 of 1732

Revised Draft Housing Element
Overview
• General Plan Update
• Measure Y
• City Properties and Funding
• Missing Middle Housing
• AFFH
• Goals, Policies and Programs

1615 of 1732

General Plan Update
• General Plan Update process started in 2018, with target for adoption by the end of 2023
• Draft Land Use Map will significantly increase densities • Increasing densities from 35-50 du/ac to 100-200 du/ac • Up to 21,900 new housing units over next 20 years
• Over 90 percent of Sites Inventory sites are within a Study Area and will have an updated land use designation with increased base density

1616 of 1732

1617 of 1732

General Plan Update – Measure Y
• GPU facilitating discussion to build consensus around a path forward with Measure Y
• All elements of the GPU that exceed Measure Y will require voter approval before they can take effect
• Community input, and ultimately City Council direction, will guide how to best address the elements of the GPU that go beyond the Measure Y • An initiative that updates and/or modifies Measure Y could be placed on the ballot in 2024
• Policy H1.21 added to support this community discussion and highlight the non- governmental constraint on housing production posed by Measure Y

1618 of 1732

City Properties and Funding
• 480 E. 4th Ave (Kiku Crossing) –225 BMR units; to be completed in spring 2024 • 445 S. B St (Bespoke) – 60 units in a mixed-use project; public-private partnership with developer; approval target is 23/24; construction in 25/26 • Housing Fund (approx. $5.8M)
• Commercial Linkage Fee
• 20% of general fund property tax revenues from former Redevelopment Area (RDA) sites • Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), Below Market Rate (BMR) fractional and in-lieu fees, and other miscellaneous housing funds
• Generate approximately $26M over next eight years (estimate) • Policy H1.2 - Utilize Public Funding and Properties for New Affordable Housing

1619 of 1732

Kiku Crossing Funding Sources
Funding Source Funding Amount % of Total Funding
City Funds $7,500,000 4.4%
County Funds $5,200,000 3.0%
HEART $1,800,000 1.1%
Midpen Sponsor Loan $5,000,000 2.9%
Deferred Developer Fee $2,000,000 1.2%
Tax Credit Equity $74,800,000 43.8%
State Funds (CALHFA) $73,500,000 43.1%
Miscellaneous $790,000 0.5%
Total $170,590,000* 100%
City Land Value (1 acre) Approximately $9,700,000
*Approximate cost per unit: $758,177 (excludes land costs)

1620 of 1732

Missing Middle Housing
• Missing Middle housing: small to medium-scale development such as duplexes, triplexes, and 4-10 unit projects
• Missing Middle Housing and constraints to development a key City priority • Policies and programs focus on reducing development standard constraints and costs, expanding opportunities and streamlining the development review • Policy H1.4 Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Unit Development • Policy H1.6 Streamline Housing Application Review
• Policy H1.7 Update Zoning Code Development Standards
• Policy H1.8 Adopt Objective Design Standards
• Policy H1.13 Encourage Development of Missing Middle

1621 of 1732

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
• AB 686 requires public agencies to provide AFFH analysis beginning January 1, 2019. Must include:
• Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity,
• Segregation and integration
• Disparities in access to opportunity,
• Disproportionate housing needs and displacement risks, and • Racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
• Must “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation”

1622 of 1732

AFFH (cont.)
• Challenges identified:
• Racial/ethnic minority populations disproportionately impacted by poverty, overcrowding, cost burdens and
homelessness;
• Northeast areas of the City most impacted; and
• Discrimination complaints based on disability and race.

1623 of 1732

AFFH (cont.)
• City’s approach to address:
• New programs to reduce barriers to housing in high
opportunity areas;
• Promoting housing supply;
• Conserving/improving assets in areas of poverty; and
• Protecting residents from displacement.

1624 of 1732

AFFH (cont.)
• Revisions include more narrative on local trends and needs, as well as prioritization of contributing factors
• Inventory analysis demonstrates that the proposed affordable housing sites are not in areas with existing concentrations of lower income households
• The inventory therefore is not expected to increase segregation • Further, the location of affordable units in the inventory will provide lower income households with access to transit and services

1625 of 1732

Other Required Components
• Existing and Potential Housing Resources
• Climate Change Context and Energy Conservation
Requirements
• Prior Housing Element Review and Accomplishments
• Housing units – 2,573 units completed until 7th year
• 81.3% of the City’s 5th Cycle RHNA (3,164 units)
• Adopted Commercial Linkage fee and increased inclusionary Requirements to 15%
• Process Improvements and Code Amendments

1626 of 1732

Goals, Policies, and Programs
• Goal 1 – Production- Production of new housing at all income levels, but especially affordable housing. Twenty-one Policies
• Goal 2 – Preservation- Preserve existing housing that is affordable to lower- and middle-income residents. Six Policies
• Goal 3 – Protection - Protect current residents to prevent displacement. Seven Policies
• Goal 4 – Promotion- Promote social resilience through public education and community outreach to make information more available and accessible. Five Policies
• Goal 5 – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing- Address issues of fair housing, equity and access while reinforcing that affirmatively furthering fair housing is both a stand- alone priority and inseparable from achieving the other HE goals. Fourteen Policies

1627 of 1732

GOAL H1: Production of new housing at all income
levels, with a focus on affordable housing
• Utilize public funds and properties to build more affordable units • Support ADU production through regional collaboration, promotion, availability of resources and streamlined review
• Encourage housing development through Zoning Code amendments to reduce constraints, minimum densities for mixed-use, updated policies for missing middle housing, and simplified review processes • New policy to coordinate with water and sewer providers and • New policy to address Measure Y constraints and increase housing capacity (21,000+ new units) by supporting adoption of General Plan Update

1628 of 1732

GOAL H2: Preservation of existing housing that is
affordable to lower- and middle-income residents
• Prevent conversion of existing affordable units from becoming market rate by renegotiating agreements
• Use public funds to acquire units or require developers to replace lost units • Indirectly preserve affordable housing by improving the quality of life of residents to prevent displacement
• Incentivize upgrades to low-income homes through rehabilitation, accessibility modifications, or energy efficiency changes
• Enable capital improvements and resiliency projects that protect against threats posed by climate change

1629 of 1732

GOAL H3: Protection of current residents to
prevent displacement
• Prevent gentrification and displacement through protection of lower-income residents
• Address homelessness and increase shelter capacity that can protect housing insecure individuals and families from having to leave the City entirely • Affirmatively fund and support outreach services for at-risk renters and/or those facing fair housing challenges
• Prioritize special needs tenants in below market rate units • Explore a rental registry to track rents and monitor trends in evictions • Undertake several actions to affirmatively further fair housing

1630 of 1732

GOAL H4: Promotion of community engagement
and public outreach
• Increase access and awareness of housing programs through use of new technology as part of a robust and proactive public outreach strategy • Provide education and information on regulatory requirements and specific programs and protections offered locally, regionally, and by the state to improve access to housing for all income groups and special needs communities
• Support countywide rental waitlist to centralize occupancy of BMR units • Conduct public outreach in a diversity of methods and forms to reach all residents and program beneficiaries to ensure those in need can find supportive programs and service providers
• New policy added to conduct direct outreach to owners/developers of properties on the Sites Inventory

1631 of 1732

Goal H5: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• AFFH Fair Housing Action - cross references items that are interwoven with the Housing Plan’s other four goals, policies, and programs. • Actions address issues focused on groups that have disparate housing needs in the City, concentrated in census tracts that have high rates of poverty. Example – Hispanic community, and single-female heads of household. • Persons with disabilities also experience housing discrimination due to low economic opportunity and failure of landlords to provide reasonable accommodations. Actions identified have specific quantified objectives to reach the target households.

1632 of 1732

Revised Draft Housing Element Timeline
• December 30 Revised Draft Housing Element Published
• Dec. 30 – Jan. 9 Public Comment Period (7 days required) • January 10 Planning Commission Public Hearing
• January 24 City Council Public Hearing
• January 31 Submit Adopted HE submitted to HCD

1633 of 1732

Public Comments Received
• Received 130 written public comments since December 30 th, including comments received during the public review period
• Comment letters from groups/organizations
• Housing Action Coalition
• Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
• BeresfordHillsdale Neighborhood Association
• Summary of comments
• Concerns about feasibility of properties on Sites Inventory • Concerns about too much housing being allowed
• Concerns about the spread/location of new housing construction • Expressed support for Housing Element adoption

1634 of 1732

Revisions in Response to Public Comments
• Policy H1.2 - Utilize Public Funding and Properties for New Affordable Housing • (new) program to support affordable housing on the City owned parking lot at 4th and Railroad as part of the public-private partnership (Bespoke project) • (new) program to support affordable housing development on the City owned property at 4142 El Camino Real
• The City owned parking lot at 5th and B (adjacent to Ravioli House) is not on the Sites Inventory and not anticipated for development this cycle. • Policy H1.7 - Update Zoning Code Development Standards • (new) Amend the Zoning Code to make residential uses permitted in C2, C3, E1 and E2 for non-R Overlay areas (currently a special use) • Add Supplemental Table in Appendix C to clarify/consolidate evidence to support development feasibility of each site in the Sites Inventory

1635 of 1732

Site Specific Response to Public Comments
Site Total
Units
HAC Concern Staff Response
Bridgepoi
nte
672 Long-term leases for existing use s
and/or parking; do not show
discontinuance of uses.

Leases are not the only factor in determining sites as they can be bought out. Significantly underutilized site with surface parking lots. GPU and update of Bridgepointe Specific Plan would increase density and housing feasibility. Detailed justification provided in Appendix C.

Hillsdale
Mall Sites
1,383 Measure Y constraint would limit
development of this housing.

Letter of owner interest factors in existing Measure Y constraints; Added detailed justification in Appendix C; Reduced units since first Draft Housing Element based on owner input.

The
Atrium
245 Requires special use permit for
residential uses in Executive
Office (E1) or rezoning.

Owner interest in redevelopment (2022) due to large parking lot and two -story office building; significantly underutilized site; A new program to convert residential uses from special uses to permitted uses in C2/C3/E1/E2 zones is proposed (Policy H1.7) .

Borel
Square
243 Long-term leases for existing
uses.

Letter of owner interest; significantly underutilized site with surface parking lots, one -story development, and partially vacant.

Elk’s and
Shriner’s
268 Expressions of interest do not
constitute substantial evidence
for this and other similar sites.

Preliminary inquiries from owners/representatives; bolstered by the nature of the site which is a significantly underutilized site with older one -story buildings and large surface parking lots; Nearby projects demonstrate ability to redevelop these two sites; Maintaining (e) use does not preclude addition of new housing on site.

Olympic
Plaza
402 Grocery store use expected to
continue; Mixed -use would lower
density.

Preliminary conversations between owner and the City’s Housing Manager regarding potential for redevelopment. Significantly underutilized site with surface parking and 1 -2 story older building stock. Patterns of development in City show maximization of density; Maintaining (e) grocery store use does not preclude addition of new housing on site.

Sites AN 28 City-owned site should have a
concrete plan for development of
housing or should be
consolidated with neighboring
use.

Typo regarding APN number of the site. Underutilized site adjacent to City land at 4142 El Camino Real. City to explore partnership opportunities with adjacent property owners, including at 4100 El Camino Real, to develop housing at these sites. A new program to enable consolidation and development at this site is proposed (Policy H1.2).

1636 of 1732

Supplemental Sites Inventory Table

1637 of 1732

Planning Commission Discussion
• Expressed concerns about the sites inventory and methodology • Realistic capacity calculation not realistic
• Lack of substantial evidence to support housing development feasibility on many of the sites
• Goals, Policies and Programs not adequately revised to address HCD’s comments
• Lack of significant commitment for implementation or measurable metrics
• Does not fully meet AFFH requirements

1638 of 1732

Planning Commission Recommendation
• Recommend that the City Council not adopt the Revised Draft Housing Element (voted 3-0 with two commissioners absent)
• The Sites Inventory does not include substantial evidence to demonstrate realistic capacity and housing development feasibility for all of the identified opportunity sites
• The Fair Housing Plan does not fully address all Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements
• The Housing Element does not adequately address the City’s constraints to housing production necessary to meet its RHNA
• The goals, policies and programs have not been sufficiently updated to address HCD comments

1639 of 1732

Next Steps
• Receive public comments and take action on Housing
Element
• Action to adopt would include findings that the Housing Element is substantially compliant with State law
• Following adoption, Housing Element would be submitted to HCD by the January 31, 2023
• HCD has 60-day statutory review period to either certify or return with comments

1640 of 1732

Loss of Local Control “Builder’s Remedy”
• Housing elements are required to comply with current State housing element law by January 31, 2023
• HCD is no longer providing 120-day grace period to housing elements • A jurisdiction without an adopted sixth cycle housing element is at risk of being deemed out of compliance
• Subject to loss of local zoning and land use control. • Development applications could utilize the “Builder’s Remedy” provision in the HAA, (Government Code Section 65589.5).
• Local adoption, not HCD certification, is the key steprequired for a housing element to be found substantially compliant per state law.

1641 of 1732

Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution to approve a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element for the Sixth Housing Cycle
(2023-2031) that is compliant with state law, provides a plan for at least 7,015 new housing units and affirmatively furthers fair housing, and determine that adoption of the Housing Element is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act, based on the listed findings and including the staff recommended revisions.

1642 of 1732

Highest
Resource
HighestThank You!

1643 of 1732

Highest
Resource
HighestClarification Questions

1644 of 1732

Highest
Resource
HighestPublic Comments

1645 of 1732

Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution to approve a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element for the Sixth Housing Cycle
(2023-2031) that is compliant with state law, provides a plan for at least 7,015 new housing units and affirmatively furthers fair housing, and determine that adoption of the Housing Element is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act, based on the listed findings and including the staff recommended revisions.

1646 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
Section 65583
The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

See below for details.

The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.

See below for details
The element shall contain all of the following:
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include all of the following:

Housing needs –see Appendix A, Needs
Analysis
Resources – see Appendix C, Housing
Resources
Constraints –see Appendix B, Constraints

1647 of 1732

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(a)(1) An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections Appendix A, pp H-A-9 through H-A-22 (a)(1) A quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low income households, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 50105 and Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. These existing and projected needs shall include the locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very low income households allotted under Section 65584 that qualify as extremely low income households. The local agency may either use available census data to calculate the percentage of very low income households that qualify as extremely low income households or presume that 50 percent of the very low income households qualify as extremely low income households. The number of extremely low income households and very low income households shall equal the jurisdiction’s allocation of very low income households pursuant to Section 65584.

Appendix A, pp H-A-9 through H-A-22; for ELI
data, see H-A-22 et seq.
(a)(2) An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay,
Appendix A, H-A-23 through H-A-31; for
overpayment see H-A-43 et seq.
(a)(2) housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and Appendix A, H-A-43 et seq. (a)(2) housing stock condition. Appendix A, H-A-36 et seq.

1648 of 1732

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(a)(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Note: Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory.

See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
For detail on individual sites, nonvacant site
analysis and relationship to constraints, etc.,
see Appendix C, pp H-C-12 et seq.

For AFFH analysis of inventory, see Appendix
D, H-D-72 et seq.
(a)(4)(A) The identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7), except that each local government shall identify a zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.

Appendix B, H-B-39 through H-B-42; see also
base document’s Policy H3.7, page H-80
(a)(4)(A) If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing element. The local government may identify additional zones where emergency shelters are permitted with a conditional use permit.

Appendix B, H-B-39 through H-B-42; see also
base document’s Policy H3.7, page H-80
(a)(4)(A) The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.

Appendix B, H-B-39 through H-B-42; see also
base document’s Policy H3.7, page H-80

1649 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(a)(4)(A) Emergency shelters may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective standards that include all of the following:
(i) The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility. (ii) Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.
(iii) The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas. (iv) The provision of onsite management.
(v) The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart.
(vi) The length of stay.
(vii) Lighting.
(viii) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.

Appendix B, H-B-39 through H -B-42;
see also base document’s Policy H3.7,
page H-80
(a)(4)(B) The permit processing, development, and management standards applied under this paragraph shall not be deemed to be discretionary acts within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).

Appendix B, H-B-39 through H -B-42;
see also base document’s Policy H3.7,
page H-80

1650 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(a)(4)(C) A local government that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department the existence of one or more emergency shelters either within its jurisdiction or pursuant to a multijurisdictional agreement that can accommodate that jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) may comply with the zoning requirements of subparagraph (A) by identifying a zone or zones where new emergency shelters are allowed with a conditional use permit.

Appendix B, H-B-39 through H-B-42; see
also base document’s Policy H3.7, page H-
80 (a)(4)(D) A local government with an existing ordinance or ordinances that comply with this paragraph shall not be required to take additional action to identify zones for emergency shelters.

The housing element must only describe how existing ordinances, policies, and standards are consistent with the requirements of this paragraph.

Appendix B, H-B-39 through H-B-42; see
also base document’s Policy H3.7, page H-
80 (a)(5) An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and [Note: The types of housing identified in Section 65583(c)(1) include multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.]
See Constraints, Appendix B. For detail,
see below

1651 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(a)(5) for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), Appendix B, H-B-37 et seq. (a)(5) including land use controls, Appendix B, H-B-5 through H-B-11 (a)(5) site improvements, Appendix B, H-B-18 through H-B-19 (a)(5) fees and other exactions required of developers, Appendix B, H-B-31 though H-B-36 (a)(5) local processing and permit procedures, Appendix B, H-B-20 through H-B-31 (a)(5) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584
Base document Policies H1.1 through
H1.21, especially Policies H1.3, H1.4, H1.6,
H1.7, H1.13, H1.18
(a)(5) and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7).

Appendix B, H-B-38, and base document
policies H1.14, H4.3, H4.4 H5.1.1, H5.1.2,
H5.2.1, H5.2.2, H5.2.3, H5.4.1, H5.4.2,
H5.4.3, and H5.4.4

1652 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(a)(6) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing.

Appendix B, H-B-46 through H-B-55, and
base document policies H1.9, H1.10 and
H1.21
(a)(7) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the (a)(7) elderly; Appendix A, H-A-23 et seq. and H-A-55 et seq.
(a)(7) persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code;
Appendix A, H-A-56 through H-A-59
(a)(7) large families; Appendix A, H-A-53 et seq.
(a)(7) farmworkers; Appendix A, H-A-66 et seq.
(a)(7) families with female heads of households; Appendix A, H-A-54 et seq. (A)(7) And families and persons in need of emergency shelter. Appendix A, H-A-59 through H-A-65

1653 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(a)(7) The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period, the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a year- round and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go unused on an average monthly basis within a one-year period, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions.

Appendix A, H-A-59 through H-A-65; see
also Appendix B, H-B-39 through H-B-42
(a)(7) The need for emergency shelter may be reduced by the number of supportive housing units that are identified in an adopted 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness and that are either vacant or for which funding has been identified to allow construction during the planning period.

Appendix A, H-A-59 through H-A-65; see
also Appendix B, H-B-39 through H-B-42
(a)(7) An analysis of special housing needs by a city or county may include an analysis of the need for frequent user coordinated care housing services.

N/A
(a)(8) An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. Cities and counties are encouraged to include weatherization and energy efficiency improvements as part of publicly subsidized housing rehabilitation projects. This may include energy efficiency measures that encompass the building envelope, its heating and cooling systems, and its electrical system.

Base document, H-48 and H-49, and policy
H2.3

1654 of 1732

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(a)(9) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low- income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. “Assisted housing developments,” for the purpose of this section, shall mean multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section 65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant Program, or local in-lieu fees. “Assisted housing developments” shall also include multifamily rental units that were developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing program or used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915.

Base document, H-24 through H-27;
complete list of developments is in
Appendix A, Attachment 2
(a)(9)(A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development by project name and address, the type of governmental assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality’s low- income housing stock in each year during the 10-year period. For purposes of state and federally funded projects, the analysis required by this subparagraph need only contain information available on a statewide basis.

Appendix A, Attachment 2
(a)(9)(B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace the units that could change from low-income use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments. This cost analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately for each five-year period and does not have to contain a project-by-project cost estimate.

Base document, H-24 through H-27

1655 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(a)(9)(C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit corporations known to the local government that have legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing developments.

Base document, H -24 through H-27
(a)(9)(D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs that can be used to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted housing developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but not limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program funds, tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency of the community, and administrative fees received by a housing authority operating within the community. In considering the use of these financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall identify the amounts of funds under each available program that have not been legally obligated for other purposes and that could be available for use in preserving assisted housing developments.

Base document, H -24 through H-27
(b) (1) A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

Goals, policies and programs,
including AFFH: base document, H -
71 through H-87
Quantified objectives: base
document, H-88 through H-91
(2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the community’s ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of housing units by income category, including extremely low income, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five -year time period.

Quantified objectives: base
document, H-88 through H -91

1656 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c) A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element
Goals, policies and programs, including
AFFH: base document, H-71 through H-87
(c) through the administration of land use and development controls, Policies H1.1 through H1.21 (c) the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, Policies H1.3, H1.4, H1.6, H1.7, H1.13, H1.18, and others
(c) the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available, Policy H1.2 and H2.1 (c) and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderate-income housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code).

Policy H1.2 and H2.1

1657 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall do all of the following:
(c)(1) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Section 65584.09.

No sites need to be rezoned in order to
accommodate the RHNA allocation
(c)(1) Sites shall be identified as needed to affirmatively further fair housing For AFFH analysis of inventory, see
Appendix D, H-D-72 et seq.
(c)(1) and to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, See base document programs, H -71
through H-87; see also discussion in
Constraints, Appendix B, beginning on
H-B-5
(c)(1) factory-built housing, Appendix B, H-B-44

1658 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c)(1) mobilehomes, Appendix B, H-B-44
(c)(1) housing for agricultural employees, Appendix B, H-B-43 (c)(1) supportive housing, Appendix B, H-B-42
(c)(1) single-room occupancy units, Appendix B, H-B-45; and base document H- 44 (c)(1) emergency shelters, Appendix B, H-B-39 et seq. (c)(1) and transitional housing. Appendix B, H-B-42

1659 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c)(1)(A) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, for jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element planning period pursuant to Section 65588, shall be completed no later than three years after either the date the housing element is adopted pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 65585 or the date that is 90 days after receipt of comments from the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65585, whichever is earlier, unless the deadline is extended pursuant to subdivision (f). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with this article within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.

No sites need to be rezoned in order to
accommodate the RHNA allocation
(c)(1)(B) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2. The identification of sites shall include all components specified in Section 65583.2. Note: Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory and conformance with subdivision (h).

No sites need to be rezoned in order to
accommodate the RHNA allocation

1660 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c)(1)(C) Where the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for farmworker housing, the program shall provide for sufficient sites to meet the need with zoning that permits farmworker housing use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of the development of farmworker housing for low- and very low income households.

Base document implementation plan,
Policy H1.17
(c)(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households.

Base document Policies H1.1 through
H1.21
(c)(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels
Base document Policies H1.1 through
H1.21, especially Policies H1.3, H1.4, H1.6,
H1.7, H1.13, H1.18
(c)(3) and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.

Appendix B, H-B-38, and base document
policies H1.14, H4.3, H4.4 H5.1.1, H5.1.2,
H5.2.1, H5.2.2, H5.2.3, H5.4.1, H5.4.2,
H5.4.3, and H5.4.4

1661 of 1732

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c)(3) Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.

Appendix B, H-B-42 and base document
policy H1.15
(c)(3)Supportive housing, as defined in Section 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as provided in Article 11 (commencing with Section 65650).

Appendix B, H-B-42 and base document
policy H1.15
(c)(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private action.

Base document Policies H2.1, H2.2, H2.4,
H2.6
(c)(5) Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.

AFFH policies in base document, H5.1.1
through H5.4.5
(c)(6) Preserve for lower income households the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a).

Base document policy H2.2

1662 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c)(6) The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available.

Base document, H-24 through H-27 and
policy H2.2
(c)(6) The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. Base document, H-24 through H-27 and policy H2.2
(c)(7) Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2.\
Base document policies H1.4 and H5.1.3
(c)(8) Include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals.

For responsible parties, including AFFH:
base document, pages H-71 through H-87
Consistency with the general plan: base
document, page H-19

1663 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c)(9) Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.

See Appendix F in its entirety, and the base
document for a summary (H-50 through H-
60)
(c)(10)(A) Affirmatively further fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include all of the following components:

See Appendix D in its entirety
(c)(10)(A)(i) A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction Appendix D, H-D-10 through H-D-15 (c)(10)(A)(i) and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity.

Appendix D, H-D-16 through H-D-23
(c)(10)(A)(ii) An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends,
Appendix D, H-D-24 through H-D-49
(c)(10)(A)(ii)racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, Appendix D, H-D-41 through H-D-49

1664 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c)(10)(A)(ii) disparities in access to opportunity, Appendix D, H-D-50 through H-D-56 (c)(10)(A)(ii) and disproportionate housing needs, Appendix D, H-D-57 though H-D-71 (c)(10)(A)(ii) including displacement risk. Appendix D, H-D-67 through H-D-71 (c)(10)(A)(ii) The analysis shall identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and needs, both within the jurisdiction.

See Appendix D in its entirety, as this
information is woven throughout
(c)(10)(A)(ii) and comparing the jurisdiction to the region in which it is located, based on race and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2) and Section 65008.

See Appendix D in its entirety, as this
information is woven throughout
(c)(10)(A)(iii) An assessment of the contributing factors, including the local and regional historical origins
Appendix D, H-D-6 through H-D-15
(c)(10)(A)(iii) and current policies and practices, for the fair housing issues identified under clauses (i) and (ii).

Appendix D, H-D-16 through H-D-23

1665 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c)(10)(A)(iv) An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in clause (iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance, Appendix D, H-D-14 et seq.
(c)(10)(A)(iv) and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved.

AFFH policies are located in the base
document, policies H5.1.1 through H5.4.5
(c)(10)(A)(v) Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies
AFFH policies H5.1.1 through H5.1.3
(c)(10)(A)(v) and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, AFFH policies H5.2.1 through H5.2.3 (c)(10)(A)(v) as well as place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing,
AFFH policies H5.3.1 through H5.3.3
(c)(10)(A)(v) and protecting existing residents from displacement. AFFH policies H5.4.1 through H5.4.5

1666 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c)(10)(B) A jurisdiction that completes or revises an assessment of fair housing pursuant to Subpart A (commencing with Section 5.150) of Part 5 of Subtitle A of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as published in Volume 80 of the Federal Register, Number 136, page 42272, dated July 16, 2015, or an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice in accordance with the requirements of Section 91.225 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect before August 17, 2015, may incorporate relevant portions of that assessment or revised assessment of fair housing or analysis or revised analysis of impediments to fair housing into its housing element.

N/A
(c)(10)(C) The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to housing elements due to be revised pursuant to Section 65588 on or after January 1, 2021.

See above
(d)(1) A local government may satisfy all or part of its requirement to identify a zone or zones suitable for the development of emergency shelters pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional agreement, with a maximum of two other adjacent communities, that requires the participating jurisdictions to develop at least one year- round emergency shelter within two years of the beginning of the planning period.

N/A
(d)(2) The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new shelter capacity to each jurisdiction as credit toward its emergency shelter need, and each jurisdiction shall describe how the capacity was allocated as part of its housing element.

N/A

1667 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory ProvisionsGOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE (d)(2) The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new shelter capacity to each jurisdiction as credit toward its emergency shelter need, and each jurisdiction shall describe how the capacity was allocated as part of its housing element.

N/A
(d)(3) Each member jurisdiction of a multijurisdictional agreement shall describe in its housing element all of the following:

N/A
(d)(3)(A) How the joint facility will meet the jurisdiction’s emergency shelter need. (d)(3)(B) The jurisdiction’s contribution to the facility for both the development and ongoing operation and management of the facility.
(d)(3)(C) The amount and source of the funding that the jurisdiction contributes to the facility.

N/A
(d)(4) The aggregate capacity claimed by the participating jurisdictions in their housing elements shall not exceed the actual capacity of the shelter.

N/A
(e) Except as otherwise provided in this article, amendments to this article that alter the required content of a housing element shall apply to both of the following: [Note that this provision is applicable to AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022), which amended Section 65583(a)(4). Jurisdictions adopting their housing element after January 1, 2023 should describe why this amendment is not applicable to them.]

1668 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(1) A housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when a city, county, or city and county submits a draft to the department for review pursuant to Section 65585 more than 90 days after the effective date of the amendment to this section.

N/A
(2) Any housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when the city, county, or city and county fails to submit the first draft to the department before the due date specified in Section 65588 or 65584.02.

N/A
(f) – (j): Not applicable N/A
Section 65583.1(a)
(a) The Department of Housing and Community Development, in evaluating a proposed or adopted housing element for substantial compliance with this article, … may also allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units based on the number of accessory dwelling units developed in the prior housing element planning period whether or not the units are permitted by right, the need for these units in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors, as determined by the department.

Base document H-39 et seq.

1669 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(b) Sites that contain permanent housing units located on a military base undergoing closure or conversion as a result of action pursuant to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526), the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), or any subsequent act requiring the closure or conversion of a military base may be identified as an adequate site if the housing element demonstrates that the housing units will be available for occupancy by households within the planning period of the element. No sites containing housing units scheduled or planned for demolition or conversion to nonresidential uses shall qualify as an adequate site.

N/A
Note: If communities are using the provisions of Section 65583.1(c), which allow RHNA credit for conversion of non-affordable to affordable housing and for preservation of existing affordable housing at risk of loss, the applicable provisions need to be added to this table.

N/A
Section 65583.2
(a) A city’s or county’s inventory of land suitable for residential development pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 shall be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with paragraph (10) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583,
Base document methodology discussion, H-27
through H-44
(a) that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584. As used in this section, “land suitable for residential development” includes all of the following sites that meet the standards set forth in subdivisions (c) and (g):

See below

1670 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(a)(1) Vacant sites zoned for residential use. See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53, as
well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.
(a)(2) Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development. See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53, as
well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.
(a)(3) Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county
See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C,
Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53, as
well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.
(a)(4) Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site, as necessary, rezoned for, to permit residential use, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.

See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C,
Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53, as
well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.
(b) The inventory of land shall include all of the following:

1671 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(b)(1) A listing of properties by assessor parcel number. See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53
(b)(2) The size of each property listed pursuant to paragraph (1), and the general plan designation and zoning of each property.

See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C,
Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53
(b)(3) For nonvacant sites, a description of the existing use of each property. See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53
(b)(3) If a site subject to this paragraph is owned by the city or county, the description shall also include whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the planning period and how the city or county will comply with Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C,
Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53.

Publicly owned sites generally have pending
projects on them
(b)(4) A general description of any environmental constraints to the development of housing within the jurisdiction, the documentation for which has been made available to the jurisdiction. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

See discussion on-site constraints in Appendix
C, H-C-13 et seq.

See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C,
Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53, as
well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.

See also discussion in Appendix B, H-B-52
through H-B-54

1672 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(b)(5)(A) A description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including the availability and access to distribution facilities.

See discussion on-site constraints in Appendix
C, H-C-13 et seq.

See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C,
Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53, as
well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.

See also discussion in Appendix B, H-B-52
through H-B-54
(b)(5)(B) Parcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entity providing water or sewer service, to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development. This paragraph does not impose any additional duty on the city or county to construct, finance, or otherwise provide water, sewer, or dry utilities to parcels included in the inventory.

See discussion on-site constraints in Appendix
C, H-C-13 et seq.

See electronic sites inventory in Appendix C,
Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53, as
well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.

See also discussion in Appendix B, H-B-52
through H-B-54
(b)(6) Sites identified as available for housing for above moderate-income households in areas not served by public sewer systems. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

N/A

1673 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(b)(7) A map that shows the location of the sites included in the inventory, such as the land use map from the jurisdiction’s general plan, for reference purposes only.

See map figures in base document, pages H-38
and H-43, and Appendix C, pages H-C-15 and
H-C-51
(c) Based on the information provided in subdivision (b), a city or county shall determine whether each site in the inventory can accommodate the development of some portion of its share of the regional housing need by income level during the planning period, as determined pursuant to Section 65584. The inventory shall specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing.

Base document methodology discussion, H-27
through H-44
(c) A nonvacant site identified pursuant to paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (a) in a prior housing element and a vacant site that has been included in two or more consecutive planning periods that was not approved to develop a portion of the locality’s housing need shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower income households that must be accommodated in the current housing element planning period unless the site is zoned at residential densities consistent with paragraph (3) of this subdivision and the site is subject to a program in the housing element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households.

An unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) shall not be subject to the requirements of this subdivision to allow residential use by right.

Appendix C, H-C-14 et seq.

Note: No rezoning required.

1674 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning pursuant to this subdivision shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.

To be adopted by January 31, 2023.
(c) The analysis shall determine whether the inventory can provide for a variety of types of housing, including multifamily rental housing,
See base document programs, H-71 through
H-87; see also discussion in Constraints,
Appendix B, beginning on H-B-5
(c) factory-built housing, mobilehomes, Appendix B, H-B-44 (c) housing for agricultural employees, Appendix B, H-B-43 (c) supportive housing, Appendix B, H-B-42
(c) single-room occupancy units, Appendix B, H-B-45; see also base document H-44

1675 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(c) emergency shelters, and Appendix B, H-B-39 et seq.
(c) transitional housing Appendix B, H-B-42
(c) and whether the inventory affirmatively furthers fair housing . For AFFH analysis of inventory, see Appendix D, H-D-72 et seq.
(c) The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site as follows:
(c)(1) If local law or regulations require the development of a site at a minimum density, the department shall accept the planning agency’s calculation of the total housing unit capacity on that site based on the established minimum density. If the city or county does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.

See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)

1676 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory ProvisionsGOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE (c)(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583,
See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
(c)(2) the realistic development capacity for the site, See base document (2023-231 City of San Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
(c)(2) typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction,
See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
(c)(2) and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. See base document (2023-231 City of San Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.

1677 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory ProvisionsGOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE (c)(2)(A) A site smaller than half an acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing.

N/A – no sites less than half an acre are
included as sites for lower income
(c)(2)(B) A site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site can be developed as lower income housing.

Base Housing Element document, H-35
through H-37
(c)(2)(B) For purposes of this subparagraph, “site” means that portion of a parcel or parcels designated to accommodate lower income housing needs pursuant to this subdivision. (c)(2)(C) A site may be presumed to be realistic for development to accommodate lower income housing need if, at the time of the adoption of the housing element, a development affordable to lower income households has been proposed and approved for development on the site.

See pipeline projects, base document H-39
and Appendix C, H-C-22 through H-C-34

1678 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory ProvisionsGOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE (c)(3) For the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to paragraph (2), a city or county shall do either of the following:
(c)(3)(A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households.

See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.
(c)(3)(B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households:
(i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre.
(iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.

See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.
(4)(A) For a metropolitan jurisdiction:

1679 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory ProvisionsGOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE (4)(A)(i) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for moderate-income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4 units of housing, but not more than 100 units per acre of housing.

See base document, H-45
(4)(A)(ii) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for above moderate- income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4 units of housing.

See base document, H-45
(B) The allocation of moderate-income and above moderate-income housing to sites pursuant to this paragraph shall not be a basis for the jurisdiction to do either of the following:
(i) Deny a project that does not comply with the allocation. (ii) Impose a price minimum, price maximum, price control, or any other exaction or condition of approval in lieu thereof. This clause does not prohibit a jurisdiction from imposing any price minimum, price maximum, price control, exaction, or condition in lieu thereof, pursuant to any other law. (iii) The provisions of this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law with regard to the allocation of sites pursuant to this section. (C) This paragraph does not apply to an unincorporated area. (D) For purposes of this paragraph:

1680 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory ProvisionsGOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE (i) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.
(ii) “Unit of housing” does not include an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that could be approved pursuant to Section 65852.2 or Section 65852.22 or through a local ordinance or other provision implementing either of those sections. This paragraph shall not limit the ability of a local government to count the actual production of accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units in an annual progress report submitted pursuant to Section 65400 or other progress report as determined by the department.
(E) Nothing in this subdivision shall preclude the subdivision of a parcel, provided that the subdivision is subject to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land.
(d) For purposes of this section, a metropolitan county, nonmetropolitan county, and nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area shall be as determined by the United States Census Bureau. A nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area includes the following counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada, Tehama, and Tuolumne and other counties as may be determined by the United States Census Bureau to be nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas in the future.

1681 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory ProvisionsGOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE (e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a jurisdiction shall be considered suburban if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2,000,000 in population, unless that jurisdiction’s population is greater than 100,000, in which case it shall be considered metropolitan. A county, not including the City and County of San Francisco, shall be considered suburban unless the county is in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population in which case the county shall be considered metropolitan.
(2)(A)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a county that is in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont California MSA has a population of less than 400,000, that county shall be considered suburban. If this county includes an incorporated city that has a population of less than 100,000, this city shall also be considered suburban.

This paragraph shall apply to a housing element revision cycle, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 65588, that is in effect from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2028, inclusive.
(2)(A)(ii) A county subject to this subparagraph shall utilize the sum existing in the county’s housing trust fund as of June 30, 2013, for the development and preservation of housing affordable to low- and very low income households.

1682 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(2)(B) A jurisdiction that is classified as suburban pursuant to this paragraph shall report to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, the Senate Committee on Housing, and the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding its progress in developing low- and very low income housing consistent with the requirements of Section 65400. The report shall be provided three times: once, on or before December 31, 2019, which report shall address the initial four years of the housing element cycle, a second time, on or before December 31, 2023, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the housing element cycle, and a third time, on or before December 31, 2027, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the housing element cycle and the cycle as a whole.

The reports shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Section 9795. (f) A jurisdiction shall be considered metropolitan if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements for “suburban area” above and is located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population, unless that jurisdiction’s population is less than 25,000 in which case it shall be considered suburban. (g)(1) For sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) [non-vacant sites], the city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential.

1683 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(g)(1) The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development,
See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.
(g)(1) the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development,
See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.

1684 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(g)(1) the current market demand for the existing use, See base document (2023-231 City of San Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.
(g)(1) an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.

1685 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(g)(1) development trends, See base document (2023-231 City of San Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.
(g)(1) market conditions, See base document (2023-231 City of San Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.

1686 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(g)(1) and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.

See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.
(g)(2) In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element.

An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.

See base document (2023-231 City of San
Mateo Draft Housing Element) for detailed
methodology of inventory (H-27 et seq.)
See also electronic sites inventory in Appendix
C, Housing Resources starting on page H-C-53,
as well as individual sites analyses in the same
Appendix, H-C-16 through H-C-51.

In addition, the City will adopt findings that
the use is likely to be discontinued during the
planning period.

1687 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(g)(3) Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2), sites that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low income, subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or occupied by low or very low income households, shall be subject to a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site. Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915.

Base document policy H2.6
(h) The program required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 shall accommodate 100 percent of the need for housing for very low and low-income households allocated pursuant to Section 65584 for which site capacity has not been identified in the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) on sites that shall be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households during the planning period.

No rezoning is required to meet the RHNA
allocation. All sites in the inventory on which
lower income units are identified are zoned at
least 30 units per acre
See also base document policy H1.10
(h) These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at least No rezoning is required to meet the RHNA allocation. All sites in the inventory on which
lower income units are identified are zoned at
least 30 units per acre

1688 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory ProvisionsGOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE (h) 16 units per site at a density of at least 16 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c),
No rezoning is required to meet the RHNA
allocation. All sites in the inventory on which
lower income units are identified are zoned at
least 30 units per acre
(h) shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c)
No rezoning is required to meet the RHNA
allocation. All sites in the inventory on which
lower income units are identified are zoned at
least 30 units per acre
(h) and shall meet the standards set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b). No rezoning is required to meet the RHNA allocation. All sites in the inventory on which
lower income units are identified are zoned at
least 30 units per acre

1689 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(h) At least 50 percent of the very low and low-income housing need shall be accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed uses are not permitted, except that a city or county may accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need on sites designated for mixed uses if those sites allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.

No rezoning is required to meet the RHNA
allocation. All sites in the inventory on which
lower income units are identified are zoned at
least 30 units per acre
(i) For purposes of this section and Section 65583, the phrase “use by right” shall mean that the local government’s review of the owner-occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act. (i) A local ordinance may provide that “use by right” does not exempt the use from design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

1690 of 1732

Compliance with Statutory Provisions

GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE
(i) Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.
(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, within one-half mile of a Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit station, housing density requirements in place on June 30, 2014, shall apply.

1691 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
1 Past Housing
Element Review
As part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle, the element must analyze the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness). Programs should be revised as appropriate to reflect the results of this evaluation.

Reviewed/updated past HE
evaluation to analyze effectiveness,
and identified areas where GPPs in
Draft HE will be
strengthened/expanded, as
needed.

See entirety of Appendix E.
2 Needs - AFFH Fair Housing Issues : The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use and investment practices or other information and demographic trends
The requested information has
been updated.

See H-D-6, as well as H -D-17
et seq.

1692 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
3 Needs - AFFH Enforcement: While the element lists fair housing laws in Appendix D, it must state whether the City complies with federal and state fair housing laws. If the City does not currently comply, a program should be added as
appropriate.

Revised Draft HE to add more
specific language on how it
complies with federal and state fair
housing laws.

See page H -D-16 through H -
D-23
4 Needs - AFFH Integration and Segregation : The element provided some data regarding segregation and integration of race,
disability, familial status, and income. The element must describe the census tracts that have geographic
concentrations of race (i.e., concentrations identified as white majority). In addition, the element must discuss and analyze data on persons with disabilities for trends over time and patterns across census tracts as well as evaluate patterns at a regional basis, comparing the City to the region. The element must also include a local and regional analysis of integration and segregation for familial status.

Lastly, the element must describe and analyze
concentrations of income geographically throughout the
City.

Additional language has been
added to address this comment.

See H-D-24 through H -D-49

1693 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
5 Needs - AFFH Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty and Affluence (R/ECAP): The element includes information relative to R/ECAP within the City but should also analyze where they are in the region.

The element must also address concentrated areas of affluence both locally and regionally. The combination of the R/ECAP and areas of affluence analyses will help guide goals and actions to address fair housing issues. The analysis should evaluate the patterns and changes over time at a local (e.g., neighborhood to neighborhood) and regional level (e.g., city to region).

As information was not yet
available on RCAAs when the
draft was submitted, it is
included in this revision.

See H-D-41 and through H -
D-49.
6 Needs - AFFH Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement : While the element includes some data on disproportionate needs, additional information is needed. The element must describe any geographic concentration of cost burden and overcrowding by tenure, as well as any concentrations of substandard housing both locally and regionally. In addition, the element must describe and analyze the census tracts with displacement risk. While the map depicts a lot of areas vulnerable to displacement, this must be supported with an analysis.

More narrative has been
provided on disproportionate
needs.

See H-D-57 though H -D-71

1694 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
7 Needs - AFFH Sites Inventory: While the element includes a summary of some factors, the analysis must identify whether sites improve or exacerbate conditions and whether sites are isolated by income group. A full analysis should address the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., anti -displacement and place -based community revitalization strategies).

The Draft HE contained an
extensive discussion of
how the inventory relates
to AFFH criteria. This
analysis was crafted by
Root Policy in conjunction
with staff.

See H-D-72 through H -D-
77 8 Needs - AFFH Contributing Factors : The element identifies many contributing factors to fair housing issues. The element must prioritize these factors to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). In addition, the element must describe how the actions in Appendix D Fair Housing Plan are tied to the housing element programs and include implementation.

These revisions to the
Housing Element include
prioritization of
contributing factors.

See H-D-14 et seq.

1695 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
9 Needs - AFFH Goals, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones : The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis.

Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place -based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.

The implementation plan
has been revised to
provide more defined
metrics, outcomes and
timing, as appropriate.

See implementation plan
in the main Housing
Element document,
beginning on H-84.
10 Needs - Other Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI) : The element must quantify the number of existing and projected ELI households, and also analyze their housing needs. The analysis of ELI housing needs should consider tenure and rates of overpayment.

This information is
included in the needs
packet provided by ABAG
and expanded upon by the
City, including in AFFH..

See throughout
Appendix A, starting on
page H-A-22; see also
narrative woven
throughout the AFFH,
Appendix D.

1696 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
11 Needs - Other Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze the number of lower - income households overpaying by tenure (i.e., renter and owner).

This information has been
added to Appendix A.

See H-A-43 through H -A-
46 12 Needs - Other Housing Costs : While the element includes estimated rents for residents, it utilizes American Community Survey (ACS) data. The element should supplement census data with other sources (e.g., local knowledge).

This information was
included in Appendix A.

See H-A-41 through H -A-
43 13 Inventory Progress in Meeting the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) : The City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, 2022; however, the element must demonstrate their affordability based on actual sales price, rent level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). The element should also discuss the status, any barriers to development and other relevant factors to demonstrate their availability in the planning period.

Detailed information for
pipeline projects, as well as
other sites in the
inventory, in Appendix C.

See detailed sites
discussion in Appendix C,
Housing Resources,
beginning on page H -C-

22. 1697 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
14 Inventory Realistic Capacity : While the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites included in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions. The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements and typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level. The element currently assumes realistic capacity at 100 percent of base zoned density for multifamily units in R -3, R-4, and R-5 zones. The analysis must provide substantial support and demonstrate a history of developing at maximum density within the City. Examples to support realistic capacity assumptions should also include affordability levels, and percent of maximum densities.

The draft provides
additional narrative to
explain the inventory's
use of 100% of zoned
capacity as the realistic
capacity for larger
developments.

See base document (2023 -
231 City of San Mateo Draft
Housing Element) for
detailed methodology of
inventory (H-27 et seq.). See
also detailed sites discussion
in Appendix C, Housing
Resources
15 Inventory The calculation of residential capacity must also account for the likelihood of residential development in zoning where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed. The analysis should be based on factors such as development trends including nonresidential, performance standards requiring residential uses or other relevant factors such as enhanced policies and programs. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly.

Additional language
has been added to
address this comment
See base document (2023 -
231 City of San Mateo Draft
Housing Element) for
detailed methodology of
inventory (H-27 et seq.). See
also detailed sites discussion
in Appendix C, Housing
Resources

1698 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
16 Inventory Small and Large Sites : Sites smaller than an half acre and larger than 10 acre s in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower -income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower -income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower -income housing (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (a) (3) This information is
provided in the Draft
HE narrative (i.e.

Concar Passage) for
large sites; there are
no small sites that have
been identified as
potentially affordable.

See base document page H -
35 through H -37
17 Inventory In addition, the element must describe feasibility of the Hillsdale and Bridgepointe sites including likelihood of development during the planning period, whether a specific plan is needed, and if the existing uses will remain.

More information has
been included in
Housing Resources on
individaul
development sites,
including Hillsdale and
Bridgepointe.

See base document page H -
35 through H-37
18 Inventory Lastly the element must describe a history of lot consolidation as a method of developing housing as well as whether the City has any incentives to consolidate lots with different owners.

Analysis added to
Appendix C with
specific project
identified
See H-C-14 and individual
sites analyses in that
Appendix.

1699 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
19 Inventory Suitability of Nonvacant Sites : The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant site s. To address this requirement, the element describes in general the existing use of each nonvacant site, for example, “commercial” or “parking lot”. This alone is not adequate to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning period. The description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development in the planning period.

Greater analysis of
individual sites has
been included in the
Housing Resources
Appendix.

See individual sites' analysis
in Appendix C, as well as
narrative beginning on H -C-

14. In addition, a new policy
H 4.5 has been added, to
conduct outreach to
property owners.
20 Inventory In addition, the element must analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. For example, the element includes sites identified as parking lots, church, gas station, an auto repair, and a warehouse; but must also demonstrate whether these existing uses would impede development of these sites within the planning period. The element can summarize past experiences converting existing uses to higher density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the City and relate those trends to the sites identified .

The element could also consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure, expressed developer interest, existing versus allowable floor area, low improvement to land value ratio, and other factors .

Greater analysis of
individual sites has
been included in the
Housing Resources
Appendix.

See individual sites' analysis
in Appendix C. Some sites
were removed or their
anticipated capacity was
reduced based on additional
analysis.

1700 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
21 Inventory In addition, as noted in the housing element, the housing element relies upon nonvacant site s to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower - income households. For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).).

Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation.

Additional analysis has
been provided to bolster
the arguments for
including nonvacant sites
in the inventory.

See H-C-14 et seq. The
City will make the
required findings at
adoption.

1701 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
22 Inventory City-Owned Sites : The element must include additional discussion on each of the City - owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and ( i). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

Two City-owned sites were identified on
the sites inventory list - 445 S. B Street
(APN: 034 -179-050;-060) and 505 S. B
Street (APN: 042 -242-170). The City has
a preliminary agreement with a
developer to construct a 60 -unit, 100%
affordable housing project at 445 S. B
Street. The 505 S. B Street site has been
removed as it does not appear feasible
for housing development during this
cycle. The 23 -31 HE and Appendix C
have been updated to provide further
information about the 445 S. B St site
See Appendix C detailed
sites narratives.

1702 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
23 Inventory Replacement Housing Requirements : If the sites inventory identifies sites with existing residential uses, it must identify whether the current residential uses are affordable to lower - income households or describe whether the additional residential development on the site requires the demolition of the existing residential use. For nonvacant sites with existing, vacated, or demolished residential uses and occupied by, or subject to an affordability requirement for, lower -income households within the last five years there must be a replacement housing program for units affordable to lower -income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3).)
Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower -income households. The replacement housing program has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). The housing element must be revised to include such analysis and a program, if necessary.

The sites inventory table identifies sites
with existing residential uses and a
preliminary check indicated that none of
these units are deed restricted or
affordable to low -income households.

The City has an existing replacement
housing program under the Housing
Crisis Act. The Housing Element includes
a policy (H -2.6) to require no net loss of
all housing units (per the Housing Crisis
Act sunset date of 2034) and to study
implementation beyond 2034.

See revised language on H -
45, as well as policy H 2.6.

1703 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
24 Inventory Previously Identified Nonvacant and Vacant Sites : If nonvacant sites identified in a prior adopted housing element or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods, the sites are inadequate to accommodate housing for lower -income households unless:
• The site’s current zoning is appropriate for the development of housing affordable to lower -income households by either including analysis or meeting the appropriate density and • The site is subject to a housing element program that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower - income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).)
A program has been added to address
this comment.

See policy H 1.10.

1704 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
25 Inventory Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) : The element projects 480 ADUs over the planning period or approximately 60 ADUs per year over the eight-year planning period. The element also notes
permitting 44 ADUs in 2019, 47 in 2020, and 66 in 2021. The trend does not consider the number of permits in 2018 (eight ADUs) and does not support an assumption of 60 ADUs per year.

To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors and modify policies and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if needed.

More analysis and discussion has been
included in the main Housing Element,
and a program has been added to
ensure ongoing monitoring.

See page H-39 as well as
implementation policy H

1.4. 1705 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
26 Inventory AB 725 : For jurisdictions that are considered Metropolitan, the element must identify at least 25 percent of the remaining moderate and above moderate RHNA on sites that allow at least four units of housing (e.g., four plex or greater) (Gov.

Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(4)).

Language has been
included to address
this requirement.

See H-45
27 Inventory Infrastructure : While the element includes a general discussion on water and sewer capacity, it must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water and sewer capacity to accommodate the City’s regional housing need for the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).).

The Draft HE is using
existing zoning
capacity to meet its
RHNA, and both of the
City's water providers
have an adopted
Urban Water
Management Plans
based on this existing
zoning capacity; sewer
capacity has been
demonstrated with the
current and future
treatment plant.

See policy H1.20 as well as
additional discussion in H -19
and H-20

1706 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
28 Inventory In addition, the element generally mentions infrastructure constraints for infill development. The element must describe and analyze the constraints as well as their impacts on the identified sites to meet the RHNA.

The individual sites
analysis in Housing
Resources includes
site-by-site discussion
of infrastructure
constraints. In
addition, added
narrative is found in
Appendix B.

See H-B-17 and H -B- 51, as
well as individual sites tear
sheets in Appendix C
29 Inventory For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower -income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. HCD recommends including a cover memo describing the City ’s housing element, including the City’s housing needs and regional housing need. The element should demonstrate compliance with these requirements and add or modify programs, if necessary. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/priority -for-water-and-sewer.

The Draft HE includes
information to
demonstrate
compliance with this
requirement.

See policy 1.20.
30 Inventory Environmental Constraints : While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City (p. H -B-44), it must relate those conditions to identified sites and describe any other known environmental or other constraints that could impact housing development on identified sites in the planning period.

The individual sites
analysis in Housing
Resources includes site -
by-site discussion of
infrastructure
constraints.

See individual sites tear
sheets starting on H -C-16

1707 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
31 Zoning for
Housing
Types
Emergency Shelters: The housing element must demonstrate the permit processing, development, and management standards for emergency shelters are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. In particular, the element describes development standards for emergency shelters; however these standards are beyond the development standards allowed under housing element law. The element must demonstrate that emergency shelters are subject to the same development and management standards applicable to residential or commercial development within the same zone except for those standards prescribed by Government Code section 65583 (a)(4)(A).

The constraints
analysis provides
general information
about zoning capacity,
strategies and
programs to provide
emergency shelters
and address
homelessness. In
addition, a policy has
been added to address
this comment.

See Appendix B H -B-39 et
seq., and policy H 3.7 with
explicit references to the
code.
32 Zoning for
Housing
Types
The element must also clarify that emergency shelters are allowed without discretionary action in the C2 zone and describe sufficient and suitable capacity in the identified zone.
33 Zoning In addition, the element should describe how emergency shelter parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement.

1708 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
34 Zoning Low Barrier Navigation Centers : While the element includes a program to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers, it is limited to emergency shelter zones. Low Barrier Navigation Centers shall be a use by -right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65660. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.

Discussion in
constraints updates
information on these
uses, and a prorgam
addresses this
comment.

See H-B-42 et seq.; see also
policy H 3.7.
35 Zoning Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: The element must describe where SROs are allowed or add a program as appropriate.

The Housing Element
includes a program to
explicitly identify
where SROs can be
located.

See policy H 1.7.
36 Zoning Manufactured Housing: The element must clarify whether manufactured homes are subject to additional regulations beyond state law if on a permanent foundation and add a program as needed
The Housing Element
includes a program to
explicitly allow
manufactred housing
and are subject to the
same zoning
requirements as single -
family homes.

See policy H 1.7.

1709 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
37 Zoning Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) : The element indicates the City modifies its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of ADU’s. However, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which are not consistent with State ADU Law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non - compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance in order to comply with state law. For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020, which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU development
In anticipation of
receiving a letter on
the ADU ordinance, a
program has been
amended to address
this comment.

See policy H 1.4.
38 Constraints Land Use Controls : The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. The analysis should specifically address requirements related to parking, heights, lot coverage and limits on allowable densities. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints.

The constraints
analysis has been
updated throughout in
order to address this
comment.

See Appendix B in its
entirety.

1710 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
39 Constraints The element must analyze the maximum heights of 35 feet in multifamily zones and whether three -story buildings are allowed as well as whether allowed densities can be met in the TOD Hillsdale Station with a 24 -foot height restriction.

The maximum height in multifamily
zones ranges between 35 to 55 feet.

There are no limits on building stories in
the City. TOD Hillsdale Station area
allows maximum heights of 24 feet to 55
feet. The 24 feet height limit applies to
single -family zone parcels in the Hillsdale
TOD Specific Plan. The narrative has
been edited in the Land Use Controls
section (Table 2) to clarify the height
requirements as up to 55 feet.

See section beginning on H -
B-5
40 Constraints The element should also analyze the open space requirements for the R-3 zone.

A program was identified to study
impediments to missing middle housing
(including open space requirements).

The constraints analysis was updated to
evaluate the impacts.

See H-B-6 and program H

1.13. 1711 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
41 Constraints In addition, the element should analyze requiring more than one parking space for studio and one -bedroom units and the minimum requirement of 2.2 spaces for 1,400 square foot units regardless of bedroom size and add programs to
specifically address the constraints.

Additional narrative has been added to
address this comment, and a policy has
been amended to reflect compliance a
variety of parking requirements.

See H-B-11 and policy H 1.7.
42 Constraints In addition, the element should clarify how multifamily developments are allowed in the E and C zones and whether they require a use permit.

Both in the element and in public comments, height
restrictions, floor area definitions, maximum densities of 50 dwelling units an acre, and design review guidelines were identified as constraints to development and should be
addressed in programs as appropriate.

Multi -family developments are allowed in
certain E and C zones, both by -right and
through a Special Use Permit (noted in
Appendix B, Section 2.7.7). The Draft HE
analysis and policies address this comment
as follows:
- Revise floor area definition (Policy H1.7)
- Adopt Objective Design Standards (Policy
H1.8).
- Existing height and density requirements
do not preclude multi -family development
or prevent the City from meeting its RHNA.
- The General Plan Update process is
anticipated to allow for increased heights
and densities.

See page H -B-5 and policies
H 1.7, H 1.8, H 1.13, and H

1.21 1712 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
43 Constraints Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could identify the total amount of fees and their proportion to the development costs for both single family and multifamily housing. While Table 4 lists fee deposits, the element should also include typical fees for each and clarify whether the fees are the same for single family and
multifamily developments.

Constraints Analysis included fees and
analysis by typical single -family and multi -
family development (Table 6). Additional
narrative has been included to add to the
analysis.

See narrative beginning on
page H-B-20
44 Constraints The element should also identify fees related to annexation, variances, conditional use permits (CUP), general plan
amendments, zone changes, site plan review, planned unit developments, specific plans, development agreements, and environmental fees. Table 6 should also describe the typical fees as a percent of the total development cost for both single family and multifamily developments and add a program as appropriate.

Additional narrative has been included to
add to the analysis.

See narrative beginning on
page H-B-20 and then
beginning page H -B-31, as
well as Table 6.

1713 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
45 Constraints Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element includes information about processing times, it should also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development. The analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and any other relevant information, specifically for special use permits, site plans and architectural review (a s well as whether finding five is related to a crime free ordinance ). The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. The element should identify and analyze approval findings for impacts on approval certainty, the presence of processes or guidelines to promote certainty and add or modify programs as
appropriate. The element should also clarify whether the listed typical approval times are for both single family and multifamily developments . Lastly, it should clarify whether the preapplication process adds six to nine months in addition to the typical approval times listed and add or modify programs as appropriate.

Additional narrative has been included to
add to the analysis.

See narrative beginning on
H-B-24

1714 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
46 Constraints Local Ordinances: While the element identifies the City’s community benefit program, it must describe whether the incentives are in addition to state density bonus law. The element must clarify how the 75 dwelling units an acre allowed using the community benefit program interacts with the
restricted densities under measure Y. In addition, the element must describe how the inclusionary program, community
benefit program, and state density bonus law interact with incentives provided.

Constraints analysis is updated to describe
the envisioned layering of density bonus and
community benefits.

See page H-B-13 as well as
policy H 1.3.
47 Constraints Zoning Fees and Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards, and inclusionary
requirements for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).

The constraints section states that the City
meets all transparency requirements for
Gov. Code Section 65940.1(a)(1).

Constraints Section 2.7.1,
links to webpages added in
footnotes, cross -references in
Sections 2.7.1 & 2.7.2

1715 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
48 Constraints Measure Y: The element must describe the impacts of measure Y on height and density restrictions as a constraint on housing development and affordability. The element must add a program to include outreach and mitigation measures for the impact of Measure Y on housing development
throughout the planning period. The element should analyze the measure as a constraint on development based on site suitability for development.

The Draft HE identifies a path to meeting
the City's 6th cycle RHNA allocation within
the limits of Measure Y; and Measure Y was
discussed in the Constraints Analysis, noting
it as a housing production constraint that
results in additional sites needed to meet
the City's RHNA. The community discussion
about Measure Y and housing growth in the
City over the next 20 years is happening and
will continue as part of the GPU adoption
process. See new narrative.

See section beginning on
page H-B-55. See also policy
H 1.21 in the
implementation plan (main
Housing Element document)
49 Constraints State Density Bonus Law: The City’s current density bonus ordinance should be reviewed for compliance with current state density bonus law and programs should be added as necessary. (Gov. Code, § 65915.)
The City's current Density Bonus Ordinance
was updated in 2018 and may not be fully
consistent with State law. The City has been
defaulting to the state statutes for
implementation.

Policy H 1.3 includes
provisions for updating the
ordinance in 2023 -24.

1716 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
50 Constraints Design Review: The element must describe and analyze the design review guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision -making criteria, for their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The
element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate.

The City is in the process of developing
Objective Design Standards and has a
program to implement. Additional narrative
has been provided to address this
comment.

See H-B-29 et seq., as well as
policy H 1.6.
51 Constraints On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as
minimum street widths (e.g., 40 -foot minimum street width) and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.

Greater discussion in the Constraints
Appendix addresses this comment.

See page H-B-18

1717 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
52 Constraints Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element briefly describes its reasonable accommodation
procedures. However, the element should also describe the process and decision -making criteria such as approval findings and analyze any potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities.

More narrative has been included on the
City's Reasonable Accommodation
requirements, including those that can be
accomplished by -right.

See discussion beginning on
H-B-38
53 Constraints In addition, the element states that Policy H.1.14 commits to revise the definition of family, but there are no actions within the program to revise the definition of family to remove constraints. The element must add or revise a program to remove the constraints as noted.

A program has been modified to a ddress
this comment.

See Policy H 1.14.
54 Constraints Lastly, group homes for seven or more persons appears to be excluded from several zones allowing residential uses and subject to a CUP. The element should evaluate these
requirements as constraints and include specific commitment to amend zoning and permit procedures to allow these uses in all residential zones with objectivity to facilitate approval certainty.

This was included as a program to allow
larger group homes consistent with State
law and fair housing requirements.

Additional narrative has been added to the
constraints section about group homes.

See page H -B-37 et seq. and
amended policy H 1.14.

1718 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
55 Constraints Developed Densities and Permit Times: The element must be revised to include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that
potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

The initial draft included an analysis of time
lapse between planning approval and
building permit submittal, as well as
requests for developments at reduced
densities.

See H-B-51
56 Needs Special Needs Populations : While the element quantifies the City’s special needs populations, it must also analyze their special housing needs. For a complete analysis of each
population group, the element should discuss challenges faced by the population, the existing resources to meet those needs (availability senior housing units, # of large units, # of deed restricted units, etc.), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps. In addition, the element must
quantify and analyze the number of elderly persons in the City
This information was provided in the needs
packet supplied by ABAG, and in other
places throughout the Element (such as in
the resources section).

See both Appendix A (Needs)
as well as Appendix D
(AFFH).

1719 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
57 GPPs To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1 -6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following:

With respect to all comments on programs
requiring additional information, please see
the revised implementation plan at the end
of the base Housing Element document for
revisions.
58 Policy 1.2 (Utilize Public Funding): This program should include proactive outreach to developers throughout the planning period as well as a geographic target for the metric.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
59 Policy 1.4 (Incentivize ADU Development): This program should revise action C to include discrete timing of how often it will be completed and monitored. In addition, action D should include back -up actions if estimates are not met (e.g., identify additional sites or provide additional incentives) as well as monitor affordability.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1720 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
60 Policy 1.5 (Encourage Family Housing): The program should include back -up actions, with specific timing, if the identified incentives are not implemented.

The current program measure and
implementation action discuss proposing 3 -
bedroom affordable units as part of the
City's inclusionary requirements. However,
this requires further study before
implementation. Back up implementation
measure added.

Base Housing Element
document.
61 Policy 1.6 (Streamline Housing Application Review): Action B must include specific timing of when permit application requirements will be updated. In addition, the timing of action C must be completed earlier in the planning period.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
62 Policies 1.15 (Supportive Housing Requirements) and 1.16 (Mobile Home Parks): These programs must revise timing to be implemented earlier in the planning period for a beneficial impact.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1721 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
63 Policy 1.17 (Farmworker Housing): This program must move up timing to be implemented earlier in the planning period. In addition, the program should cite the Government Code for farmworker housing.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
64 Policy 1.18 (Permitting and Development Fee Review): This program must clarify timing in Action A, specifically whether the study will be complete within the identified timeframe or if the fees will be reduced by that date. In addition, Action B must specify when the first review will occur and when
adjustments will take place.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
65 Policy 1.19 (Senior Housing): This program must clarify what potential actions will be implemented for seniors as well as whether other special needs groups are included in the
program.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1722 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
66 Policy 2.1 (Housing Rehabilitation Efforts), 2.3 (Energy and Water Efficiency), 3.4 (Expand Tenant Protections), and 4.3 (Community Education and Outreach): This program must
describe how often outreach will occur throughout the
planning period.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
67 Policy 3.3 (Evaluate Housing Revenue Sources): This program must describe the implementation component for action A.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
68 Policy 3.5 (Creation of Below Market Rate Set Asides): This program must add implementation and timing for what will result from the study.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1723 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
69 Policy 4.2 (Countywide Below Market Rate Unit Waitlist): This program must clarify how support will be provided as well as how often throughout the planning period.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
70 Policy 4.4 (Enable Affirmative Marketing): Timing must be clarified to state whether the marketing will occur once in the planning, or on a project -by-project basis.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
71 Policy 5.1.2 (Regional Down Payment Assistance): This program should include outreach for education.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1724 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
72 Policy 5.2.2 (Incentivize Developers): This program must clarify whether incentives are in place, timing to implement the incentives, as well as conducting proactive outreach.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
73 Policy 5.3.2 (Fund Minor Home Repairs): The program should clarify how often outreach will occur as well as specify whether the metrics are annually or throughout the planning period.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
74 Policy 5.4.2 (Project Sentinel): This program should be revised to include outreach and describe how awareness will be
increased.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1725 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
75 Policy 5.4.3 (Fair Housing Webpage): This program should describe how often the website will be updated and whether outreach will be included.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
76 Policy 5.4.5 (Future Improvements in Disadvantaged
Communities): This program must include an action to
implement the feasibility study as well as a back -up if the study is not implemented.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
77 Other
GPPs
Policy 1.1 (Monitor RHNA): While this program ensures
sufficient sites are identified, it should commit to identifying additional sites throughout the planning period if needed to accommodate the City’s RHNA.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1726 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
78 Other
GPPs
Policy 1.10 (Establish By -Right Housing for Prior Housing Sites) and 2.6: Previously identified nonvacant sites are inadequate to accommodate the need for lower -income households
unless the site is subject to a housing element program that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by -right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower -income households. (Gov. Code, §
65583.2, subd. (c).) The program must be revised to comply as well as clarify that the densities for the identified sites are appropriate for lower -income households. In addition, timing of Policy 2.6 should occur no later than 3 years from the start of the planning period.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
79 Other
GPPs
Policy 1.12 (Encourage Residential Uses within Housing
Overlay) : The program must clarify which commercial zones will be included in the program actions.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1727 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
80 Other
GPPs
Policy 2.4 (Capital Improvements in Lower -Resourced
Neighborhoods) : The program should describe what capital improvements will be included.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
81 Other
GPPs
Policy 3.7 (Expanding Homeless Shelters) : This program must clarify implementation actions after the study in action A. In addition, a government citation must be added for Action C and implementation timing must be earlier in the planning period to ensure beneficial impact.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
82 Other
GPPs
While the element includes Policy 5.1.3 (Regional Forgivable Loan Program) to support the regional program to assist ELI households, it is a regional policy. The element should specify what actions the City is taking to address the ELI need. The program should also specify whether proactive outreach will occur to implement the program.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1728 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
83 Other
GPPs
Policy 1.3 (Increase Below Market Rate Unit Production): This program should be revised to include an action to comply with State Density Bonus law as well as specific timing for
implementation. The program should clarify whether the
action currently listed is in addition to state law
requirements.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
84 Other
GPPs
Policy 1.7 (Update Zoning Code Development Standards): This program must make a firm commitment to remove parking
requirements that are a constraint to multifamily
development.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
85 Other
GPPs
Policy 1.13 (Encourage Development of Missing Middle
Housing): This program should include specific
implementation and specify whether the identified policies and codes will be revised to remove constraints.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1729 of 1732

Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
86 Other
GPPs
Policy 1.14 (Evaluate and Update Special Needs Group
Housing Requirements): This policy should commit to
reviewing and revising procedural requirements to permit group homes for seven or more persons in all zones allowing residential uses based on objective criteria to facilitate approval certainty. In addition, the program must be
implemented earlier in the planning period to ensure a
beneficial impact.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
87 GPPs AFFH While programs in Table 13 include specific timelines, all programs in the element that AFFH must include specific metrics and milestones with geographic targets that address the fair housing analysis. In addition, Policy 5.2.1 (City Supported Housing) should specify what actions will be taken to add more affordable housing to moderate and high
resource areas as well as whether incentives are provided.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.

1730 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
88 Other
GPPs
Policy 2.2 (Retention of Existing Lower -Income Units) and

5.3.3 (Monitor Affordable Housing Projects) should reference State Preservation Notice Law (Gov. Code, § 65863.10,
65863.11, and 65863.13) and state noticing requirements to tenants and affected public entities. The program should also be expanded to include other potential at -risk properties not included in the analysis. HCD will send additional information under separate cover.

Policy has been updated. Base Housing Element
document.
89 Quantified
Objectives
The element must include quantified objectives to establish an estimate of housing units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. While the element includes these objectives for construction, it must also include estimates for rehabilitation and not limit conserved units to at -risk properties.

The City does 31 rehab projects annually
through CDBG over 8 years plus 10
expected CALHOME rehabs. This
information was included.

See base document page H -

89. 1731 of 1732

Revisions in Response to HCD Comment
Letter
Comment
Number Section HCD Comment City Response Location
90 Public
Participation
While the element includes a summary of public
participation including outreach to the community, it must also describe whether translation services were available outside of the Lets Talk Housing sessions.

Information on translation services has
been included in the public participation
Appendix.

See base document page H -
52 and Appendix F
91 Consistency
with the GP
While the element discusses how internal consistency will be achieved with other elements of the general plan as part of the housing element update, it should also discuss how internal consistency will be maintained throughout the
planning period.

Additional narrative has been added to
address this comment.

See discussion in the main
Housing Element document,
page H-19

1732 of 1732