San Mateo City Council
October 30, 2023

Policy N 1.2 Interior Noise Level Standard. Require submittal of an acoustical analysis and interior noise insulation for all noise-sensitive land uses listed in Table N-1 that have an exterior noise level of 60 dBA (Ldn) or above, as shown on Figure N -2. The maximum interior noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA (Ldn) in any habitable rooms, as established by the California Building Code.

Policy N 1.3 Exterior Noise Level Standard for Residential Uses. Require an acoustical analysis for new multifamily common open space for residents that have an exterior noise level of 60 dBA (Ldn) or above, as shown on Figure N-2. Incorporate necessary mitigation measures into residential project design to minimize common open space noise levels. Maximum exterior noise should not exceed 65 dBA (L
dn) for residential uses and should not exceed 65 dBA (Ldn) for public park uses.

Policy N 1.4 Exterior Noise Level Standard for Parks and Playgrounds. Require a feasibility analysis of noise-reduction measures for public parks and play areas that have an exterior noise level of 70 dBA (L
dn) or above.

Policy N 1.5 Inclusive Outreach. Notify the community when new land uses that would result in exces - sive noise levels are being considered and inform community members about how they can engage in the process. Use outreach and engagement methods that encourage broad rep - resentation and are culturally sensitive, particularly for equity priority communities.

319 of 516

219
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 9 Noise Element
GOAL N-2 Minimize unnecessary, annoying, or unhealthful noise.

POLICIES
Policy N 2.1 Noise Regulation. Regulate noise in San Mateo to prohibit noise that is annoying or injuri - ous to community members.

Policy N 2.2 Minimize Noise Impacts. Incorporate necessary mitigation measures into new develop - ment design to minimize short-term noise impacts. Determine whether new development has the potential to result in a significant noise impact on existing development based on the following standards. Impacts will be analyzed based on long-term operational noise in - creases at the sensitive receptor property line, or new uses that generate noise levels at the sensitive receptor property line, as follows:

Policy N 2.3 Minimize Commercial Noise. Protect land uses other than those listed as “noise sensitive” in Table N-1 from adverse impacts caused by the on-site noise generated by new develop - ments. Incorporate necessary mitigation measures into development design to minimize short-term and long-term noise impacts. Prohibit new uses that generate noise levels of 65 dBA (L
dn) or above at the property line, excluding existing ambient noise levels.

Policy N 2.4 Traffic Noise. Recognize projected increases in ambient noise levels resulting from future traffic increases, as shown on Figure N-2. Promote reduced traffic speeds and the installation of noise barriers or other methods to reduce traffic noise along highways and high-volume roadways where noise-sensitive land uses (listed in Table N-1) are adversely impacted by excessive noise levels (60 dBA [L
dn] or above).

Policy N 2.5 Railroad Noise. Support the installation of noise barriers and other mitigations along the railroad corridor where noise-sensitive land uses are adversely impacted by excessive noise levels (60 dBA [Ldn] or greater), as shown in Figure N-3.

Ldn Category of Existing Development
Per Figures N-1, N-2, and/or N-3
Noise Increase Considered “Significant” over Existing
Noise Levels
Normally Acceptable An increase of more than 5 dBA and the total Ldn exceeds the “normally acceptable” category
Conditionally Acceptable An increase of more than 5 dBA Unacceptable An increase of more than 5 dBA

320 of 516

220
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 9 Noise Element
Policy N 2.6 Railroad Vibration. Require that new residential projects (or other sensitive uses) within 200 feet of existing railroad lines conduct a ground-borne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration-approved methodologies.

Policy N 2.7 Construction Noise and Vibration Monitoring. Require construction noise limits and vibra- tion monitoring around sensitive receptors, including through limiting construction hours and individual and cumulative noise from construction equipment. For larger development projects that demand intensive construction periods and/or use equipment that could create vibration impacts, require a vibration impact analysis, as well as monitoring and reporting of noise/vibration levels throughout construction, consistent with industry standards.

ACTIONS
Action N 2.8 Conditions of Approval for Noise Monitoring. Establish conditions of approval for larger development projects to ensure that requirements for construction noise and vibration monitoring. Include a requirement for a monitoring plan that provides information on the monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used, and appro- priate noise and vibration control measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance and any applicable vibration limits.

Action N 2.9 Railroad Noise Reductions. Implement projects necessary to achieve Quiet Zones in the city, such as elimination of at-grade rail crossings or other mitigation measures to decrease horn and other operational noise levels, with a focus on achieving Quiet Zones as part of any substantial expansions of the rail service.

Action N 2.10 Railroad Noise Barriers. Work with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to promote and encourage adequate noise mitigations and barriers to be incorporated into any rail ser- vice expansion or track realignment.

321 of 516

CHAPTER 10
Abbreviations and Glossary

322 of 516

323 of 516

223
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary

ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY
This glossary explains the technical terms used in this General Plan. Definitions come from several sources, including the California Office of Planning and Research, the California Institute for Local Government, and the American Planning Association Glossary of Zoning, Development, and Planning Terms.

ABBREVIATIONS
AA-T Arts Degree for Transfer
AB Assembly Bill (State)
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit
AMI Area Median Income
AS-T Associate in Science Degree for Transfer
AV Autonomous vehicle
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BMR Below Market Rate
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
BUILD Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development CalEnviroScreen California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalOES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cal Water California Water Company
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERT Community Emergency Response Team
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

324 of 516

224
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
CIP Capital Improvement Program
dB Decibel
dBA Decibel “A-Weighted”
du/ac Dwelling units per acre
EAS Emergency Alert System
EBT Electronic Benefit Transfer
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMS Emergency Medical Service
EMID Estero Municipal Improvement District
EV Electric Vehicle
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GPA General Plan Amendment
GPS General Plan Subcommittee
ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems
JPB Joint Powers Board
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level
LID Low Impact Design
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MFD Multi-Family Dwelling
MJHMP Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission

325 of 516

225
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
ODS Objective Design Standards
OneShoreline San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District PCE Peninsula Clean Energy
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PSPS Public Safety Power Shutoff
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
SB Senate Bill (State)
SLR Sea Level Rise
SPAR Site Plan and Architectural Review
SFD Single-Family Dwelling
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SF RWS San Francisco Regional Water System
SMC Fire San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department
SMCTA San Mateo County Transportation Authority
SMPD San Mateo Police Department
SOI Sphere of Influence
SR- State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SVS Social Vocational Services
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA Transportation Impact Analysis
TNC Transportation Network Company
TOD Transit Oriented Development
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VHFHSV Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
WUI Wildland-Urban Interface

326 of 516

226
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary

TERMINOLOGY
21 Elements. A multi-year, multi-phase collaboration of all 21 San Mateo County jurisdictions, along with partner agencies and stakeholder organizations.

Acreage. The land area that exists prior to any dedications for public use, health, and/or safety purposes.

Action. A measure, procedure, or technique that helps the City achieve a specific goal. An action is something concrete that can and will be completed. (see “Goal”)
Adaptation. Making changes in response to current or future conditions (such as the increased frequency and intensity of climate-related hazards), usually to reduce harm and take advantage of new opportunities.

Adaptive Management. A flexible, iterative decision making process that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood.1 Adverse Impact. A negative consequence for the physical, social, or economic environment resulting from an action or project.

Affordability, Housing. The relation of housing costs to household income.

Affordable Housing. A for-sale housing or rental housing affordable to households whose incomes do not exceed 120 percent of the area median income (moderate- or lower-income households).

Archaeological Resource. Material evidence of past human activity found below the surface of ground or water, portions of which may be visible above the surface.

Assembly Bill (AB). A State law or bill originating from the State Assembly. The abbreviation “AB” preceeds the specific bill number .

Association of Bay Area Governments. The regional planning agency for the nine Bay Area counties, including San Mateo County, and the 101 cities and towns within these counties.

Asset. A valued feature of a community that may be harmed by climate change. Assets may include buildings, infrastructure, community services, ecosystems, and economic drivers.

Below Market Rate Unit. A below market rate unit is an affordable housing unit (see Affordable Housing definition).

Buffer. An area established between potentially conflicting land uses, which, depending on the potential impact, may use landscaping or structural barriers such as yards or roads.

Bicycle Class Facilities. A classification system for bicycle paths and roadways identified in the California Highway Design Manual.

Shared-use paths (Class I): Off-road pathways designed for people walking, biking, and rolling (e.g., skateboard or scooter).

Separated bike lanes (Class IV): A designated lane separated from vehicular traffic by a buffer with vertical protection (e.g., flexible posts, planters, parked vehicles, curbs). 1 U.S. Department of the Interior, 2009. Adaptive Management, The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide, page 5.

327 of 516

227
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
Buffered bike lanes (Class II): A designated bicycle lane adjacent to vehicular traffic separated by a striped buffer area on the pavement.

Standard bike lanes (Class II): A designated bicycle lane directly adjacent to vehicular traffic.

Bicycle boulevards (Class III): Bicyclists share a lane with vehicular traffic and are identified with bicycle signage and pavement markings to increase driver awareness of bicyclists and aid bicyclists with navigation; however, bicycle boulevards include traffic-calming treatments and are solely implemented on low-speed (i.e., less than 25 mile per hour) and low-volume (i.e., less than 3,000 vehicles per day) streets to ensure they are low-stress facilities.

Bicycle routes (Class III): Bicyclists share the lane with vehicular traffic and are identified with bicycle signage and pavement markings to increase driver awareness of bicyclists and aid bicyclists with navigation. The City is phasing out this type of route within the bicycle network and upgrading to other facility types.

Building. A structure with substantial walls and roof designed for the shelter, enclosure, or protetion of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind. (see “Structure”) Building Code. Standards adopted by the State governing the construction, alteration, demolition, occupancy, or other use of buildings used for human habitation. The State regulations are substantially the same as those contained in the most recent editions of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and the National Electric Code. Local governments may have stricter standards under certain circumstances.

California Environmental Quality Act. Legislation and corresponding procedural components established in 1970 by the State of California to require environmental review for projects anticipated to result in adverse impacts to the environment. (see “Environmental Impact Report”) Capital Improvement Program. A program that schedules permanent improvements, usually for a minimum of five years in the future, that fits the projected fiscal capability of the local jurisdiction. The program generally is reviewed on an annual basis for conformance to and consistency with the General Plan.

Carbon Neutral. Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero, either by entirely eliminating all GHG emissions or by balancing out all remaining GHG emissions through carbon removal practices so that the “net” emissions are zero.

City. City with a capital “C” generally refers to the City of San Mateo government or administration. City with a lower case “c” may mean any city or may refer to the geographical area.

City Limits. The legal boundaries of the geographical area subject to the jurisdiction of the City of San Mateo’s government. For example, development applications for properties located within the City Limits must be reviewed by the City.

Clean Air Refuge. A building with efficient air filtration and improved air quality that is opened to community members during poor air quality days.

Climate Change. Long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns that have come to define the Earth’s local, regional and global climates . In the context of this plan, this term refers to changes brought on by human activities, also known as anthropogenic climate change.

328 of 516

228
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
Compatible. Capable of existing together without conflict or ill effects.

Complete Street. A transportation facility that is planned, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to provide comfortable and convenient mobility, and improve accessibility and connectivity to essential community destinations for all users and abilities, regardless of whether they are travelling as pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users, public transportation riders, or drivers. Complete streets are especially attuned to the needs of people walking, using assistive mobility devices, rolling, biking, and riding transit.

Complete Streets Act. A law that requires all road construction and improvement projects to evaluate how the right-of-way serves all who use it, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.

Conservation. The management and use of natural resources in a sustainable manner . Conservation results in land and water areas that are protected and managed for durability to sustain functional ecosystems, both intact and restored, and the diversity of life they support.

Conserve. To manage natural resources sustainably.

Critical Facility. A facility whose continued functioning is necessary to maintain public health and safety following a disaster, and where damage or failure could pose hazards to life and property well beyond their immediate vicinity.

Cultural Resource. A historic, archaeological, tribal, or paleontological resource or human remains. Cultural resources include tribal cultural resources, as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074, regardless of whether a tribe is federally recognized.

Decibel (dB). A unit used to express the relative intensity of a sound as it is heard by the human ear . The lowest volume a normal ear can detect under laboratory conditions is 0 decibel, the threshold of human hearing. Since the decibel scale is logarithmic, 10 decibels are 10 times more intense and 20 decibels are 100 times more intense than 1 decibel.

Decibel, A-weighted (dBA). The “A-weighted” scale for measuring sound in decibels, which weighs or reduces the effects of low and high frequencies to simulate human hearing. Every increase of 10 dBA doubles the perceived loudness, even though the noise is actually 10 times more intense.

Dedication. Giving private land for public use, and the acceptance of land for such use by the governmental agency having jurisdiction over the public function for which it will be used. Dedications for roads, parks, school sites, or other public uses are often required by a city or county as conditions for approval of a development. (see “In-Lieu Fee”)
Density. The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land (du/acre). Densities specified in this General Plan are expressed in dwelling units per net acreage, excluding land area that may be devoted to public right-of-way, including roadways..

Development Review. The comprehensive evaluation of a development and its impact on neighboring properties, the environment, and the community as a whole, from the standpoint of site and landscape design, architecture, materials, lighting, and signs, in accordance with a set of adopted criteria and standards.

329 of 516

229
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
Development. The physical expansion and/or construction of non-farm land uses. Development activities include subdivision of land; construction of a single-family dwelling on an existing lot; construction or alteration of structures, roads, utilities, and other facilities; grading; deposit of refuse, debris, or fill materials; and clearing of natural vegetative cover (with the exception of agricultural activities). Routine repair and maintenance activities are not considered development.

Development Fees. Direct charges or dedications collected on a one-time basis for a service provided or as a condition of approval being granted by the local government. The purpose of the fee or exaction must directly relate to the need created by the development. In addition, its amount must be proportional to the cost of the service or improvement. Fees can be broken down into two major classes: (1) service charges, such as permit fees covering the cost of processing development plans, connection, or standby fees for installing utilities, or application fees for reviewing and considering development proposals; and (2) “impact” fees levied on new development to cover the cost of infrastructure or facilities necessitated by development. (See “Impact Fee”)
Disability, persons with. A physical impairment or mental disorder, which is expected to be of a long, continued, or indefinite duration and is of such a nature that the person’s ability to live independently could be hindered unless improved by more suitable housing conditions.

Duplex. A free-standing house divided into two separate living units or residences, usually having separate entrances; or two single-family detached dwelling units on a single lot.

Dwelling Unit. The place of customary abode of a person or household, which is either considered to be real property under State law or cannot be easily moved.

Ecosystem. An interacting system formed by a biotic community and its physical environment.

Electric Vehicle. A zero-emission vehicle that uses electricity stored in a battery to power one or more electric motors and can be plugged in at home, work, fleet, or public charging stations.

Environmental Impact Report. A study required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act that assesses all the environmental characteristics of an area, determines what effects or impacts will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action, and identifies alternatives or other measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. (see “California Environmental Quality Act”) Equity. The state in which each individual or group is allocated or has access to the resources needed to reach an equal or fair outcome.

Equity Priority Community. A low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. This is the term the City of San Mateo uses in place of “disadvantaged communities,” as named in Senate Bill (SB) 1000. SB 1000 defines disadvantaged communities per Heath and Safety Code Section 39711, specifying CalEnviroScreen as the primary screening method for identifying these communities.

Erosion. The process by which soil and rock are detached and moved by running water, wind, ice, and gravity.

Evacuation Route. A roadway designated in the General Plan as a potential recommended route to travel when evacuating from a hazardous condition.

330 of 516

230
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
Evacuation-Constrained Parcels. Parcels located on a single-access road that do not have at least two ingress/egress routes.

Exposure. The presence of people, infrastructure, natural systems, and economic, cultural, and social resources in areas that are subject to harm.

Farmers’ Market. A mobile or non-mobile market: (1) operated by a local government agency, one or more certified producers, or a nonprofit organization; (2) certified by and operating in a location approved by the County Agricultural Commissioner; and (3) where farmers sell directly to consumers agricultural products or processed products made from agricultural products that the farmers grow themselves.

Fault. A fracture in the earth’s crust that forms a boundary between rock masses that have shifted.

Fire Hazard Severity Zone. An area of significant fire hazard based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant hazards.

Flood, 100-Year. In any given year, a flood that has a 1 percent likelihood (a 1 in 100 chance) of occurring, and is recognized as a standard for acceptable risk.

Flood, 500-Year. In any given year, a flood that has a 0.2 percent likelihood (a 1 in 500 chance) of occurring.

Floodplain. The relatively level land area on either side of the banks of a stream regularly subject to flooding.

Floor Area Ratio. The size of a building in square feet (gross floor area) divided by gross land area, expressed as a decimal number . For example, a 60,000-square-foot building on a 120,000-square-foot parcel would have a floor area ratio of 0.50. The FAR is used in calculating the building intensity of development.

Garden, Community. A shared, semi-public space where people in the surrounding neighborhood share the work and harvest of maintaining a plot of fuits, vegetables, or other plants. Community gardens provide residents with an opportunity to grow fresh produce, flowers, or other plants on land that they do not own. Community gardens can also serve an educational function, especially when operated by community organizations or educational instituions..

Gateway. A unique transition point in topography, architecture, or land use that serves as an entrance to the city or specific neighborhoods within the city.

General Plan. A collection of City policies regarding its long-term development, in the form of maps and accompanying text. The General Plan is a legal document required of each local agency by the State of California Government Code Section 65301 and adopted by the City Council.

Geographic Information Systems. A combination of approaches, programs, methodologies, and technol- ogies to map, gather, store, manipulate, analyze, present, and interpret spatial information and data.

Goal. A description of the general desired result sought by the City. Each goal has one or more policies and/ or actions associated with the goal. (see “Policy” and “Action”) Greenhouse Gas. A gas that allows sunlight to pass through but reflect heat radiated from the earth’s surface, trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Common greenhouse gases (GHGs) include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N 2O). They may be emitted by natural or human processes.

331 of 516

231
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
Groundwater. Water that exists beneath the earth’s surface, typically found between saturated soils and rock, and is used to supply wells and springs.

Habitat. The physical location or type of environment in which an organism or biological population lives or occurs.

Hazard. An event or physical condition that has the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural losses, damage to the environment, interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss.

Hazard Mitigation. Sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property through actions that reduce hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.

Hazardous Material, Hazardous Waste. A substance or waste that, because of its physical, chemical, or other characteristics, may pose a risk of endangering human health or safety or of degrading the environment.

This does not include household hazardous waste, universal waste, or electronic waste, as they do not contain the quantity, concentration, and/or types of products significant enough to pose a substantial risk to human health and safety or to the environment.

Historic Resource. A historic resource is a building, structure, site, or district that has one or more of the following characteristics:
• Listed in or determined to be on or individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources. • Identified as a Downtown Historic District or Glazenwood Historic District contributor building as designated in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report. • Determined to be eligible through documentation contained in a historic resources report.

Horizon Year. The year through which the General Plan is intended to be effective, or 2040.

Household. All persons occupying one dwelling unit.

Human Scale. Buildings, structures, streetscape, and other urban design elements that are of a size and propotion that relates to the size of a human to create a comfortable and inviting experience.

Impact, Climate. The effects (especially the negative effects) of a hazard or other condition associated with climate change.

Impact Fee. A fee imposed on a proposed development project by a jurisdiction to address impacts to city services or infrastructure, based on the number of units, square footage, or acreage. The fee is often used to offset costs of schools, roads, police and fire services, housing, and parks. (See “Development Fee”) Implementation. Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out a plan.

Infill Development. Development that occurs on vacant or underutilized land within areas that are already largely developed.

In-Lieu Fee. A fee that may be required of an owner or developer as a substitute for a dedication of land or an asset for public use, such as public art, replacement of trees, or parking spaces, usually calculated in dollars per lot, and referred to as in-lieu fees or in-lieu contributions. (see “Dedication”)

332 of 516

232
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
King Tides. Abnormally high, predictable astronomical tides that occur about twice per year, with the highest tides occurring when the Earth, Moon, and Sun are aligned.

Land Use. The occupation or use of an area of land for any human activity or purpose.

Land Use Designation. One particular land use category, from a range of land use classifications, assigned to a parcel as established by the General Plan Land Use Element.

Landslide. Movement of soil and/or rock down a slope, which typically occurs during an earthquake or following heavy rainfall.

Liquefaction. The transformation of loose, wet soil from a solid to a liquid state, often as a result of ground shaking during an earthquake.

Local Agency Formation Commission. A five- or seven-member commission within each county that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. Each county’s LAFCO is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals.

Maximum Development. Development of land to its full potential, or theoretical capacity, as permitted under current or proposed planning or zoning designations.

Micro Agriculture. The practice of growing and processing fresh food in an urban area.

Micromobility. Transportation via small, lightweight vehicles, typically electric assisted, operated by the driver, such as electric scooters and bicycles. Vehicles typically do not exceed 15 miles per hour and are often available for rent for short-range travel within a defined area.

Mitigation. A protective measure or modification of a project to avoid, reduce, minimize, or eliminate a negative impact. There are various types of mitigation, including environmental impact mitigation, hazard mitigation, greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, and more.

Mixed-Use. Any mix of land uses, including mixing residences with commercial, offices with retail, or visitor accommodation with offices and retail. As distinguished from a single-use land use designation or zone, mixed use refers to an authorized variety of uses for buildings and structures in a particular area. When the mix of uses is within one building, its called vertical mixed-use. A type of mixed-use development where uses are behind or next to each other but in different buildings on the same development site is called horizontal mixed use.

Multimodal Level of Service. A scale that measures the performance of vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.

Municipality. An incorporated city or town.

Neighborhood. Relatively large residential areas that have some common characteristics, such as a common history, neighborhood association, or common physical characteristics (e.g., architectural style), a common meeting place, intangible characteristics (e.g., a psychological sense of cohesion), or clear physical boundaries (e.g., waterways or major roads).

Noise Contour. A line connecting points of equal noise level as measured on the same scale.

333 of 516

233
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
Noise-Sensitive Use. A location where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of land, such as residences, schools, and hospitals.

Non-Conforming Use. A use that was legally allowed when brought into existence, but no longer permitted by current regulation. “Non-conforming use” is a generic term and includes: (1) non-conforming structures (because their size, type of construction, location on land, or proximity to other structures is no longer permitted); (2) non-conforming use of a conforming building; (3) non-conforming use of a non-conforming building; and (4) non-conforming use of land. Any use lawfully existing on any piece of property that is inconsistent with a new or amended General Plan, and that in turn is a violation of a Zoning Ordinance amendment subsequently adopted in conformance with the General Plan, will be a non-conforming use.

Typically, non-conforming uses are considered “grandfathered in” and permitted to continue, subject to certain restrictions on discontinuance or rehabilitation.

Nonessential Idling. Unnecessary operation of a gas-powered vehicle while it is stationary when none of the following circumstances are met: the vehicle is stuck in traffic; idling is necessary to inspect or service the vehicle; the vehicle is transferring power via a power-takeoff device; the vehicle can’t move due to adverse weather conditions or mechanical failure; the vehicle is a bus with passengers on board. See California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2485, for a full definition.

Overlay. A land use or zoning designation that modifies the basic underlying designation or designations in some specific manner .

Parcel. An area of land that is a legally created lot.

Park. Tract of land set aside for public use, aesthetic enjoyment, recreation, or the conservation of natural resources.

Regional Park: Regional Parks are of a relatively expansive size and their unique natural and cultural attractions draw visitors from the entire region. These parks usually have many uses and require a higher level of management when compared to smaller parks such as city parks, neighborhood parks, recreation centers, and pocket parks, which have fewer activities and primarily serve local residents.

Community Park: Community parks serve the needs of a rangle of people, from several neighborhoods to the entire city. They typically contain a wide variety of facilities for active and passive recreation, and organized sports. They also provide amenities typical of neighborhood parks for use by the surrounding residents. Parks containing fewer elements but that contain facilities that serve the entire city may be considered to be community parks.

Neighborhood Park: Neighborhood Parks provide for the daily recreation needs of nearby residents, with primarily passive and informal recreation facilities. Neighborhood parks often include play areas, picnic areas, open turf areas or green space, basketball courts, and tennis courts. The neighborhood parks also may contain play fields.

Mini Parks: Mini parks are small parks, generally less than one acre in size, that accommodate the daily recreation needs of nearby residents. They typically include children’s play areas, sitting areas, and limited green space, but are not large enough to contain play fields.

334 of 516

234
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
Policy. A specific statement that guides decision making as the City works to achieve a goal. Policies represent statements of City regulation and set the standards used by decision makers when considering proposed development and actions. A policy is ongoing and requires no further action (see “Goal”).

Reach Code. A local municipal code that exceeds the State Building Code requirements. A reach code must be at least as stringent as the State Code, cost-effective, approved by the California Energy Commission, and updated and re-approved with each State Energy Code update.

Reconstruction. Redevelopment of a building or structure, after being damaged or destroyed in a disaster, to its original state.

Resilience. The capacity of any entity—an individual, community, organization, or natural system—to prepare for disruptions, recover from shocks and stresses, and adapt and grow from a disruptive experience.

Community resilience is the ability of communities to withstand, recover, and learn from past disasters to strengthen future response and recovery efforts.

Rewilding. Returning land to its natural state to regenerate natural areas. In contrast to restoration, rewilding focuses on returning ecosystems to their former states as close as possible while allowing for plant, animal, and other ecosystem subsitutions to account for changing future conditions.

Riparian. A habitat and vegetation zone that is associated with the banks and floodplains of a river, stream, or lake. Riparian trees and shrubs are typically phreatophytes, plants whose root systems are in constant contact with groundwater .

Risk. The potential for damage or loss created by the interaction of hazards with assets such as buildings, infrastructure, or natural and cultural resources.

Roadway Classifications. Roadway classifications define the function of various street types in the transpor- tation network. The City of San Mateo classifies its roadways using the Caltrans Functional Classification System.

Local Streets and Alleyways: Local streets and alleyways make up the majority of the roadway system and typically have lower speeds and vehicular traffic volumes.

Collectors: Collectors link neighborhoods together and allow travelers to reach places outside of their neighborhoods. They have higher speeds than local streets and can handle more traffic volume.

Collectors are important segments of San Mateo’s existing and proposed bikeway network.

Arterials: Arterial streets connect the regional roadway network with collectors. Most intersections along arterials are signalized, often with a coordinated and interconnected signal system. Compared to collectors, arterials have higher capacity to accommodate traffic volumes, and they provide for longer, continuous movement throughout the city.

Freeways: Freeways are high-speed roadways without intersections that allow residents to reach destinations outside of the city, either by car or transit. US Highway 101 and State Route 92 run through the city, while Interstate 280 is just west of the City Limits.

Safe Routes to School. Pedestrian and bicycling routes that provide children with safe access to and from schools.

335 of 516

235
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
Scenic Roadways; Scenic Trails. Land that is visible from, adjacent to, and outside a roadway right-of-way, and is made up primarily of scenic and natural features. Topography, vegetation, viewing distance, and/or jurisdictional lines determine the scenic corridor boundaries.

Sea Level Rise. The worldwide average rise in mean sea level, which may be due to a number of different causes, such as the thermal expansion of sea water and the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets, including as a result of climate change.

Seniors. People 65 years of age or older.

Sensitive Habitat. Land containing unique, representative, threatened, and/or endangered plant and animal communities, or ecosystems.

Sensitive Receptor. A use that is highly sensitive to impacts from other uses, including homes, schools, playgrounds, sports fields, childcare centers, senior centers, hospitals, and long-term healthcare facilities.

Sensitivity. The level to which a species, natural system, community, or government would be affected by changing climate conditions.

Severe Ground Shaking. Intense ground movement resulting from the transmission of seismic waves during an earthquake.

Specific Plan. Under Article 8 of the Government Code (Section 65450 et seq.), a legal tool for detailed design and implementation of a defined portion of the area covered by a General Plan. A Specific Plan may include all or a part of detailed regulations, conditions, programs, and/or proposed legislation that may be necessary or convenient for the systematic implementation of any General Plan element(s).

Sphere of Influence. The probable physical boundaries and service area of a municipality or special district, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the county.

Stormwater. Water that comes from a rain event.

Structure. Anything constructed or erected on and permanently attached to the ground, except fences six feet or less in height (see “Building”).

Sustainability. Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs in three key realms, or pillars: economic viability, environmental protection, and social equity.

Toxic Air Contaminant. An air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health, according to California Health and Safety Code Section 39655.

Traffic Calming. Measures designed to reduce motor vehicle speeds and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle use, including narrow streets with fewer lanes, tight turning radii, sidewalk bulbouts, parking bays, textured paving at intersections, and parkways between sidewalks and streets.

Transit-Oriented Development. The clustering of homes and jobs at higher densities within a half mile of a rail station or bus service with 15 minute headways or less.

336 of 516

236
Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft
Chapter 10 Abbreviations and Glossary
Triplex. A free-standing house divided into three separate living units or residences, usually having separate entrances, or three single-family detached dwelling units on a single lot.

Unincorporated Area. Land that is outside of an incorporated city and falls under a County’s jurisdiction.

Development proposals in unincorporated areas need County review and approval.

Use. The purpose for which a lot or structure is or may be leased, occupied, maintained, arranged, designed, intended, constructed, erected, moved, altered, and/or enlarged in accordance with the City Zoning Code and the General Plan land use designations.

Wastewater. Water that contains other elements, such as sewage, small pathogens, organic matter, and inorganic contaminants. This term is also used to refer to water generated in industrial plants and commercial activity.

Wetland. An area that is seasonally or permanently inundated or saturated by surface water or ground - water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a distinct ecosystem with a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, commonly known as hydrophytic vegetation. Wetlands may be coastal or inland.

Wildland-Urban Interface. An area that includes both houses and wildland vegetation, creating a signif - icant threat to human life or property from wildfires.

Zoning. Zoning implements the land use policies of the General Plan. The adopted codes of a City by ordinance or other legislative regulation that identifies districts or zones citywide. These zones specify allowable uses for real property, as well as standards for buildings constructed in these areas.

337 of 516

Strive San Mateo ● General Plan 2040 | Draft

338 of 516

StriveSanMateo.org

339 of 516

MEMORANDUM
TOSan Mateo City Council
FROMJoanna Jansen and Carey Stone, PlaceWorks
SUBJECTSummary of Community Engagement on the Draft General Plan This memorandum provides a summary of the community outreach and engagement effort that supported the publication of the Draft Geneal Plan between July and early October 2023. The overarching goal of this outreach and engagement effort was to comprehensively promote awareness of the Draft General Plan, engage with all segments of the San Mateo community and provide many channels and opportunities for the community to provide input and feedback on the draft goals and policies. This Summary Memorandum include a list of all outreach events that occurred; Public input channels used to collect feedback and comments; Methods used to publicize and broadcast information; Outreach focused on the City’s Equity Priority Communities; and statistics on the demographics that were engaged with during this outreach phase.

Community Outreach Events
Table 1 includes a list of all outreach events that occurred during this phase of the General Plan Update effort, between July 17, 2023 and October 9, 2023.

TABLE 1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH EVENTS
Date Outreach Event # of Participants
Friday, July 17, 2023 to Sunday,
October 1, 2023 Draft General Plan Online Comment Tool 236 Comments Friday, July 17, 2023 to Monday,
October 9, 2023 Written Public Comments 52 Comments
Monday, June 12, 2023 Meeting with Neighborhood Group (25th Ave Speaks) 4 Wednesday, July 26, 2023 Sierra Club Land Use Subcommittee Staff Presentation 6 Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Video Loco (North B St) Pop-up 20 Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Canvassing and passing out flyers to local businesses in North B Street 25
Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Distribute flyers at La Huerta Market & El Ranchito
Market n/a
Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association Meeting
Staff Presentation 34
Wednesday, August 16, 2023 Virtual Workshop 30
Wednesday, August 16, 2023 Canvassing at Idaho & Poplar Neighborhoods 6 Wednesday, August 18, 2023
Flyers were left at local businesses at Kingston Street in North Shoreview n/a
Tuesday, August 22, 2023 Canvassing at Tilton/Delaware Food Distribution 20 Friday, August 25, 2023 Canvassing at Norfolk and 3rd Ave Shopping Center 10

340 of 516

TABLE 1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH EVENTS
Date Outreach Event # of Participants
Saturday, August 26, 2023 Firefighter’s Chili Cook-Off Pop-Up 85 Sunday, August 27, 2023 North B Street Fiesta Pop-up 115 Monday, August 28, 2023 Canvassing Rogell Street Food Distribution 35 Tuesday, August 29, 2023 Canvassing at North Shoreview Shopping Center 30 Thursday, August 31, 2023 District 5 Town Hall Meeting 125 Wednesday, September 6, 2023
Canvassing at Hacienda Market and commercial center
on North Amphlett 40
Wednesday, September 6, 2023 Canvassing at La Raza Family Market 40 Wednesday, September 6, 2023 District 1 Town Hall Meeting 120 Thursday, September 7, 2023 Canvassing at King Center/Soccer Fields 60 Thursday, September 7, 2023 September Nights on B Pop-Up 100 Friday, September 8, 2023 Movies in the Park Pop-Up 50
Wednesday, September 13, 2023 District 2 Town Hall Meeting 40 Thursday, September 14, 2023 September Nights on B Pop-Up 100 Friday, September 15, 2023 Movies in the Park Pop-Up 75 Sunday, September 17, 2023
Canvassing at Iglesia Pentecostal de San Mateo,
Second Baptist Church, Sturge Presbyterian Church,
Shoreview United Methodist Church, St. Timothy
Catholic Church
8 individuals + 300
total fliers left with
church staff
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Canvassing at Chavez Market, North Shoreview
Shopping Center and along Cary Avenue 30
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Phone call and email reminders to religious institutions and businesses 5
Wednesday, September 20, 2023 District 4 Town Hall Meeting 30 Thursday, September 21, 2023
Home Association of North Central San Mateo
(HANCSM) Meeting Staff Presentation 25
Friday, September 22, 2023 Movies in the Park Pop-Up 75 Friday, September 23, 2023
Autumn Moon Festival Pop-Up (materials provided in
simplified Chinese with bilingual staff) 75
Thursday, September 28, 2023 District 3 Town Hall Meeting 50 Saturday, September 30, 2023 Chamber of Commerce Downtown Festival Pop-Up 100

341 of 516

Public Input Channels
This section summarizes the public input channels that were used to collect feedback on Draft General Plan 2040. The City collected feedback via:
Draft General Plan Online Comment Tool. The online tool was available on www.strivesanmateo.org from July 17, 2023 through October 1, 2023 to allow community members an opportunity to share reactions and feedback on Draft General Plan 2040.

Respondents could add comments directly into a PDF of the Draft General Plan and share feedback on all components of the plan.
Pop-up Events. The City planned 10 pop-up events at locations throughout the city to ensure the outreach process was aimed at collecting input from the following groups per Council direction:
oNon-English speakers
oRenters
oResidents 44 and under
oLow-income and very low-income households
oUnder-represented neighborhoods: North Shoreview, Shoreview, North Central, Central, and East of 101.

At the pop-up events, City staff shared information about Draft General Plan 2040 and publicized the upcoming outreach event.
Virtual Workshop. The City hosted a virtual workshop on Wednesday, August 16, 2023. At this event, participants could ask questions and provide feedback on the Draft General Plan 2040. Town Hall Meetings. The City hosted five District Town Hall Meetings around the city to gather feedback on Draft General Plan 2040, with one town hall meeting held in each Council District. The meetings occurred in August and September 2023. The meetings included an open house format where the community could engage with staff and various General Plan topics, a presentation about the Draft General Plan 2040 with focused topics for each District and a follow-up question and answer session. City Staff were available to answer questions about the Draft General Plan 2040, as well as other projects related to roadway safety, transportation improvements and stormwater protection.
Staff Presentations. The City met with local neighborhood organizations and other interest groups to help spread the word about Draft General Plan 2040 and respond to questions. This included providing a presentation to the Sierra Club Land Use Subcommittee, Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association, North Central Neighborhood Association, and meeting with a neighborhood group about 25th Avenue.
Written Comments. Throughout the General Plan Update process, the City has encouraged people to submit written comments to [email protected]. during the Draft General Plan outreach phase, from July 17, 2023 to Monday, October 9, 52 written comments were received. The written comments can be viewed at
www.StriveSanMateo.org/documents/publiccomments.

Getting the Word Out
To ensure the community was aware of the Draft Geneal Plan and the proposed goals and policies, and to spread the word about project updates and upcoming events, the City utilized a variety of outreach methods and tools:

342 of 516

StriveSanMateo.org Project Website. The project website provided background information, meeting dates, workshop materials, and other ways to get involved. Self-Guided Open House. The City distributed Draft General Plan 2040 self-guided open house stations throughout the city that included boards and materials with information about the General Plan. The stations were available at City Hall and Council Chambers, Downtown Library, Hillsdale Branch Library, Marina Branch Library, and King Community Center. Social Media. City staff made regular posts on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Nextdoor.com to update the public about the project, including a different Big Idea featured each week. A total of 53 posts were made to spread the word about the Draft General Plan. Citywide Newsletter. The City published a newsletter that announced the publication of the Draft General Plan which was mailed to every residence in San Mateo. The newsletter had information about the outreach events, a QR code to the project website, a description of the ten big ideas, in addition to other information.
Town Hall Postcard. A postcard was mailed to every residence in San Mateo advertising information about the five Town Hall meetings, including the time and location of each event. Sidewalk Decals. The City placed over 190 sidewalk decals around the city that included the Strive San Mateo logo and a QR code to the project website. Earned Media. Publication of the Draft Geneal Plan was prominently featured in a July 18, 2023 article in the San Mateo Daily Journal, as well as in multiple other articles and editorials in the Daily Journal between July and October.
Eblasts. PlaceWorks sent out eight emails to 897 people subscribed to the project mailing list prior to every Town Hall Meeting and workshop. Information about the Draft General Plan and outreach opportunities were also regularly featured in the City’s eNewsletter, which has approximately 13,000 subscribers.
Print Advertisement. Information about the Draft Geneal Plan was featured on the inside cover of the City’s Fall Recreation Activity Guide.
Canvassing and Flyer Distribution. Bilingual staff (English and Spanish) from the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC) and Good City Company distributed flyers to raise awareness of the Draft General Plan and upcoming outreach opportunities by visiting businesses, markets, religious institutions, and by walking or standing in key areas of the city. Draft General Plan 2040 User Guide. The City prepared a user guide for the Draft General Plan that explains what the General Plan is, identifies ten big ideas from the General Plan, and highlights where community members can find the issues they care about in the General Plan.
Ten Big Ideas in San Mateo’s Draft General Plan 2040. The City developed a list of ten big ideas that will guide the next 20 years of San Mateo for community members to use as a resource.

Outreach to Equity Priority Communities
North Central and North Shoreview/Shoreview are both identified as Equity Priority Communities and are located within Council Districts 2 and 4. Leading up to the District 2 and District 4 Town Hall meetings, PCRC and Good City conducted outreach to increase awareness of the Draft General Plan 2040 among residents of equity priority communities and also increase attendance at the District 2 and District 4 Town Hall meetings. This effort was guided by the following principles:

343 of 516

Meet community members where they already are. Proactively go to places where the target audience already is rather than creating new events.
Focus on Non-English speakers. Multilingual with a focus on Spanish speakers and lower- income households.
Use clear and concise language, avoid jargon and technical terms. The information provided should be relevant to the community.

Outreach locations were chosen because of their potential for high pedestrian traffic (parks, supermarkets, major thoroughfares, commercial centers), including community wide events such as the North B Street Fiesta, food distribution events, as well as nonprofit and religious institutions such as the San Mateo Adult School and St. Timothy’s Catholic Church. All activities were conducted by Spanish speaking volunteers from PCRC and Good City. Outreach was completed in many areas of District 2 and District 4 and were effective at reaching residents in the targeted audience that spoke Spanish.

The following is a summary of the outreach effort that focused on reaching community members from North Central and North Shoreview/Shoreview:
Staff/volunteers from PCRC and Good City conducted outreach on 12 separate dates in the afternoons, evenings, weekdays and weekends leading up to Town Hall meetings. Approximately 1,400 total flyers were distributed.
Visited five religious institutions and the Adult School of San Mateo and dropped off flyers. Distributed flyers at approximately 35 businesses located at 6 different commercial shopping centers/strips (El Video Loco and North B Street, Chavez Market, La Hacienda Market, Primas Market, La Raza Family Market, Mercado El Nayarita).
Attended and passed out information to attendees at 1 community wide event (North B Fiesta) and two food distribution events.
Canvassed at Martin Luther King Park twice (afternoon and evening). 1 pop-up event and tabling event on North B Street.

Outreach Demographics
This section summarizes the demographic characteristics of the outreach participants that provided voluntary demographic data. This includes participants from the outreach events listed in Table 1 and demographic data from participants at past outreach events that answered the same question. The summary below includes demographic data from January 2022 to October 2023. The demographic data below helps the project team determine if the outreach program is reaching the full range of San Mateo’s demographics. This data indicates that the outreach program should continue to be refined to increase involvement of renters, younger residents, and residents who identify as Asian, Hispanic, and Black/African American. A summary of the demographics of the outreach participants is presented below. Please note, the demographics summary below is not inclusive of all participants, since participants were not asked to provide voluntary demographic data during the pop-ups or canvassing events.

Is this your first time joining us for a General Plan event? Number of Respondents: 405
•44 percent of the workshop participants were new.

344 of 516

•56 percent had participated in a pervious General Plan meeting.

How are you affiliated with San Mateo?
Number of Respondents: 459
61%
7%
25%
6%
1% 0.2%
Live in San Mateo Work in San
Mateo
Live and work in
San Mateo
Visit San Mateo
to shop, dine, etc
I am not
connected to San
Mateo
Own property in
San Mateo

345 of 516

What kind of stakeholder are you?
Number of Respondents: 360
1%
10%
8%
6%
8%
11%
3%
10%
67%
I am a representative of a homeowners association
I...

I own a business here
I am a representative of another
organization/group
I am a renter
I work here
I am a visitor or patronize San Mateo businesses
I am a resident
I own property here

346 of 516

How did you hear about the event?
Number of Respondents: 294
How long have you lived in San Mateo?
Number of Respondents: 186

0.3%
4%
18%
22%
21%
11%
43%
News article
Sidewalk decal
Word of mouth
General Plan newsletter
Other
StriveSanMateo website
City email/Social media
7%
9%
6%
71%
7%
Less than 5 years
5-10 years
10-15 years
More than 15 years
Do not live in San Mateo

347 of 516

Which best describes your current housing situation?
Number of Respondents: 386
Own my home
75%
Pay rent for my
home
25%
Outreach Participants
Owner Occupied
54%
Renter Occupied
46%
City of San Mateo, 2019

348 of 516

What is your age group?
Number of Respondents: 434
27%
32%
25%
15%
0-25 years 25-44 years 45-64 years 65+ years
City of San Mateo, 2019

2.8%
24%
46%
28%
0-25 years 25-40 years 41-64 years 65+ years
Outreach Participants

349 of 516

What is your race or ethnicity? (Check all that apply).

Number of Respondents: 445
8%

0.4%

0.4%

0.2%
17%
7%
14%
52%
Other
Native American
Black/African American
Pacific Islander
Latino/Hispanic
Mixed or other
Asian
White
Outreach Participants
6%
0%
2%
25%
26%
41%
Other Race or Multiple
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latinx
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
City of San Mateo, 2019

350 of 516

Which best describes your household annual income?
Number of Respondents: 240
11%
13%
14%
63%
Less than $75,000
$75,000-$99,000
$100,000-$149,000
$150,000 or more
Outreach Participants
29%
5%
16%
50%
Less than $75,000
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000 or more
City of San Mateo, 2019

351 of 516

MEMORANDUM
DATESeptember 1, 2023
TOSan Mateo Planning Commission
FROMJoanna Jansen and Carey Stone, PlaceWorks
SUBJECTSummary of General Plan Subcommittee Input on Draft General Plan 2040 This memorandum summarizes the General Plan Subcommitee (GPS) input on Draft General Plan 2040 received at the August 29, 2023 GPS meeting. The summary of GPS input focuses on comments that requested changes to the Draft General Plan and other requested actions by the GPS. In addition, when the GPS requested additions related to specific goals, policies, or actions, the policy language has been pasted below for the reader’s reference.

GENERAL COMMENTS
•Some GPS members requested the addition of an executive summary at the start of each element to explain what changes could result upon implementation and how it could affect community members in their day-to-day activities. One GPS member suggested that the Big Ideas fuilfilled this function.
•Several GPS members supported the placemaking concepts in the Draft General Plan and expressed interested in actions that will help define and enhance what makes San Mateo charming and unique from other Peninsula communities. This includes adding further text, policies, and actions that support cultural events and entertainment resources.
•Add policy direction throughout the General Plan to support local businesses, including business retention, and highlight the positive impacts local businesses have on the city. •Continue to coordinate with OneShoreline when planning for flooding improvements and sea level rise adaptation.
•Examine City fees for mixed-use and residential development projects and ensure that these fees are not an obstacle to housing produciton.
•Evaluate the parameters for mixed-use development to ensure commercial development is balanced with housing development.
•GPS members expressed support for initial staff recommendations to:
oModify Study Area 3 boundary in the 25 th Avenue area to remove the church parking lot site.
oAdd policy guidance on seniors/aging, including a focused section in Public Services and Facilities Element.
oReflect applicable plans on flooding/stormwater infrastructure to align with community priorities.

352 of 516

September 1, 2023 | Page 2

LAND USE ELEMENT
•Look at the allowed density ranges for Residential Low I and Residential Low II land use designations and confirm whether the allowed uses of triplexes, fourplexes, condominiums, and apartments can feasibly be accommodated under these designations. If not, consider whether these uses should be removed from the designation descriptions.
•Some GPS members requested that housing not be allowed within 500 feet of high- volume roadways while maintaining the overall residential capacity of the Draft General Plan Land Use Map. Other GPS members feel more comfortable with housing near high volume thoroughfares given building technology and buffers that can reduce exposure to particulate matter and a vehicle fleet that is transitioning to electric. •Revisit the Draft General Plan Land Use Map to ensure that a single block does not have more than one land use designation.
•Clarify Policy LU 1.9 Voter Approved Growth Limits so that it is clearer that Measure Y stays in effect after adoption of the General Plan until voters determine whether or not to modify the height and density requirements.
•Support for new Action LU 1.10 to annually monitor housing and job growth. •Communicate more transparently that only the ten Study Areas would be exempt from Measure Y upon voter approval and that other areas of the city would still be regulated by Measure Y requirements.
•Update Action LU 8.4 City Investment as follows: “Use funds collected by the park impact fee and other additional resources to invest in programs and public improvements that connect residents with opportunities to increase their physical activity and improve their physical and mental health, especially in equity priority communities with higher risk of negative public health outcomes. Identify new funding sources for programs and public improvements, if needed.” •Add actions to support Policy LU 8.5 Community Preservation and Policy LU 8.6 Safe and Sanitary Homes.
oPolicy LU 8.5 Community Preservation. Prevent displacement in equity priority communities by protecting tenants, helping homeowners remain in place, and funding affordable housing.
oPolicy LU 8.6 Safe and Sanitary Homes. Encourage homes and neighborhoods that are free of environmental health hazards.
•Add policy direction to support accessory commercial units in residential areas at a scale that would not be disruptive to the surrounding neighborhoods. •Provide incentives for low-income homeowners to maintain their properties. •Add more specific policies or actions about future land acquisition by the City.

353 of 516

September 1, 2023 | Page 3

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
•Consider being more explicit about reducing vehicle miles traveled in Policy C

1.Sustainable Transportation: “Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation by increasing mode share options for sustainable travel modes, such as walking, bicycling, and public transit. •Ensure that the City coordinates with transit providers to maintain transit service in San Mateo and plans for first/last mile connections to transit. •Consider revising Action C 1.11 Complete Streets Plan to reference the travel modes included in Goal C-1 (i.e. walking, bicycling, and transit): “Complete and implement the Complete Streets Plan to improve the City's circulation network, including pedestrian, bicycling, and transit infrastructure, to accommodate the needs of street users of all ages and abilities.
•Add a goal that would identify a timeframe the City plans to implement all planned infrastructure projects and the number of City staff that would be required to meet that goal.
•Consider adding an action that would support improving leading pedestrian intervals, automatic actuation of pedestrian signals, and identifying a policy about limiting right turns on red to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.
•Confirm that Policy C4.4 and C 4.5 are not the same thing. Note from General Plan team:

Policy C 4.4 focuses on bicycle safety technology and Policy C 4.5 focuses on shared mobility technology.
oPolicy C 4.4 Bicycle-Related Technology. Explore ways to use technology to improve bicycle safety and connectivity.
oPolicy C 4.5 Bicycle and Shared Mobility-Related Technology. Explore ways to use technology to improve bicycle and shared mobility safety and connectivity. •Clarify Policy C 6.7 Capital Improvement Program that it does not apply to adding new traffic lanes:
oPolicy C 6.7 Capital Improvement Program. Prioritize improvements that increase person throughput, but do not add new traffic lanes, in project prioritization to reduce VMT.
•Consider adding a policy that would allow density bonuses if additional parking is provided in areas where there are parking capacity issues such as portions of North Central.

COMMUNITY DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT
• Revise Policy CD 1.3 Scenic Corridors as follows:
oPolicy CD 1.3 Scenic Corridors. Require new development adjacent to designated scenic corridors within San Mateo County’s General Plan to protect and enhance the visual character of these corridors to the extent feasible.

354 of 516

September 1, 2023 | Page 4
•Update Policy CD 5.4 Public Awareness to ensure that property owners are aware if their property is being considered for designation as a historic resource or district. oPolicy CD 5.4 Public Awareness. Foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s historic resources and educate the community about how to preserve and improve these resources. Increase public appreciation by supporting groups and organizations that provide neighborhood workshops, public presentations, interpretive signage, and walking tours.
•Update Action CD 3.11 Tree Support for Low-Income Homeowners to ensure there are funding sources for low-income homeowners to pay for the replacement of trees:
oAction CD 3.11 Tree Support for Low-Income Homeowners. Explore funding sources and other forms of City support for low-income homeowners to plant and/or replace trees on their property.
•Ensure the City understands all the implications of defining a historic resource as being eligible for listing on National and California registers. oPolicy CD 5.3 Historic Resources Definition. Define historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible through documentation in a historic resources report.
•Remove Policy CD 8.3 Respect Existing Scale and Rhythm because it is too prescriptive and would fit better in the objective design standards:
oPolicy CD 8.3 Respect Existing Scale and Rhythm. Encourage new mixed-use and commercial development to respect the scale and rhythm of surrounding buildings, including by providing breaks in the building face at spacings common to buildings in the area and by stepping back upper floors.

CONSERVATION, OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
•Add policies and/or actions to support the expansion of cultural and entertainment resources in San Mateo.
oGoal COS-9 Provide stable and adequate operational and capital funding for the parks and recreation system.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
•Add background text and policy direction for seniors and aging, building on the Age- Friendly Action Plan.
•Add a policy to encourage local businesses to attain the Age Friendly Business certifcation.
•Add more policies to support the use of recycled water. •Add policy direction to increase public restrooms in San Mateo, especially in parks.

355 of 516

September 1, 2023 | Page 5
•Strengthen polices and actions about microgrids further. •Expand PSF 4.11 Public Wi-Fi so that it applies to other public buildings oPSF 4.11 Public Wi-Fi. Provide high-speed internet access to the public at all City facilities and parks and school facilities.

SAFETY ELEMENT
•Update Policies SAF 1.14 and SAF 1.15 and Action SAF 1.19 to refer to the County Events Center which is a designated emergency center and will be an important resource in the event of an emergency:
oPolicy SAF 1.14 Multijurisdictional Cooperation. Continue the development of local preparedness plans and multijurisdictional cooperation and communication for emergency situations.
oPolicy SAF 1.15 Emergency Preparedness. Coordinate with San Mateo County, neighboring cities, and nongovernmental partners to effectively prepare for and respond to hazards and natural disasters.
oAction SAF 1.19 Public Safety Outreach. Develop a public safety education program to increase public awareness of potential hazards, City’s emergency readiness and response program, and evacuation routes. Target public education programs to segments of the community that are most vulnerable to hazards and safety risks.

NOISE ELEMENT
•The GPS did not have any comments on the Noise Element.

356 of 516

1 ATTACHMENT 4 – LAND USE ELEMENT – RECOMMENDED REVISIONS Change
ID
Policy/
Action Number
Comment
Source Comment Recommended Change(s)
1 General Plan Height and
Intensity Standards
General Plan
Subcommittee
Communicate more transparently that only the ten
Study Areas would be exempt from Measure Y upon
voter approval and that other areas of the city would
still be regulated by Measure Y requirements.

Staff will update the Measure Y language in the General Plan to ensure it is current and clearly articulates that all areas outside of the Study Areas would still be subject to Measure Y height and density limits, and that the Study Areas would be subject to amended limits upon voter approval.
2 General Plan Land Use
Designations and Land
Use Map text box
Public Comment Clarify the land use designation identify height limits by stories rather than building height.

Revise the explanatory text in the blue text box as follows:
“Residential densities for the land use designations are expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Building heights are expressed by the number of stories. The General Plan assumes each story is an average of 11 feet, provided that the applicable overall height limit shall not be exceeded.”
3 Figure LU-1 Land Use
Map
Public Comment Move the Highway 101 label on the map so it does not obscure the designations shown.

Reduce the size of the Highway 101 label on the map and move to ensure that all land use designations are visible.
4 Table LU-1 Land Use
Designations
City Staff Update the title of the Service Commercial land use designation to recognize that both service commercial
and light industrial uses exist and are anticipated on
properties with this designation.

Update Service Commercial Service designation to be “Service Commercial/Light Industrial.”
5 Policy LU 3.3
Neighborhood
Commercial Preservation
Policy LU 3.4
Convenience Retail
City Staff
Recommended
Change
Combine Policy LU 3.3 and LU 3.4 since these two
policies overlap. Draft new Policy LU 3.4 that focuses
on preserving ground floor retail and commercial uses
in new developments.

Policy LU 3.3 Neighborhood Commercial and Service Uses.

Preservation. Encourage the preservation of local-serving commercial retail and service uses in neighborhood shopping districts and adjacent to residential neighborhoods, including as part of new mixed- use development.

Policy LU 3.4 Neighborhood Commercial Preservation Convenience Retail. Support neighborhood serving shopping area vibrancy and maintain commercial concentrations by encouraging new
development to retain existing ground floor retail and commercial uses, to continue to meet the needs of the surrounding
neighborhoods. Encourage and preserve convenience stores and neighborhood retail uses adjacent to residential neighborhoods, including as part of new mixed-use development.
6 Policy LU 3.5 Support
Service Uses
Public Comment
Build Up San
Mateo County
Would like to see hardware stores added to Policy LU

3.5 Support Service Uses.

Update child care language in General Plan draft.

Policy LU 3.5 Support Service Uses. Encourage businesses that provide a variety of services, such as restaurants, child care daycare facilities, medical clinics, gyms, pharmacies, hardware stores, and grocery stores in locations that serve residential neighborhoods and commercial/office uses. Prioritize the development of these services in equity priority communities in the city.

357 of 516

2 Change
ID
Policy/
Action Number
Comment
Source Comment Recommended Change(s)
7 Policy LU 3.10 Service
Commercial
City Staff
Recommended
Change
Move Policy LU 3.10 above Policy 3.6 to better flow
with commercial policies and update title to align with Land Use Designation Table.

Policy LU 3.610 Service Commercial/Light Industrial. Retain service commercial and light industrial uses in San Mateo to support local businesses and to meet the needs of residents locally. Preserve properties that are zoned for service commercial uses and discourage uses that are allowed elsewhere in the city from locating in service commercial and light industrial areas.
8 Policy LU 3.12 Publicly
Accessible Spaces
Public Comment Public spaces need to be welcoming and safe. Policy LU 3.12 Publicly Accessible Spaces. Integrate a variety of privately owned and maintained publicly accessible spaces into new development. Spaces should be safe, welcoming and include require signage that clearly identifies these spaces as publicly accessible. 9 Action LU 8.4 City
Investment
General Plan
Subcommittee
Update Action LU 8.4 City Investment as follows: “Use
funds collected by the park impact fee and other
additional resources to invest in programs and public
improvements that connect residents with
opportunities to increase their physical activity and
improve their physical and mental health, especially in equity priority communities with higher risk of
negative public health outcomes. Identify new funding
sources for programs and public improvements, if
needed.”
Action LU 8.4 City Investment. Use funds from collected by the park impact fee and other sources to invest in programs and public improvements that connect residents with opportunities to increase their physical activity and improve their physical and mental health, especially in equity priority communities with higher risk of negative public health outcomes. Identify new funding sources for programs and public improvements, if needed.
10 Action LU 8.11 City
Services
Planning
Commission
Change Action LU 8.11 City Services, “Improve
services provided by the City and other partners in
order to achieve full neighborhood level parity in
areas of safety, security and sanitation in equity
priority communities.”
Action LU 8.11 City Services. Work with residents in equity priority communities to identify improve services that provided by the City or other partners could provide to improve related to safety, sanitation, and security in these neighborhoods.
11 Action LU 8.12
Neighborhood
Beautification
Planning
Commission
Modify Action LU 8.12 Neighborhood Beautification.
“Support and promote neighborhood clean-up and
beautification initiatives in equity priority
communities, such as planting and maintenance of
street trees to support neighborhood beautification,
including in partnership with neighborhood
organizations.”
Action LU 8.12 Neighborhood Beautification. Support and promote neighborhood clean-up and beautification initiatives in equity priority communities, including in planting and maintenance of street trees, and partnership with neighborhood organizations.

358 of 516

3 Change
ID
Policy/
Action Number
Comment
Source Comment Recommended Change(s)
12 Policy LU 10.1 Effects of
Climate Change
Online Tool Replace the word “consider”. Policy LU 10.1 Effects of Climate Change. Consider As feasible, account for the effects of climate change in updating or amending the General Plan, disaster planning, City projects, infrastructure planning, future policies, and long-term strategies. Recognize potential climate change consequences, such as sea level rise, flooding, higher groundwater, less availability of drinking water, hotter temperatures, increased wildfire risk, and changing air quality. Prioritize protecting equity priority communities from the disproportionate burden of climate hazards, including against risks of displacement and challenges in rebuilding after major incidents.

359 of 516

1 ATTACHMENT 5 – DRAFT 2040 LAND USE MAP – RECOMMENDED REVISIONS Change ID Location/Address Comment Source Current Land Use Recommended Land Use Notes 1 1515 El Camino Real
1528 El Camino Real
City Staff Residential Medium II Mixed-Use Medium II Change to align with adjacent mixed-use designations; and to recognize existing uses on these two sites are mixed-use (commercial, office & residential).
2 221 E. Hillsdale Blvd City Staff Residential Medium I Neighborhood Commercial Change to align with existing gas station use; and to maintain existing Neighborhood Commercial in current General Plan 2030.

360 of 516

2 Change ID Location/Address Comment Source Current Land Use Recommended Land Use Notes 3 South side of 25th Ave,
between Palm Pl and
railroad tracks (12
parcels)
City Staff Residential Medium II Mixed-Use Medium II Change to acknowledge and support existing commercial uses on these parcels.
4 4200 Olympic Ave
Olympic Village
Shopping Center
City Staff Residential Medium I Mixed-Use Medium I Change the Olympic Village Shopping Center site to Mixed- Use to align with existing commercial uses.

361 of 516

3 Change ID Location/Address Comment Source Current Land Use Recommended Land Use Notes 5 Waypoint Church
Parking Lot at 25th Ave
and Hacienda St
Public Comments
and
City Staff
Site located within Study
Area 3
Site moved outside Study
Area 3
Change Study Area 3 boundary to remove the Waypoint
Church parking lot site; site is designated Quasi Public. 6 East side of Palm Ave
and adjacent to the
Caltrain corridor,
between Trinta Park
and 25th Ave (18
parcels)
City Staff Mixed-Use Medium II Service Commercial Change to support and maintain the existing service commercial uses on this block; area is designated Service Commercial in current General Plan 2030 and adjacent to the rail corridor, so not ideal for residential uses.

362 of 516

4 Change ID Location/Address Comment Source Current Land Use Recommended Land Use Notes 7 East side of Idaho St,
between E. Santa Ynez
Ave and 2nd Ave (46
parcels)
West side of N. Kingston
St, between Monte
Diablo Ave and Cypress
Ave (11 parcels
2nd Ave at Bayshore
Blvd (5 parcels)
Planning Commission
and
City Staff
Residential Medium II Residential Medium I Change to align with existing land use (Medium Density Multi-Family) to avoid increasing residential density on parcels within one block of HWY 101 in Study Area 7; and to better align with adjacent residential neighborhoods.

363 of 516

5 Change ID Location/Address Comment Source Current Land Use Recommended Land Use Notes 8 470 and 490 Idaho
Street (2 parcels)
Rogell Court, north of
and Rogell Ave (15
parcels
Dore Ave at N. Bayshore
Blvd (5 parcels)
Planning Commission
and
City Staff
Residential Medium II Residential Medium I Change to align with existing land use (Medium Density Multi-Family) to avoid increasing residential density on parcels within one block of HWY 101 in Study Area 7; and to better align with adjacent residential neighborhoods.

364 of 516

1 ATTACHMENT 6 – INTRODUCTION, GLOSSARY AND OTHER GENERAL PLAN SECTIONS – RECOMMENDED REVISIONS

INTRODUCTION
Change
ID
Policy/
Action Number
Comment
Source Comment Recommended Change(s)
1 Big Ideas in Strive San
Mateo’s General Plan
2045
Online Tool Update text to broaden reference to low density residential design instead of just focusing on single-
family design.

Enhance San Mateo’s Neighborhood Fabric and Quality of Life. Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 promotes context sensitive low density residential single-family design, supports neighborhood shopping areas, improves neighborhood walkability and traffic congestion, protects homes, schools, and libraries from excessive noise levels, and provides for a comprehensive network of parks and recreational facilities for all to enjoy.
2 Big Ideas in Strive San
Mateo’s General Plan
2045
Build Up San
Mateo County
Update child care language in General Plan draft. Support the Local Economy. Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 focuses on ways to keep jobs and dollars in San Mateo by supporting local shops, businesses, and services. It encourages new businesses that residents need and enjoy, such as restaurants, child care facilities daycares, medical clinics, gyms, pharmacies, and grocery stores, in convenient locations throughout the community
3 Big Ideas in Strive San
Mateo’s General Plan
2045
Online Tool Expand the reference to potential hazards to refer to other topics such as pandemics. It would be nice to
see some information on outbreak policies
Improve Community Safety Planning and Awareness. Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 establishes clear actions to protect the community from emergencies and extreme weather events such as flooding, wildfires, earthquakes and pandemics, by reinforcing the City’s emergency readiness and response capabilities, increasing power system resilience, maintaining a state-of-the art emergency notification system, providing community training programs, and planning ahead for disaster recovery.
4 Equity Priority
Communities Section
Public Comment Reference to the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s active case at the College Park Elementary
School may become outdated for the General Plan.

Community members can refer to the Department of
Toxic Substances Control for active cases in the city.

Hazardous waste materials, sites, or facilities that could emit toxins into the air, water, and soil that are harmful to people are present in North Central, such as existing or former dry cleaners, gas stations, and buildings with lead and asbestos. California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control tracks hazardous waste facilities and sites. As of January 23, 2023, the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s data management system shows there is an active case at the College Park Elementary School that could pose a threat to public health. 5 Equity Priority
Communities Section
Public Comment The census tract numbers mentioned on Pages 30-31 are not complete.

The census tracts numbers mentioned in the Equity Priority Communities section, including the text and figures, will be updated to include the entire census tract number.

365 of 516

2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Change
ID
Policy/
Action Number
Comment
Source Comment Recommended Change(s)
6 Policy C 1.5 El Camino
Real
Online Tool Pedestrian improvements are needed along El Camino Real to minimize noise and improve safety.

Policy C 1.5 El Camino Real. Facilitate efficient travel and pedestrian safety along El Camino Real by supporting improvements that enhance pedestrian connectivity, such as improved pedestrian crossings.
7 Action C 3.7 Pedestrian
Connectivity
Online Tool Pedestrian improvements are needed along El Camino Real to minimize noise and improve safety.

Action C 3.7 Pedestrian Connectivity. Incorporate design for pedestrian connectivity across intersections in transportation projects, including the El Camino Real corridor, to improve visibility at crosswalks for pedestrians and provide safe interaction with other modes. Design improvements should focus on increasing sight lines and removing conflicts at crosswalks.
8 Policy C 5.6 Transit Safety Online Tool Pedestrian improvements are needed along El Camino Real to minimize noise and improve safety.

Policy C 5.6 Transit Safety. Prioritize improvements that enhance pedestrian connectivity to transit and to increase safety, access, and comfort at transit centers and bus stops in equity priority communities, along commercial corridors, and in dense, mixed-use neighborhoods.

366 of 516

3 CULTURAL AND ENTERTAINMENT RECOMMENDED REVISIONS
Change
ID
Policy/
Action Number
Comment
Source Comment Recommended Change(s)
9 Diverse Range of Land
Uses Section
Planning
Commission
General Plan
Subcommittee
Add policies and/or actions to support the expansion
of cultural and entertainment resources in San Mateo.
(first paragraph) Commercial centers and an active Downtown provide a space where people can work, recreate, and build community through cultural and entertainment events while also supporting the city’s fiscal health.
(second paragraph) It also promotes parks, open space, cultural venues, and recreational facilities, and community gathering spaces for all members of the San Mateo community.
11 Policy LU 3.7 Visitor
Economy
Planning
Commission
General Plan
Subcommittee
Add policies and/or actions to support the expansion
of cultural and entertainment resources in San Mateo.

Policy LU 3.7 Visitor Economy. Collaborate with other Peninsula cities and the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau to support the continued development of the visitor economy of both the city and the region, including lodging, entertainment, cultural, recreation, retail, and local events; encourage uses that attract visitors. Incentivize through fee reduction and visitor perks, sustainable modes of travel to and from the city to reduce both the use of air travel and gas-powered vehicles.
12 Policy LU 3.13 Cultural
Facilities and Public Art
Planning
Commission
General Plan
Subcommittee
Add policies and/or actions to support the expansion
of cultural and entertainment resources in San Mateo.

Policy LU 3.13 Cultural Facilities and Public Art. Recognize cultural facilities, entertainment events, performing arts, and public art as part of a healthy and thriving community. Use funds from the City’s art in- lieu fee to enhance existing public art and cultural facilities and encourage new facilities that reflect the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhoods.
13 Policy LU 4.1 Downtown
Land Uses
Planning
Commission
General Plan
Subcommittee
Add policies and/or actions to support the expansion
of cultural and entertainment resources in San Mateo.

Policy LU 4.1 Downtown Land Uses. Allow and prioritize a wide range of residential, dining, cultural, entertainment, lodging, and other commercial uses downtown, at high intensities and densities, with strong multi-modal connectivity to the San Mateo Caltrain station and other transit.

367 of 516

4 Change
ID
Policy/
Action Number
Comment
Source Comment Recommended Change(s)
14 Action LU 4.4 Downtown
Area Plan
Planning
Commission
General Plan
Subcommittee
Add policies and/or actions to support the expansion
of cultural and entertainment resources in San Mateo.

Action LU 4.4 Downtown Area Plan. Update the Downtown Area Plan to support and strengthen the Downtown as a vibrant and active commercial, cultural, entertainment, and community gathering district. The updated Downtown Area Plan shall align with the General Plan, integrate recommendations from other concurrent City efforts, focus growth and intensity in proximity to the Caltrain station, encourage superblock concepts or approaches and allow parklets, update parking standards and parking management strategies, allow for increased housing units and density, and support high-quality, pedestrian-oriented design and architecture.
15 Policy COS 5.2 Creating
Community
Planning
Commission
General Plan
Subcommittee
Add policies and/or actions to support the expansion
of cultural and entertainment resources in San Mateo.

Policy COS 5.2 Creating Community. Cultivate opportunities to come together as a community, celebrate our heritage, cultures, and milestones, through cultural and entertainment events and have social supports available, which are key to creating a sense of community and building community resilience.
16 Policy COS 5.3 Creative
Outlets
Planning
Commission
General Plan
Subcommittee
Add policies and/or actions to support the expansion
of cultural and entertainment resources in San Mateo.

Policy COS 5.3 Creative Outlets. Provide skill development, cultural, and performance opportunities within each of the major art forms with an emphasis on promoting lifelong enjoyment to nurture creative discovery.

FIGURES
Change
ID
Policy/
Action Number
Comment
Source Comment Recommended Change(s)
17 Figures Online Tool Make the maps in the General Plan accessible for text- to-speech voice readers.

The maps in the General Plan will be updated to be accessible for text- to-speech voice readers.

GLOSSARY
Change
ID
Policy/
Action Number
Comment
Source Comment Recommended Change(s)
18 Glossary City Staff
Recommended
Change
Add “Story” to the glossary. Story. The term to define building height in the General Plan. The General Plan assumes each story is an average of 11 feet, provided that the applicable overall height limit shall not be exceeded.

368 of 516

5 Change
ID
Policy/
Action Number
Comment
Source Comment Recommended Change(s)
19 Glossary Public Comment Define active transportation. Active Transportation. Biking, walking, and other human-powered ways of getting around.
20 Glossary City Staff
Recommended
Change
The General Plan includes policies and actions that
address ADA accessibility; however, the term
“persons with disability” is not used in the General
Plan.

Disability, persons with. A physical impairment or mental disorder, which is expected to be of a long, continued, or indefinite duration and is of such a nature that the person’s ability to live independently could be hindered unless improved by more suitable housing conditions.

369 of 516

From: Joe Daly <
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2023 4:57 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Resident concern with General Plan

Hello Council-

While I appreciate the collaborative efforts of the Community reach out and discussion of the General Plan, I want to register my concern with an effort to turn 5th Ave and 9th Ave into artierals, a classification that allows further traffic via vehicle traffic.

Please understand that the existing traffic is difficult and dangerous for the residents, and our calls for "traffic calming" via roundabouts and speed bumps has met with a resounding silence from our elected officials. We need "traffic calming" services to deal with our existing problems, much less the predictable chaos the reclassification of 5th and 9th to arterial streets presents.

Please consider the concerns of residents and taxpayers who live in these neighborhoods.

Respectfully,

Joe and Diane Daly

370 of 516

From: Judith Paton <
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2023 7:23 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: 5th Avenue arterial

Please do not turn this prety street into another thru-way to 101. We will lose mature shade trees (supposedly trees are considered desirable according to the General Plan) as well as parking for the local residents.

We would have to pay to remove the chicanes and traffic circle, which were put in even though the City knew Kiku Crossing was in the works).

Traffic should be routed along Claremont to 4th. There’s no real benefit to having some drivers travel on 5th since, in the end, the same number of cars will end up back on 4th in order to enter 101.

Thank you
Judith Paton

Sent from my iPhone

371 of 516

372 of 516

Michael & Shelly Weinhauer

373 of 516

RE: San Mateo Draft General Plan 2040

October 26
th , 2023
Zachary Dahl
Interim Community Development Director
City of San Mateo
330 W 20
th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403

Dear Zachary,

Our team has had the pleasure of engaging with and following your City’s General Plan 2040 process. It has been exciting to see this plan grow and come into a defined vision represented by the Draft version of the General Plan. As you may know, Harvest is an active developer in San Mateo of residential, mixed-use, and commercial developments in downtown San Mateo and near the College of San Mateo.

In review of recently released Draft General Plan 2 040 our team has the following comment which we believe will benefit the City of San Mateo.

In our reading of the Draft General Plan, we unders tand that Office Low, Medium, and High, all have an underlying residential zoning. We are very excited to see this shift in zoning, as our group believes in the transition of Class B and C office space int o residential homes benefits San Mateo and the grea ter Bay Area. In fact, our team recently entitled and i s currently under construction of our Campus Drive project which took approximately a quarter million square feet of defunct commercial office space off the market and converted it into 290 entry-level for-sa le homes. However, our team is very concerned that due to the minimum residential densities listed in the Office Medium and Mixed-Use Medium I zonings that the City will see zero production of for-sale housing that would allow new families with kids to stay in San Mateo . The proposed minimum residential density threshol ds for these zonings is 36du/ac which is not low enough to allow for San Mateo to increas e its for-sale housing inventory. For reference, a townhome/garden style development typically achieves 15-25du/ac. Our Campus Drive project achieved 19du/ac, which blended single-family, attached town home, and four-story walk-up product. Our team would recommend that City Staff lower the minimum d ensity per acre threshold to approximately 15du/ac in the Office Medium and Mixed-Use Medium I zonings to allow for conversions of old commercial products into for-sale developments .

The back side of this document includes the curren t Land Use Map as shown on Figure LU-1 and the Land Use Designations as shown on Table LU-1 from the City’s Draft General Plan from July of 2023.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter. O ur team is available to discuss if your team has any questions for us.

Sincerely,
Harvest Properties, Inc.

374 of 516

375 of 516

*red circle indicates zoning requested to be shifte d from 36du/ac to 15du/ac. No change to upper limit requested

376 of 516

From:

Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 2:24 PM
To: C
ity Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Zach ary Dahl <[email protected]> Subject: 10/30/23 City Council meeting - comments on draft General Plan

To the City Council:

Here are my written comments on the draft General Plan in advance of Monday night's meeting. In copying Mr. Dahl I am asking him to please ensure that these comments are added to the ones already available in the Strive San Mateo website, and/or wherever else they should be available as part of the permanent record of the development of the plan. I am also copying City Clerk Patrice Olds to ensure these comments become part of the permanent record for the meeting.

One of the main reasons that I am writing, rather than expecting to speak Monday night is that the concept of public input on agenda items has become a pro forma pretense.

No one can be sure that they will be lucky enough to be part of the limited number of commenters allowed both in person and remotely. If an item is of wide public interest, and "too many" people want to speak, each chosen person is given a meaningless 1 minute for thier comments. Other than a quick "I'm in favor" or I'm not in favor", it becomes impossible to provide significant input for the Council's decision. The message becomes clear. The Council is really not interested in hearing from the public. If this widely held belief is wrong, I encourage you to find a better way to make public comment a reality again.

Hence my written comments.

The overall intensity of development proposed in the 10 study areas by this plan is excessive to our needs over the next 15 years, and well beyond what the community has said it wants for our future. It needs to be scaled back, overall. Surveys have been conducted over the past 3 or 4 years, trying to determine what San Mateans value and what they want. The city's surveys may be "statistically valid", but I suggest that you have seen the very best statistical survey of all - the 2020 election - where the development parameters originally put in place in 1991 were reconfirmed as Measure Y. No series of leading (or misleading) questions answered by 638 probable voters can replace the tens of thousands of people who voted to keep San Mateo as a moderate growth suburban community.

Although City Hall has spent the time since 2020 acting as if Y did not pass, I think you ignore that message at the risk of having to reinvent this whole General Plan process.

The rationale always falls back on the necessity to meet the State imposed RHNA numbers. Staff has repeatedly told you that the 2030 RHNA numbers (widely regarded as over inflated; questionable at best) can be met with a Measure Y-friendly General Plan update. Please keep that in mind as you proceed to adopt a General Plan.

377 of 516

Commenting on a draft General Plan can be overwhelming. I'll focus on one particular land use change in this plan as the "poster child" of what is wrong with the process and outcome. The 10 story apartment building at 120 W. Third Ave. (Ryan Towers - notice it has always been considered a "tower") is being increased to a Residential High II designation. According to the Measure Y comparison on the Strive site, this is "the one site" so designated that falls outside of the study areas; "however this designation is proposed because the site contains and existing 10-story residential building." When I asked staff for details, I was first told this change was "required". When I pushed for better information, that changed, being called "best practices". No one has cited public input or request in making this change. I suggest that using such an outsize designation for what appears to be cleaning up the map is ludicrous. What "best practices" harm has come to this site since at least 1991, when it has had a height limit of 45', and a density cap of 50 units per acre? Why aren't the staff recommendations and decision makers' discussions focused on a General Plan that should codify what we actually want for our city, for our neighborhoods? This building is in the midst of very attractive 2 and 3 story multifamily, and the next block is the Baywood single family neighborhood.

No one can justify the idea that, were something to happen at Ryan Towers - and unforeseen things happen all the time - that we would want it replaced with another 10 story building with up to 200 units per acre. Please do not allow that to happen.

Please be sure that this General Plan lives up to the stated goals, particularly including the one to "Enhance Neighborhood Fabric and Quality of Life", particularly through "context sensitive neighborhood design". Do not increase the land use at 120 W. Third Ave.

In another location, I support staff's recommendation for removing the church parking lot from the 25th Ave. study area for the same reason. Its inclusion creates a potential for greatly intensified land use, right in the midst of single story homes, which would fly in the face of the stated goal of enhancing neighborhoods. Please remove it.

What other designations have become part of this draft plan without much or any public interest or notice?

Back to the "poster child", Ryan Towers. It is a concerning example of what is being proposed throughout this General Plan. Is it true, as staff has written, that this is the only building that needs such an egregious "spot zoning" type designation? (Yes, I know, this is not technically zoning, but anyone with this intense a land use designation will expect an equally intense zoning.) Is that statement true only because it is residential, or does it also apply to commercial and mixed use buildings throughout the city? If that is true, broadly, it speaks to just how much the land uses in the 10 study areas have been over-intensified.

Are all of the other "standing out" tall/dense buildings in San Mateo now being "protected" by a major increase in the land use categories? Does this apply to ones like the Bay View building at 21st and El Camino Real? It is on land with a height limit of 40/55'. Will it be regularized by the 2040 plan? Some have called such a building a sore

378 of 516

thumb, others more kindly just saying, well, we certainly don't want to do that again.

This is the same reaction people had to the Pan Am building on the west side of ECR north of 92. I can't make out the colors on the land use map. What will its designation be? Does the plan regularize that building and make it conforming with the 2040 land use? Similar comments could be made about certain other buildings on the west side of ECR closer to downtown. They all have become background "never again".

Will the 2040 plan say that this taller/denser is better approach is our future? I think you'll find that San Mateans say, NO.

Many San Mateans have become accustomed to individual taller/denser buildings which have been part of our city for well over 30 years. When asked about height (and density) I often hear people say that they have no objection to a specific building, usually one that stands alone, on a wide street with plenty of landscaping, sunlight and visibility around it. But imagine creating a long line of such buildings on both sides of the street, or for most sides of a block or 2 and they see an oppressive looming presence that is not what they want for San Mateo's future. We can appreciate the history and proportions and decoration of the Ben Franklin building. Put a row of them down both sides of Third Avenue and you have destroyed a major part of our downtown. Please don't let this "it looks reasonable on a map, it makes sense to make uses match what is there today" kind of thinking dominate our 2040 plan.

I urge you to revisit many of the details of the Option A in your earlier discussions, choose the most reasonable, and modify this draft plan to better match what San Mateans can support.

Karen Herrel
Hillsdale Blvd.

.

* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telepho

379 of 516

From:

Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 10:13 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: urban density

Dear City Council Members,

Thank you for your efforts for this city. As a long time resident I am profoundly offended by the questions of growth being always seen through the lens of the maximum possible when we have neither the streets, parking or other infrastructure to support it. Please address the longstanding serious drainage problems in Baywood before you get lofty about growth. The last thing this town needs are senseless high-rises blocking views residents have cherished for decades, and more density while people are leaving the area. What makes this town special is its character which would be far too easy to destroy with unfettered growth.

Thank you for your consideration,
Helene Wickett

380 of 516

381 of 516

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36
Remote IP: 174.194.197.131
Powered by: Elementor

382 of 516

From: Maxine Terner
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:51 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Lisa Nash <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Land Use Comments

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

The majority of San Mateans have consistently supported the construction of more housing, particularly affordable housing, continued job growth and economic development. But they don’t believe it is necessary, nor are they willing, to sacrifice their homes, neighborhoods, quality of life, or character of their historic downtown in the process. And they don’t have to. The current General Plan 2030 allows increased development potential in transit-oriented areas and meets state housing requirements. General Plan 2030 is a good plan that recognizes the importance of community and the unique land use assets that make San Mateo such a desirable community to live and work in. And most importantly, General Plan 2030 includes the Measure Y land uses that were approved by a majority of voters in 2020 and is the best measure of what level of increased development the community prefers.

WHY did the City Council choose the highest level of height and density in every identified study area, ignoring the more balanced, sustainable smart growth Measure Y model? Voters of San Mateo have made it clear what kind of community they want to live in and what shape its future should take. Over and over again, San Mateo voters have determined that they do not want 8- 12 story high-rise buildings with densities of 100-200 units per acre throughout downtown and along El Camino Real.

Just whose interests is this general plan update intended to serve? Despite numerous outreach meetings, staff and the Council know how few unique individuals actually participated. The outsized influence of special interest organizations and paid operatives living in other cities appear to be the primary voices shaping the General Plan. The beneficiaries of the urban-scale redevelopment envisioned in the Draft General Plan 2040 are not those of us who live here, but those who stand to financially profit the most - big tech, big real estate, and big construction.

WHY is the 2040 General Plan based on excessive state housing requirements that are already out of date and will be significantly reduced before the current General Plan 2030 expires. The State Department of Finance has released new population projections showing CA growth is flat through 2060. Even so, General Plan 2030 meets the current excessive housing requirements.

Perhaps of equal concern is the lack of information about how much the extreme levels of development proposed in General Plan 2040 will cost and how it will be funded. New development does NOT pay its own way. The General Plan proposes maximum development and population growth without identifying where potable water will come from or how and when adequate transit will be provided. Nor does it identify where new parks, open space and other critical services can be provided in our already built out city. And nowhere is affordable housing specifically identified.

WHY has no fiscal analysis been done of the costs of providing the new services and infrastructure necessary to accommodate the extreme levels of new development proposed.

383 of 516

The state legislature is trying to urbanize non-urban communities to the detriment of everyone and the resulting costs for local cities are totally out of control. Developers profit while residents have to get ready for new taxes, fees and bond measures.

There is no need to approve the 2040 General Plan update at this time since the current General Plan 2030 is alive and well serving the community. A few developers may want more but it is not legally necessary to update now. And General Plan 2040 needs a lot more fine- tuning to become acceptable to the community at large. A win-win solution exists and San Mateo residents would be receptive to moderate land use changes but not the extreme high height and density increases proposed in every study areas.

WHY is the General Plan 2040 being rushed for a 2024 ballot when the existing General Plan 2030 is in conformance with the recently adopted Measure Y managed growth initiative and meets all state RHNA housing requirements for another 7 years? Many already approved projects have asked for extensions and have not been built. There is NO RUSH.

My specific comments follow:

- Propose a 2-phase GP that recognizes that voter approved Measure Y expires in 2030.

Beyond 2030 there is no way to rely on current assumptions of future RHNA requirements given the rise in remote work and over-building of office space. After Measure Y expires in 2030, the City can revisit and amend the land use regulations given the then current economic and environmental realities.

After 2030 -
- Maintain Measure Y’s heights given the fact that the State takeover of land use control automatically gives developers significant height and density bonuses.

- Provide Mix and Match balance in each study area, not broad brush maximum heights & densities. To exceed Measure Y limits, identify specific sites within each study area and note why necessary and what the benefits would be. Recognize that there are a few large lot sites that can accommodate a range of heights but that downtown is not one of them.

- Identify and protect key community serving land uses by not upzoning sites that residents rely on, such as grocery stores, car repair, small businesses and service providers. Most existing small businesses along El Camino Real and surrounding Downtown will be displaced by allowing maximum development because the cost of new construction significantly raises rents.

384 of 516

From: Keith Weber <
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:52 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>
Subject: 10/30/23 CC mtg. re Land Use/Circulation Elements, GP2040 Members of the City Council:

The proposed General Plan 2040 Land Use and Circulation Elements should not be approved for the following reasons:

1. They are based solely on RHNA growth projections that are questionable at best, and wildly inflated according to many, particularly when compared to recent population projections which indicate California's population will remain flat for the next 40 years.

2. They present a level of intense growth that far exceeds the necessity of providing housing through the current RHNA cycle.

3. They are contrary to the moderate and sustainable growth vision for our community which has been consistent for 3 elections over 3 decades, the most recent in 2020.

4. The current General Plan is valid until 2030 and has been determined to adequately meet our RHNA housing needs through the end of the current cycle at which time Measure Y will sunset, so there is no urgency to approving a new general plan.

5. The public review process has been designed to push a single hyper-growth agenda with pop-up and post-it note "input," and ruling out meaningful community conversations, discussions and compromises as has been the custom in San Mateo.

I ask the City Council to please deny approval of the Land Use and Circulation elements of General Plan 2040.

Thank you,
Keith Weber
San Mateo

385 of 516

From: Frances Boscacci
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 2:59 PM
To:

Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Please do NOT approve the draft of the General Plan tomorrow.

I’ve been a resident of San Mateo for 31 years. I have seen enough dramatic change, to where small business is being pushed out and lower income renters given no choice but to move away. Our children can not afford the high rents. New construction has not made rents lower. And some of the new multi unit buildings of today could become the troubled communities of tomorrow. Please see what is happening with “ The Hillsdale Apartments” being managed by a sloppy corporation. Even SMPD is having a hard time partnering with the corporate property management giant.

Please respect the democratic process- Citizens of San Mateo voted Measure Y in and DO NOT need to have the city council IMPOSE unnecessary maximum growth and building heights.

Do not create more traffic and noise please, as well as infrastructure problems that you as city council can not solve- Listen to the people who are paying the skyrocketing taxes, and have been paying for a long time.

Please DO NOT approve the draft of the General Plan as is- it’s NOT correct. My family and I beg you to send it back to the drawing board.

Thank you.

Frances and Mark

386 of 516

From: Janet Cook
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 1:54 PM
To:

Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Rework current GPU

I do not agree with the new General Plan Update.

#1 – Residents already made their desires clear with the height/density limits for new buildings by voting in Measure Y. THIS HAS BEEN IGNORED,

#2 Under AB1287, by providing additional income-restricted units, developers can now make the height of buildings 100% larger. This is not acceptable!! This is not what we voted for. You need to go back and modify this plan to be in keeping with measure Y.

#3 - Concerned citizens from all over our Peninsula district met with Senator Becker last week as his cities flail to receive approval from the state for their Housing Elements (plans for state mandated new housing units). Meanwhile, these cities are spending an inordinate amount of money to try to obtain approval to no avail - with bankruptcy on the horizon. At the heart of this are the mandated housing numbers which no one could ensure were either accurate or adequately supported, as published by our own state auditor in 2022. Yet, here we are in San Mateo constantly pushing for maximum growth based on these faulty numbers.

#4 - At the recent Town Hall meetings to review this GPU, residents asked City staff just HOW the City would handle all the infrastructure needs that go hand in hand with what they are projecting. Without a plan for infrastructure this current GPU cannot go forward. Sacramento cannot usurp our will!!

#5 - We cannot go forward with blinders and hope for the best - setting our entire city on a path that is sure to create more hardship,
on the backs of the taxpaying homeowners.

Janet A Cook

Sent from my iPhone

387 of 516

From: Nancy Glasson
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 5:43 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: STOP STOP In the best of interests of the ci�zens of the city of San Mateo who you represent this totally wrong plan

Sent from my iPhone

388 of 516

From: Brent Harnish
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 4:55 PM
To:

Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Measure Y

We have become alarmed at the alarming density which is being proposed, This tremendous make over atacks the previous wishes of the public.

Please support your ci�zens in rethinking what is happening to our City

Brent Harnish

San Mateo

Sent from my iPhone

389 of 516

From: Dana Jordan
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 9:36 AM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft General Plan 2040 Comment for Oct 30 meeting

Hi there,
I’d like to comment on the draft plan with regards to a particular block that, after living here for over 10 years and as an active cyclist, needs some attention. I live on Monte Diablo Ave just a block East of the pedestrian overpass/Bayshore Ave (1400/1500 block) just past N Kingston Ave. With a vision of "San Mateo is a vibrant, livable, diverse, and healthy community that respects the quality of its neighbor- hoods, fosters a flourishing economy, is committed to equity, and is a leader in environmental sustainability.“ (page 7), the bolded terms are directly affected on a regular basis. There is a high incidence of active cyclists, runners, pedestrians on this street as it is the ONLY thoroughfare in our neighborhood to directly access the Bay trail, of which is actively used by many to support a vibrant, healthy quality of life and supports those of us who frequently think about the environment

As you cited on page 30, "North Central and North Shoreview/Shoreview received a high score for traffic.” There is a focused statement regarding “equity and health of all residents” page 16 and, with respect to figure 1.7 (page 32) there are high asthma, traffic, particulate matter, diesel particulate matter and toxic releases" - making my proposal much more important since there is a high incidence of people on bicylcles/by foot using Monte Diablo for exercise on the Bay trail, it being the road connected to the 101 pedestrian overpass into North Central neighborhood/downtown and the only contiguous thoroughfare to the Bay trail.

Cars whipping by on Monte Diablo are going way too fast and there are just too many things going on to accommodate two-way traffic AND bicyclists/pedestrians with a slender street. The sidewalks have rounded edges and, thus, cars tend to park up on the sidewalk, forcing bicyclists and sometimes pedestrians to use the street, yet east of Huron Ave the street seems to widen and there are no longer rounded sidewalk edges.

My proposal is to consider a ONE-WAY section of Monte Diablo Ave, between North Kingston and Huron Avenue, running westbound, WITH speed bumps. This will allow for a dedicated bike lane on this section of road, still keeping both sides of the street for parking, and will prevent cars from North Kingston (driving southbound) to turn left onto Monte Diablo Ave, of which I’ve witnessed too many close calls as well as accidents.

When the City Council discussed the Complete Streets Plan earlier this month, Mayor Lee mentioned the "absence of feedback from the community East of 101" (SM Daily Journal 10/23/23 pg 17) and Council member Hedges references “a high percentage of residents in the area have expressed concern with the lack of safe routes to their schools..” - this is all concerning to me, as I see students walking/biking to the Montessori school and the former Boys&Girls Club on Monte Diablo on a regular basis, not to mention those who ride/walk/run for exercise.

I’m sorry to have to miss tonights city council meeting but, please consider this proposal as you are discussing more safe, equitable, healthy alternatives to getting around San Mateo.

Thank you,
Dana Jordan

390 of 516

--
Dana Jordan | Math/Science Teacher, Academic Support Center

391 of 516

From: Chuck Kabala
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 6:03 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Update

Please reconsider approving the current General Plan 2040. San Mateans voted for the passing of measure Y which you seem intent on overriding with tall, high density buildings. There is not the infrastructure to support the kind of intense building u are proposing and the democra�c process needs to be followed! Please listen to the majority of your cons�tuents. Sincerely, Elizabeth Kabala

392 of 516

From: LAURENCE KINSELLA
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 1:23 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: for the City Council members...

The question is whose interests is this general plan update intended to serve? The outsized influence of special interest organizations, the YIMBY subculture, and paid operatives living in other cities continue to be the primary voices shaping the General Plan. The promised “robust” general plan update process turned out to be a ruse guided by appointed city council members and commissioners sympathetic to the YIMBY 'build-everything-in-your-backyard' narrative. The result now is a general plan created by YIMBYs for YIMBYs.

The beneficiaries of the large scale redevelopment envisioned in the Draft General Plan 2040 are not those of us who live here, but those who stand to profit the most - big tech, big real estate, and big construction.

393 of 516

From: Yi-�ng Lin
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 9:06 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: No to General Plan 2040

I vote No to General Plan 2040.

Yi-�ng Lin
San Mateo resident

Sent from my iPhone

394 of 516

From: OSCAR E. LOPEZ-GUERRA
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 11:41 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Too much construction!

Please respect Measure Y‼
Oscar López-Guerra
🇺🇺🇺🇺

395 of 516

From: Charles Lopuck
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 2:35 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: GPU reject

Please reject GPU plan and send staff to reconsider we already voted and passed measure Y . We don’t need taller buildings in San Mateo

Sent from my iPhone

396 of 516

From: Jill McHale
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 2:31 PM
To:

Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Density and Infrastructure Concerns

I am a San Mateo home owner of 18 years and live near Beresford Park.

While growth in San Mateo is something we cannot stop, I'm especially concerned about the suppor�ng infrastructure for the increased density.

At recent Town Hall mee�ngs, residents asked city employees how the city will handle the stresses on infrastructure that this ongoing growth will create. To my ears, there didn't seem to be a plan. Are we just hoping everything will work out?

San Mateo is expensive already, and I pay high taxes and expect a certain quality of life in return. I expect city planners to have foresight and be responsible in making decisions for the taxes I pay.

I expect the city to listen to voters.

I was part of the majority of voters who made our voices clear when we voted on Measure Y and have observed council members not only ignoring what the community demanded with regard to limi�ng building heights but in some cases, seeming to ac�vely work against it.

Now, under AB1287, by providing addi�onal income-restricted units, developers can now construct units that are 100% larger than previously agreed. I implore the Council not to accept the current GPU. And WHY does the GPU incorporate the maximum development op�on presented to residents (Alterna�ve A) rather than the smallest alterna�ve (Alterna�ve C)? Once again, the larger alterna�ve ignores our votes on Measure Y . If Council approves the GPU as it is, developers will have power to build as much ‘affordable housing’ as required to get this 100% increase. We can't stand for this.

Please fight on our behalf to go back to the beginning on these plans - they are not good, don't incorporate many key details, and ignore voters' clear voices.

Thank you,

Jill McHale

San Mateo, CA 94403

397 of 516

From: Genel Morgan
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 2:12 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Update

Dear City Council Members,

I am writing to you to have my voice heard, although I have no faith you will even listen!

I understand you will vote on Monday night to approve or reject the 2040 General Plan Update. I ask you to reject it and ask staff to revise their recommendations and include plans for supporting infrastructure no matter which option is chosen.

I continue to see the will of the people being ignored in relation to Measure Y. This measure passed but because some on the council and developers don't like the result, they are working for a do-over! This is not the democratic process.

Citizens have made it clear they support moderate growth, yet the council continues to not even consider that option in the General Plan. On top of that, the council has not put forth any concrete plans for how the city will deal with the increased infrastructure needed with any of the options.

Allowing buildings up to 20 stories because of a promise for more affordable units is a joke. Affordable, in reality, is not affordable and then you have sold out the city to developers.

You are in office to represent all the citizens and you need to weigh seriously the impact your decisions will have on San Mateo residents and the culture of San Mateo as a whole. I am a longtime San Mateo resident. As I've said before, I am not against growth but I am against irresponsible growth.

Regards
Genel Morgan
District 5

398 of 516

From: Tom Oertli
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 12:21 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: 2040 General Plan Update

Dear City Council,

I ask that you reject the current 2040 General Plan update. Over the course of many years the City has asked for input about the General Plan and I with many others have asked for a moderate plan on development in San Mateo that works with Measure Y . What I have seen and believe is reflected in the current General Plan is a maximum development approach and I ask you to vote NO on Monday. Please respect the voters that passed measure Y and vote No on the current max development General Plan.

Thank You,
Tom Oertli

399 of 516

From: Seema Patel
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 6:23 PM
To: C
ity Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Draft General Plan Land Use Element

Hello City Council!

Attached are my personal comments on the Draft General Plan Land Use Element. I appreciate your time and consideration!

Respectfully,
Seema Patel

400 of 516

Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Nash and Councilmembers Hedges, Loraine & Newsom, Although I currently serve as a Planning Commissioner for the City of San Mateo, I am submitting these comments on my own behalf as a private resident of San Mateo.

Our Draft General Plan has three key themes: Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and Community Engagement. We have a once in twenty year opportunity to make meaningful progress in these areas and shape a San Mateo where anyone and everyone can thrive. Our curr ent Draft General Plan sites a significant amount of new residential development within 500’ of heavily trafficked freeways. Just over 48% of the new housing units on our Housing Element Site Inventory are located within this buffer, contrary to the recommendations of both the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Almost 42% of the low-income

units on our Site Inventory are located within this buffer, reinforcing what is stated in BAAQMD’s Best Practices for Centering Environmental Justice, Health and Equity , “The burden of breathing unhealthy air is often disproportionately borne by low-income communities and communities of color, many of which are situated closer to busy highways, ports, factories, and other pollution sources.”
I do not believe
our Draft General Plan is meeting our theme of environmental justice and would like to offer specific suggestions to remedy this.

Commissioner Wiggins gave a great overview of the air quality risks at the September 26, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. He explained that CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook considers the risks of poor air quality on sensitive receptors such as homes, daycares, etc., and recommends against placing these uses
within 500’ of a roadway that averages in excess of 100,000 vehicles/day. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 shows that census tracts adjacent to Highways 101 and 92 have high levels of particulate matter. The intersection of Highways 101 & 92 in particular has more than half a ton of particulate emissions per year. This level of particulate matter is 95% higher than other census tracts in CA and 6x the particulate em issions in San Mateo Park.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s #1 tool in their Planning Healthy Places guidance is to place sensitive receptors away from heavily trafficked highways, including Highways 101 and 92 (pg 10). While air filtration systems can mitigate the impact indoors, the City requires residential projects to provide open space for residents, effectively requiring that residents have access to unhealthy air. Placing the open s
pace as far from the roadway as possible may help, but many of these residential parcels are located entirely within the 500’ buffer.

Concerned about the impact to future residents (and the disproportionate impact to low-income residents) both the General Plan Subcommittee and Planning Commission have repeatedly suggested “swapping” specific land uses to move residential uses away from Highways 101 and 92.

This is in line with BAAQMD’s r ecommendation, “...when updating or making revisions to a zoning code in an area characterized by elevated levels of air pollution (such as immediately adjacent to a

401 of 516

freeway), local government may choose to designate the land use as commercial, office, or parking instead of residential…” (pg 37).

Specific suggestions include:

1. Do not allow residential uses on any land within 500’ of 101 & 92. Instead, designate this land as commercial or office.

2. Change the land use of the “Service Commercial” area at 10th Av e and S Claremont St to “Residential High I”. This area is located 0.7mi from both the Downtown Caltrain Station and Hayward P
ark Caltrain Station and would be a great opportunity for Transit-Oriented Development.

3. Increase each land use in the area roughly bounded by E Santa Inez Av e and Tilton Ave, and N Delaware St and San Mateo Dr by one level.

4. If residen tial uses must be designated within 500’ of 101 & 92, create a 100’ buffer against the roadway that is designated Office High so that office buildings can serve as barri ers between residential uses and the roadways.

I would like to offer responses to counterpoints I’ve heard when raising these concerns:

1. If we don’t build housing near freeways the housing will just be built farther away, increasing sprawl and vehicle miles traveled, ultimately making air pollution worse.

While this argument is applicable when deciding whether or not to build a specific project adjacent to a freeway, that is not the decision b efore us at this moment. The question before us is not whether or not to build the housing, but where to build the housing, and we have many options that fall outside both the 500’ roadway buffer and R1 neighborhoods.

2. With restrictions on diesel engines and adoption of electric vehicles, air quality is improving.

As Commissioner Wiggins explained, the primary source of PM 2.5 particulates near roadways is brakes and tires, which is actually getting wors e due to increasing vehicle weight.

3. At the Planning Commission’s suggestion, Policy LU 8.6 is bei ng modified to ensure that open space is aggregated away from pollution sources to the greatest extent possible. “Greatest extent possible” is not a hard requirement. Even an objective design standard that requires open space to be contained within a protected courtyard or sited as far from

pollution sources as possible would be a likely target for a state density bonus waiver or concession as it would be a significant constraint to the design of the project.

4. The area designated “Service Commercial” at 10th Ave & South Claremont St is outside a Study Area.

402 of 516

When the Study Areas were created, Council stated that changes outside the Study Areas were possible, but most changes would be concentrated within the Study Areas. Ultimately this decision will go to the voters and based on the recent survey results, I believe voters would be amenable to concentrating new housing development within 0.7mi of two Caltrain stations.

5. Due to the high cost of construction, new s ervice commercial uses are not being built. If the

area at 10th Ave & S Claremont St is redeveloped into residential, San Mateo will likely lose those businesses.

While it would be unfortunate to lose those businesses, when faced with the decision to retain those businesses or provide healthy living space for future residents, I believe we must prioritize the health of our residents.

6. We cannot change the designation of the ex isting residential uses within 500’ of 101 & 92 bec
ause we are not legally permitted to downzone residential uses.

SB 330 prevents local jurisdictions from downzoning residential uses unless they upzone an equivalent amount elsewhere within their boundaries. I believe we have the ability (and opportunity) to add equivalent capacity elsewhere, without altering R1 neighborhoods outside the 500’ buffer.

Thank you for your consideration of my suggestions. I appreciate your support in building a healthy San Mat
eo for current and future generations.

Regards,
Seema Patel

403 of 516

404 of 516

From: Dave Santos
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 8:16 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: 2040 General Plan Update

I am writing the City Council to share my concerns about the new General Plan 2040 and the future development of San Mateo.

The pandemic has changed the economy of the Bay Area; many of these changes are likely to be permanent.

I do not feel that the new General Plan for 2040 takes this into consideration. The previous assumptions no longer apply. Revised office work patterns and population forecasts by the State auditor need to be included. State population forecasts show the previous population estimates are not accurate..

It appears that the will of the people in passing Measure Y is being ignored; some council members continue to push for high growth development. At the council meetings I have attended, residents have continually advocated for single family home neighborhoods, small business and retail operations being preserved. Business owners are considering converting their office space to housing because of lack of demand. Increased property revenue forecasts have been adjusted downward. Compounding this issue is the decrease in sales and new construction which is hindered by rising mortgage interest rates. The cost of new construction has risen 24 % this year according to a city of San Jose report.

Please remember the several blocks near downtown San Mateo sit vacant with plans for development in limbo.

There is no such thing as affordable housing; in the Bay Area; it is a myth.

Yet a new law provides for a larger building in exchange for more low- and

405 of 516

moderate-income housing. The plan will have a profound negative impact on the quality of life of all of San Mateo as developers incentivize higher buildings for profits.

It is important to rethink this new General Plan because resources are limited. There is also the matter of infrastructure. At a Town Hall meeting I attended, the question of new infrastructure came up. and the staff could not address the issue. The plan fails to analyze future infrastructure needs and their projected costs.

I do not feel that this General Plan considers the more reasonable alternative of moderate growth. Please revisit Alternative A, which is a moderate growth plan that preserves neighborhood quality of life. The Council needs to consider alternatives to ensure maximum efficiency.

Opting for a high growth option without considering new infrastructure is a myopic path.

The new general Plan needs to be revised to reflect the new realities.

Sincerely,

Dave Santos

406 of 516

From: Suzanne Shelley
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 2:03 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Please respect MEASURE Y

Dear City Council,

Please respect Measure Y- no more high rise buildings adding even more density to our crowded neighborhoods!

There needs to be balance between pleasing developers & accommoda�ng the desires of San Mateo residents to preserve our neighborhoods.

Suzanne Shelley
San Mateo

407 of 516

From: Aimee WCrollerskate
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 3:55 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: NO to the new 2040 General Plan Update. The voters have already spoken.

Dear Dear Members of the San Mateo City Council,

Rather than focusing on other pressing community matters, I find myself repeatedly writing this council about efforts to undermine the will of the people regarding the settled vote on Measure Y.

This marks the THIRD occasion on which I have brought this matter to your attention.

We ALL want increased availability of affordable housing in our area. However, historically there has been a noticeable absence of accountability for previous developers who have been given a ticket to the city but failed to meet the needs of our community. The electorate has made it clear that they are unwilling to embark on this path again without the requisite safeguards and considerations in place.

We're also extremely concerned that there is NO plan to ensure that our infrastructure can accommodate these plans.

All in all, city staff have fallen short in providing critical and necessary assurances on these matters, while eroding the trust of many of its constituents in the process.

I ask again that the City Council honor the will of the voters as expressed through Measure Y, and to reject the proposed New 2040 General Plan Update and any future proposals that seek to circumvent the provisions outlined in Measure Y.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Aimee Stevland, resident

San Mateo, 94403

408 of 516

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 10:49 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]> Subject: Gambling on the Draft 2040 General Plan Update?

Dear City Council,

Concerned citizens from all over our Peninsula district met with Senator Becker last week as his cities flail to receive approval from the HCD for their Housing Elements. Meanwhile, these cities are spending an inordinate amount of money to do so - with bankruptcy on the horizon. At the heart of this are the RHNA numbers which the HCD could not ensure were either accurate or adequately supported, as published by our own state auditor in 2022. Yet, here we are in San Mateo constantly pushing for maximum growth based on these faulty numbers.

Your constituents have been clear in their desire for balanced growth, yet your staff has been directed to plan for the most extreme possibilities for development. At the recent Town Hall meetings, staff was asked logically just HOW the City would handle all the infrastructure needs that go hand in hand with what they are projecting. There was no answer, because staff was not tasked to figure that out. it seems no one has been tasked to figure that out. With that, we are in jeopardy.

The Housing Leadership Council recently spoke to San Mateo Rotarians, expectedly promoting growth on the basis that more growth equates to more 'affordable housing.' Yet, when asked about their metric for measuring their success to create such based on the many changes in our region, they had none. (These changes include San Francisco's currently growing 30% commercial vacancy rate - which would likely not be converted to housing as developers aren't lining up for, per KTVU earlier this month. We see similar impacts here in San Mateo with multiple projects on pause for 2 years per developers’ requests.)

We rely on our leaders to see the entire landscape, to protect us from massive risks, and to fight for us when things are unjust. We can not go forward with blinders and hope for the best - setting our entire city on a path that is sure to create more hardship, not only on the backs of the taxpaying homeowners, but resulting in more gentrification for all those struggling to get by if we give the nod to maximum development to obtain a pittance of below market units that are still unaffordable (https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/ ).

So much good has been removed from the General Plan. So much dice rolling replaces it in the 2040 update. None of which is what your constituents asked for. This is not success.

All of our futures depend so heavily on your decision whether to gamble on what will or will not happen if you accept this General Plan Update and open the floodgates. Your public will be watching with grave concerns Monday night to see if our Council is willing to put everything at risk with this unacceptable 2040 draft update.

Sincerely,

Lisa Taner
San Mateo Resident

409 of 516

From: Joe Totah
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 9:08 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo Height Limits

Dear Mayor and Council Members Lee, Nash, Newsome, Hedges and Lorraine, San Mateo is not a big city and don’t want it to be a big city, I like the small to medium size nature of the city. Furthermore, traffic is getting bad here and with more density, it will get worse. It was often stated that the bay meadow development will not create extra traffic because everyone is near the train, but my understanding is that the Hillsdale Caltrain Station did not significantly grow in ridership as new units were being added, I believe the ridership is fairly flat for the last 10 years. In either case, I do realize it may be necessary to build some units, but breaching our currently height limits would not only be no acceptable, it would cause me to not vote for any council member that supports higher heights and higher density. I don’t say that as to punish anyone, I say it to protect our city from those who want to make life difficult for existing residents. Thank you for your attention to this.

Joe Totah

410 of 516

From: Joan Young
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 8:11 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Measure Y

To the powers that be ….please overturn measure Y!!!!!! Sent from my iPhoneThank You

411 of 516

From: jeanne bosschart
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 9:12 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo building density

I am opposed to increasing building density and height limita�ons in San Mateo. We do not have the infrastructure to support these increases and if you do not follow advice of the San Mateo voters, you will ruin the quality of life in our city. We live here so that we can have a suburban town, not an urban city like San Francisco.

Jeanne Bosschart

San Mateo

Sent from my iPad

412 of 516

From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 6:44 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent: Reevaluate the 2040 General Plan Update--DO NOT APPROVE AS IS

Dear City Council Members,

I urge you to immediately reassess the 2040 General Plan Update (GPU). There are vital concerns that demand your attention:

• Disregard for Measure Y: Our community's decision on height and density limits, as reflected in Measure Y, is being blatantly ignored. Some council members and representatives are actively working against this democratic process.

• AB1287's Impact: Recent legislation (AB1287) grants developers substantial increases in building heights in exchange for providing low and moderate-income housing units. If the current GPU is accepted, this could lead to a potential doubling of building heights. The focus on the maximum development alternative (Alternative A) at the expense of the smaller alternative (Alternative C) directly undermines the essence of Measure Y.

• Flawed Housing Numbers: Concerned citizens, alongside Senator Becker, have unveiled issues with state-mandated Housing Elements. The accuracy and credibility of these mandated housing figures, as highlighted by the state auditor in 2022, are in question. It is disconcerting that San Mateo is pursuing maximum growth based on these questionable statistics.

• Infrastructure Planning Deficiency: Recent Town Hall meetings revealed a glaring absence of answers from city staff regarding essential infrastructure planning. It appears that no one has been tasked with addressing this critical aspect.

• Avoiding Blind Development: Proceeding without a clear vision and strategic foresight is perilous. Embracing maximum development without considering the repercussions will inflict further hardships on homeowners and exacerbate gentrification issues.

I implore you to reject the current GPU draft and revisit the more prudent growth plan, Alternative A. Ensure that the new draft aligns with the city's objectives, especially concerning the enhancement of neighborhood quality of life and sensitive neighborhood design.

The current General Plan has stripped away many essential aspects, and the 2040 update seems perilous. I urge you to take these concerns seriously and DO NOT APPROVE 2040 General Plan Update (GPU), which ignores the will of the people, as expressed in Measure Y.

Thank you for addressing these crucial matters promptly.

Sincerely,

Doug D’Anna

413 of 516

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 10:22 AM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected].; City Mgr <[email protected]> Subject: Oct 30, 2023 Special Council Meeting Written Comments Agenda Items 1 and 2

Honorable Mayor and Council Members,

I am Dave Cohen represen�ng Ethics San Mateo, a California nonprofit public benefit corpora�on. We do not take posi�ons of suppor�ng or opposing specific issues, we are focused on ethical conduct by our city’s leadership.

We are concerned about the Voter Opinion Survey on Dra� General Plan 2040 Heights and Land Use Designa�on and the Dra� General Plan for several reasons.

1) The General Plan was produced using a popula�on forecast that has been revised by the authorita�ve State Agency, the Calf Department of Finance. The revised forecast actually shows declines in San Mateo County popula�on from now to 2060, with every year’s forecast popula�on lower than 2023. A copy of the forecast, which is publicly available online, is atached.

2) We ques�on the validity of the on-line Voter Opinion Survey on the Dra� General Plan 2040 Heights and Land Use Designa�on. ESM has requested informa�on regarding the development of the ques�ons, including asking for the Statement of Work that True North was under contract to perform, who wrote or influenced the development of the ques�ons, and how they were reviewed. We did not receive a response and have escalated our request. The requests are atached.

We believe some of the ques�ons were not subject to cri�cal review for adherence to best prac�ce design of survey ques�ons to avoid inaccurate or skewed results. The development of survey ques�ons is a science and should be insulated from bias on the part of the authors or those contrac�ng for the survey.

3) ESM believes that the development of the Dra� General Plan has been subject to the publicly announced demands contained in the agendas of ac�vist groups. We have observed members of ac�vist groups, including probable lobbyists, atemp�ng to marginalize and minimize the voices of San Mateo residents who oppose parts of their agendas.

ESM has received a copy of an email for YIMBY Ac�on intended for city commissioners and elected officials, invi�ng them to par�cipate in the organiza�on’s Local Government Alliance.

Their stated goal is to implant ac�vists into city leadership. They have succeeded in doing so. We believe San Mateo’s Planning Commission is an example. A copy of the email is atached. The influence of ac�vists on the Dra� General Plan must be considered – their loud demands are drowning out what residents are sta�ng.

We therefore ask the council to:

414 of 516

a. Have the Dra� General Plan re-evaluated using the updated popula�on forecasts. b. Cause the suspension of any use of the survey results un�l it can be independently determined the methodology meets best prac�ces.
c. Determine the effect of conflicts of interest by ac�vists, or those aligned with the ac�vist groups’ agendas, within our city government on the Dra� General Plan development.

We believe that if the city had adequate, clearly defined, and enforceable standards of ethical conduct these kinds of issues would simply not rise to this high level of concern.

Regards,

Dave Cohen, President/CEO
Ethics San Mateo, A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corpora�on

DEDICATED TO TRUTH, TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICAL CONDUCT IN CITY GOVERNMENT

415 of 516

From:

Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 9:47 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Reconsider Vote

San Mateo City Counsil,

I moved to San Mateo in 1964. I was in The Navy stationed at Treasure Island and no housing was available there. My wife wanted to teach school in a nice suburban neighborhood. We selected San Mateo and she taught in Foster City. Now with all the stack and pack housing along the transit corridor it‛s looking more and more like the city we were able to avoid then. There is lots of land both north and south along the California coast for suburban development. I don‛t like the European model where everyone lives in an apartment. We have a nice home with a large lot and a view of the bay. To afford it we drove two paid for VW‛s for 12 years in order to make the big house payments. Now you want my neighbors to build housing in their back yards!

Why is the state of California bribing the city with transportation money to add more housing when people are leaving the State? Our residents approved prop Y and expressed their desires. Please go back to the drawing board and don‛t approve the proposed plan.

Warren Gammeter
San Mateo

416 of 516

From: Dana Jordan
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 9:36 AM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft General Plan 2040 Comment for Oct 30 meeting

Hi there,
I’d like to comment on the draft plan with regards to a particular block that, after living here for over 10 years and as an active cyclist, needs some attention. I live on Monte Diablo Ave just a block East of the pedestrian overpass/Bayshore Ave (1400/1500 block) just past N Kingston Ave. With a vision of "San Mateo is a vibrant, livable, diverse, and healthy community that respects the quality of its neighbor- hoods, fosters a flourishing economy, is committed to equity, and is a leader in environmental sustainability.“ (page 7), the bolded terms are directly affected on a regular basis. There is a high incidence of active cyclists, runners, pedestrians on this street as it is the ONLY thoroughfare in our neighborhood to directly access the Bay trail, of which is actively used by many to support a vibrant, healthy quality of life and supports those of us who frequently think about the environment

As you cited on page 30, "North Central and North Shoreview/Shoreview received a high score for traffic.” There is a focused statement regarding “equity and health of all residents” page 16 and, with respect to figure 1.7 (page 32) there are high asthma, traffic, particulate matter, diesel particulate matter and toxic releases" - making my proposal much more important since there is a high incidence of people on bicylcles/by foot using Monte Diablo for exercise on the Bay trail, it being the road connected to the 101 pedestrian overpass into North Central neighborhood/downtown and the only contiguous thoroughfare to the Bay trail.

Cars whipping by on Monte Diablo are going way too fast and there are just too many things going on to accommodate two-way traffic AND bicyclists/pedestrians with a slender street. The sidewalks have rounded edges and, thus, cars tend to park up on the sidewalk, forcing bicyclists and sometimes pedestrians to use the street, yet east of Huron Ave the street seems to widen and there are no longer rounded sidewalk edges.

My proposal is to consider a ONE-WAY section of Monte Diablo Ave, between North Kingston and Huron Avenue, running westbound, WITH speed bumps. This will allow for a dedicated bike lane on this section of road, still keeping both sides of the street for parking, and will prevent cars from North Kingston (driving southbound) to turn left onto Monte Diablo Ave, of which I’ve witnessed too many close calls as well as accidents.

When the City Council discussed the Complete Streets Plan earlier this month, Mayor Lee mentioned the "absence of feedback from the community East of 101" (SM Daily Journal 10/23/23 pg 17) and Council member Hedges references “a high percentage of residents in the area have expressed concern with the lack of safe routes to their schools..” - this is all concerning to me, as I see students walking/biking to the Montessori school and the former Boys&Girls Club on Monte Diablo on a regular basis, not to mention those who ride/walk/run for exercise.

I’m sorry to have to miss tonights city council meeting but, please consider this proposal as you are discussing more safe, equitable, healthy alternatives to getting around San Mateo.

Thank you,
Dana Jordan

417 of 516

--
Dana Jordan | Math/Science Teacher, Academic Support Center

418 of 516

From: Patricia Lind <
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 8:22 AM
To:

Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: No on Y

More input is needed from residents. Put a PAUSE on this measure and reconnect with the public. It is NOT favored by the public.

Sent from my iPhone

419 of 516

From: Marcie Maffei <
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 7:22 AM
To:

Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Why again

Hello,

Where is democracy? We have voted against raising the height of buildings TWICE!!!! Isn't one vote enough and now you're trying for a third time. ENOUGH!!! You are just like a screaming child throwing a tantrum until you get your way. It's like all of you have sold your souls.

Your way is destroying San Mateo. The designs of the buildings are horrible and empty...future ghettos. Enough Listen to what we have already said.

And please plant some trees. Fifth street garage and the new housing are ugly and at least some trees could help the fronts...

It's so sad what all of you have done to our lives and our town.

And your NIMBY strive San Mateo flyer was heartbreaking...if we don't pass the height restrictions...this will be in your neighborhood....horrible...like so much these days...just horrible.

Marcie Maffei

420 of 516

From: Rick Mayerson
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 10:19 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: 2040 General Plan comments

1. Housing Density Bonuses are significant (potentially doubling project size) and should be reflected in the 2040 Land Use Element.

2. The voters have repeatedly voiced their preference for measured growth while still complying with state mandates. Surveys and survey questions in particular can be highly manipulated, are often self- serving and shouldn't serve as the basis to overrule community preferences expressed at the ballot box. (yes, propositions too are highly manipulated and sometimes contain downright deceptive language... don't get me started!).

Thank you for your consideration and the time you all have invested in advancing these very important policy frameworks.

-Rick Mayerson

421 of 516

From: marcia mehl
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 9:28 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Tonight's vote

I have been a San Mateo resident since 1973 and have loved this community. Our children atended public schools here.

This current dis- regard for the height limits we cited for are most disturbing to me. Where are the infrastructure change plans? Where is the plan for increased schools and teachers? What are the facts about current available low income housing compared to other open spaces? In some areas of town, I'm even ge�ng lost due to street changes, unfamiliar sites and buildings.

Due to constant street detours, my quiet neighborhood is now a very busy zone with buses and trucks rumbling by.

There have been confusing no�fica�ons posted even regarding private property near 25th.

I urge you to reject the current plan and go back to the drawing boards to protect your cons�tuents from over development. We tax payers provide the funds for this city!s opera�on. Please have the curtesy to re- consider this plan.

VOTE. NO.

Marcia Mehl

Sent from my iPhone

422 of 516

-----Original Message-----
From: Morris
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 9:15 AM
To:

Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Reject GPU

Please reconsider and do not approve the current plan that will/can increase bldg heights. You need to listen and understand what the ci�zens voted for on measure Y . Otherwise why is there a vo�ng process? Thank you.

423 of 516

October 30, 2023
Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the City Council,
The current General Plan is valid until 2030 and meets the RHNA numbers with a buffer.

Developers can use the new housing laws with Measure Y and increase the heights and densities depending the configuration of affordable housing they choose. For example Kiku Crossing affordable housing used AB 1763 to increase the density and height.

Categories High Density I and High Density II the maximum heights will go much higher and more dense with new state density bonus laws such as AB1287. 8 or 10 stories could become 16 or 20 stories. Do not approve the maximum growth scenario.

1. At the District 3 meeting 90% of the attendees supported keeping 1 - 2 stories in the Downtown with a maximum 3 - 4 stories. We would like to keep the charm like other downtowns - San Carlos, Palo Alto, and Mt. View Downtowns. We still need protections from traffic and air quality issues. The maximum alternative GP is too extreme.

2. We oppose rezoning the Service Commercial designation to Service Commercial/Light Manufacturing on S Amphlett. This re-designation brings more large trucks to Central and Sunnybrae neighborhoods. Light Manufacturing will add more warehouses and car repair shops increasing diesel pollution, truck noise and tree damages. San Mateo needs an Industrial Park near 101/92 for these kinds of businesses. We need solutions.

3. We do not support Accessory Commercial Units in residential neighborhoods. We already have a Home Occupation Business Ordinance.

Best,
Michael Weinhauer
Maurine Killough
David Light
Francie Souza
Laurie Watanuki
1 424 of 516

From: weller323
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 10:01 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: SM General Plan

Dear City Council Members,
There remains much confusion and an unknown future in terms of the needs for a 2040 General Plan for San Mateo.
***What is REALLY necessary to meet housing requirements given the new housing laws passed this year?

***California is losing population, making predicted housing needs unreliable.

***Why have the initial drafts for the General Plan always chosen the maximum growth option when medium and low growth alternatives were options?

Ironic that the high density population planned for downtown San Mateo and the Hillsdale area, people will have to get in their cars just to buy groceries---"progressive urban planning" at its worst! Although Draeger's MAY return to a smaller space in the proposed new building, it is a high end grocery for the low income shopper. Lots of talk about less reliance on cars, but the reality of San Mateo's development tells another story---it has been all about tear down and build, build, build without regard to the need for infrastructure, increased traffic, wind tunnel affects of high building downtown blocks, already plenty of empty office space, convenient access to basic needs such as groceries, etc. And, a token nod for low income housing, requiring only the minimum from developers.

City planners, the Planning Commission, real estate interests and developers seem eager to tip San Mateo into a high density, characterless suburban "nothing community." I urge you, the City Council, the ultimate decision makers for our city, to take a thoughtful approach before approving more high density for San Mateo.

Sincerely,
Nancy Weller

425 of 516

From: Robert Whitehair
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 9:19 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: General

Dear Honorable Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Nash and Councilmembers Hedges, Loraine & Newsom,

The Draft General Plan accomplishes so much by providing a decent response to the one most famous, or infamous, issue that has bedeviled San Mateo for almost 4 decades: building height and density. Kudos to the City for bold action that provides an acceptable pathway for responding to that problem.

But the Draft General Plan fails as a response to the climate crisis.

As many have pointed out, the Draft General Plan has three key themes: Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and Community Engagement. We have a once in twenty year opportunity to make meaningful progress in these areas and shape a San Mateo where anyone and everyone can thrive and where significant climate issues can be addressed. Meanwhile the climate worsens, bringing some of the hottest months on record in the last 2000 years.

The good news is that there is still a time to respond.

The reality is that in my lifetime the climate crisis will probably not be resolved. However, IF we were to immediately adopt an all hands on deck approach, eliminate fossil fuels, and regenerate our planet, there is a decent chance to turn around the climate crisis in the next 7 generations.

IF.

The City has already shown statewide leadership by its adoption of reach codes, and by developing a Building Decarbonization strategy.

The best next step is to adopt a focused Climate Action Element of the General Plan, similar to what the County of San Mateo has done https://www.smcgov.org/media/73461/download?inline=

Adoption of such an element by the City of San Mateo will provide a bold statement and additional staff resources. Some of us have already called for a Climate Element, but we were summarily dismissed.

If a City as powerful and focused as San Mateo can find closure on the building height and density issue, then we stand a great chance of dealing with the climate crisis.

Please direct staff to adopt a Climate Element to the General Plan

Thank you

Robert Whitehair
San Mateo home owner for 41 years

426 of 516

From:

Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 10:13 AM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: urban density

Dear City Council Members,

Thank you for your efforts for this city. As a long time resident I am profoundly offended by the questions of growth being always seen through the lens of the maximum possible when we have neither the streets, parking or other infrastructure to support it. Please address the longstanding serious drainage problems in Baywood before you get lofty about growth. The last thing this town needs are senseless high-rises blocking views residents have cherished for decades, and more density while people are leaving the area. What makes this town special is its character which would be far too easy to destroy with unfettered growth.

Thank you for your consideration,
Helene Wickett

427 of 516

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 1:45 PM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; 'Cc:' <[email protected].>; City Mgr <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Oct 30, 2023 Special Council Meeting Written Comments Agenda Items 1 and 2

As a member of the Ethics commitee I agree with this very reasonable request.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 10:22 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected].; [email protected] Subject: Oct 30, 2023 Special Council Meeting Written Comments Agenda Items 1 and 2

Honorable Mayor and Council Members,

I am Dave Cohen represen�ng Ethics San Mateo, a California nonprofit public benefit corpora�on. We do not take posi�ons of suppor�ng or opposing specific issues, we are focused on ethical conduct by our city’s leadership.

We are concerned about the Voter Opinion Survey on Dra� General Plan 2040 Heights and Land Use Designa�on and the Dra� General Plan for several reasons.

1) The General Plan was produced using a popula�on forecast that has been revised by the authorita�ve State Agency, the Calf Department of Finance. The revised forecast actually shows declines in San Mateo County popula�on from now to 2060, with every year’s forecast popula�on lower than 2023. A copy of the forecast, which is publicly available online, is atached.

2) We ques�on the validity of the on-line Voter Opinion Survey on the Dra� General Plan 2040 Heights and Land Use Designa�on. ESM has requested informa�on regarding the development of the ques�ons, including asking for the Statement of Work that True North was under contract to perform, who wrote or influenced the development of the ques�ons, and how they were reviewed. We did not receive a response and have escalated our request. The requests are atached.

We believe some of the ques�ons were not subject to cri�cal review for adherence to best prac�ce design of survey ques�ons to avoid inaccurate or skewed results. The development of survey ques�ons is a science and should be insulated from bias on the part of the authors or those contrac�ng for the survey.

3) ESM believes that the development of the Dra� General Plan has been subject to the publicly announced demands contained in the agendas of ac�vist groups. We have observed members of ac�vist groups, including probable lobbyists, atemp�ng to marginalize and minimize the voices of San Mateo residents who oppose parts of their agendas.

428 of 516

ESM has received a copy of an email for YIMBY Ac�on intended for city commissioners and elected officials, invi�ng them to par�cipate in the organiza�on’s Local Government Alliance.

Their stated goal is to implant ac�vists into city leadership. They have succeeded in doing so. We believe San Mateo’s Planning Commission is an example. A copy of the email is atached. The influence of ac�vists on the Dra� General Plan must be considered – their loud demands are drowning out what residents are sta�ng.

We therefore ask the council to:

a. Have the Dra� General Plan re-evaluated using the updated popula�on forecasts. b. Cause the suspension of any use of the survey results un�l it can be independently determined the methodology meets best prac�ces.
c. Determine the effect of conflicts of interest by ac�vists, or those aligned with the ac�vist groups’ agendas, within our city government on the Dra� General Plan development.

We believe that if the city had adequate, clearly defined, and enforceable standards of ethical conduct these kinds of issues would simply not rise to this high level of concern.

Regards,

Dave Cohen, President/CEO
Ethics San Mateo, A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corpora�on

DEDICATED TO TRUTH, TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICAL CONDUCT IN CITY GOVERNMENT

429 of 516

From: HOLLY HEWITT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 11:08 AM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Building density

I have to say it doesn’t seem to mater how loudly it is said, too much is in the pipeline to be built. So far all seems to be box like with a deck at the 3rd floor to visually reduce the monstrosity of each building.

Just hearing the handwringing about the need for all the “below market” housing is too much.

Such major changes proposed in San Mateo.

A shame. High rise building with too many offices and scant need.

Just my opinion.

Holly Hewit

Sent from my iPhone

430 of 516

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 1:49 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan

Dear City Council:

I am concerned about the current General Plan Update and asking you to slow down, reject it and take a step backward to reconsider some important issues:

1. It incorporates the most aggressive growth alternative C (instead of the more balanced moderate ones, A or B) and ignores Measure Y which voters have approved not wanting higher levels of density. US Census data shows San Mateo population is declining, so why the most aggressive growth scenario:

April 1, 2020 105,665
July 1,2022 100,984

2. State AB 1287 will allow 100% larger buildings instead of 50% if developers add additional income restricted units. This means 10 story units will become 20 story if developers decide to go that route. The plan must be revised to reflect these density bonuses.

3. How will the city handle the infrastructure costs, traffic and parking issues?

4. Shopping centers is/will be eliminated replaced by housing. K Mart is gone, Traggs is gone, Draegers is on the chopping block, Rite Aide Complex area will be gone, Fish Marlet is gone, Southern part of Hillsdale shopping Center will be gone and more to come. So, elimination of supermarkets, drug stores, small grocery stores, small business, large retail stores will cause more cross town and inter city driving to find the same or substitutes causing more gas consumption and time on the road.

431 of 516

5. This plan will not achieve the GPU’s stated goals of balance and improving quality of life. Instead, the opposite. It puts an undue burden on taxes paid by homeowners, traffic and parking problems , limited shopping choices and more driving, higher densities than the community wants and significant reduction in open space. It also forces gentrification with the over whelming majority being market rate housing with a pittance for below market.

As long as we have growth in high paying jobs, affordability will always be a problem for those uneducated, do not have good trade skills, have more children then they can afford, do not make good financial decisions, etc etc.

Thanks for taking the time to listen

Respectfully

Gary Isoardi

432 of 516

From: Karen S <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 1:13 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: General plan update - Please reject

Dear City Council,

Please reject the current proposed General Plan Update! Please revisit options with less density, such as Alternative C.

The current iteration of the general plan does NOT reflect voters' preferences and concerns!

- It ignores the voices of those who don't want unmitigated building heights pushed by developers in exchange for very little for the community. It ignores voter-approved Measure Y all together.

-It does not offer a solution for the added infrastructure that would be required for additional construction. Our area simply cannot bear more construction without more infrastructure.

-It assumes we need these extra developments when, in fact, people are leaving the area and buildings sit dormant. The extra development does not provide the housing that is needed.

Please don't move ahead as is!!! Please listen to the voices of voters!!

Sincerely,
Karen Sid

433 of 516

From: John Tastor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Master Plan

Commending the City Staff and Council for the revised Master Plan and especially the Housing Element.

Housing, especially low-income affordable housing is critical, and we support passage of the plan before the Council this evening.

John & Sharon Tastor
3508 Wnway, San Mateo 94403
District 5

434 of 516

From: Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 1:13 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Council Meeting 10/30/23 - Comments on GP 2040 Land Use Element

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council - The 2040 General Plan as written is nothing short of a slap in the face to more than half the electorate who gave you the most statistically significant survey you could ask for - the passage of Measure Y in 2020. I realize several of you find yourself in a very difficult position as a result of inheriting the results of prior council, commission, and staff decisions, not to mention the bind the state continues to put all cities in with an unelected, unaccountable HCD and RHNA cycles detached from reality. That makes the direction you go in tonight that much more difficult, but also that much more important.

Specifically, land use scenario C as adopted by the previous council is completely unacceptable as it represents the maximum growth scenario. I laud efforts to eliminate the High II option, and appreciate councilmembers Newsom, Hedges, and Diaz-Nash's genuine efforts to find compromises before the cement dries, but this plan remains way off the mark, and is not viable in its current state. Most importantly, this plan, if adopted, would succeed in urbanizing San Mateo, but will do almost nothing to make it more affordable. Developers will be enriched, quality of life for San Mateans will suffer. This plan is based on so many specious assumptions of growth and extreme, unrealistic changes in human behavior (eg walking vs driving, gas vs electric, etc.) as to be a work of fantasy versus a serious blueprint for the development of a community. I'm also not supportive of several ideas that pass this plan, either assuming developers won't actually build to the heights allowed, or that would have us revisit the plan and revise based on then-current numbers. Unfortunately given the history of our council (eg lifelong carpenter's union advocates) and current tolerance of activist planning commissioners etc, we can't trust that they'll be willing to revise downward even when growth data doesn't fit their narratives.

The city must realize that they are literally gambling years of effort and millions of dollars on an electorate that will stand by and let this be implemented. I promise you, that couldn't be further from the truth. Furthermore, there is no need to pass this plan in 2024, especially given economic uncertainties and the delayed/uncertain state of many projects currently in flight in San Mateo. We have a plan valid until 2030 and have submitted a solid housing element to the state, which should protect us from the Builders Remedy. I've heard rumblings of the big bad HCD coming after us should we delay. To that, I say we need to band with other cities and fight these unfunded, overreaching mandates from the state. We're spending millions on our housing elements and having to ask taxpayers for more money to protect against flooding. What a wasteful and misguided use of scarce municipal funds. To date, only 2 of 21 Housing Elements in San Mateo county have been accepted by the state. That to me indicates a problem with them, not us, and it's time to fight back along with the 19 other cities in the same predicament, who are also wasting precious time and money chasing these absurd mandates.

Should the city fail to pass this GP by rushing it and not going back and compromising, it will be an extremely embarrassing black eye on our city. One that will unfortunately, and at least in some cases undeservedly, become part of your legacies. It's time for some hard, but necessary choices - go back to the drawing board, scale this project back, slow it down, and create something we can all get behind.

Thanks for listening - Michael Weinhauer

435 of 516

From: Connie Weiss <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 11:27 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for 2040 General Plan Land Use Element

Hello City Council Members and City Manager Khojikian,

As you review the Land Use Element at tonight’s City Council meeting, I would urge you to be aware of, and take corrective action on, the following:

- The previous City Council majority was much more in tune with the wishes of developers and activists pushing an agenda of overbuilding which was at odds with, and at the expense of, the wishes of San Mateo residents. The result of this bias shows in the aggressive approach to building in the 2040 General Plan and the Land Use Element.

- The current Planning Commission has a majority of activists onboard that consistently ignore the input of residents wanting more measured growth. They continue to push for overbuilding and stay true to their activist agendas.

- The recent survey on height was highly questionable in its approach. The choices were: Do you want high-rise buildings downtown or mid-rises everywhere in the City? How can that be considered “statistically valid”? Results from this survey need to be tossed.

- Residents have taken action three times to vote for limits on building heights and densities. We have the forecasted decline of population (to 2060) by the California Department of Finance, and additional housing resulting from density bonuses (which developers are now regularly using) which are not reflected in the current Land Use Element at all. This needs to be changed to clearly reflect this data, and the aggressive growth needs to be changed to lower growth that also is aligned with this data.

I love San Mateo and the beauty it provides. We need affordable housing, but not towers of buildings that will result in significant degradation of our quality of life.

Thank you,

Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident

436 of 516

City Council
Draft General Plan 2040 - Meeting 3 of 3
October 30, 2023

437 of 516

2 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
General Plan Team
» City of San Mateo
• Zachary Dahl, Interim Director
• Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
• Somer Smith, Associate Planner
• Bethany Lopez, Senior Engineer
• Mary Way, Administrative Assistant
» Technical Advisory Committee
• Over 40 staff members from all City
departments and SMCFD
» Consultants
• Joanna Jansen, PlaceWorks
• Carey Stone, PlaceWorks
• Angelica Garcia, PlaceWorks
• Evelia Chairez, PCRC
• Sabina Mora, Good City Co
• Nelson\Nygaard
• Kittelson Associates, Inc.
• Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
• BKF Engineers

438 of 516

3 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Tonight’s Agenda Discussion
» Presentation
» Clarifying Questions
» Public Comment
» City Council Discussion and Direction
• Introduction and Glossary
• Land Use Element
• Other Recommended Changes

439 of 516

Project Overview

440 of 516

5 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
General Plan: Vision Statement

441 of 516

6 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Past General Plan Milestones
Timeframe Task
Fall - Winter 2018 Establish communitywide vision for 2040 Spring - Summer 2019 Identify study areas
• Developed with an awareness of Measures P and Y
• Study areas did not include any Single-Family Residential areas and excluded most of the Equity Priority Communities
Fall 2019 Create a range of land use alternatives
Winter 2019 - Summer 2021 Finalize draft land use alternatives Fall 2021 - Summer 2022 Select a preferred land use and circulation scenario Summer - Fall 2022 Prepare draft goals, policies, and actions (GoPAs) Winter 2023 – Summer 2023 Prepare Draft General Plan

442 of 516

7 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Where Are We Now and What’s Next?
We are here

443 of 516

8 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Draft General Plan 2040 Online Resources
» StriveSanMateo.org has information to
assist with the community’s review:
• Draft General Plan
• User Guide
• Ten Big Ideas
• Online commenting tool
• Interactive Draft General Plan 2040 Land Use
Map
• Measure Y FAQ
• And much more!

444 of 516

9 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Growth Projections and the General Plan
» Growth projections were necessary for the Alternatives Evaluation and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
• Compare possible outcomes, establish a conservative envelope for quantitative modeling.
» The General Plan includes a policy to ensure growth does not exceed the envelope analyzed in the Draft EIR without further study.
» The General Plan allows growth, but it does not mandate or regulate a certain amount or pace of growth.
» The City “sets the table,” then growth is driven by market influences and private property owner decisions.

445 of 516

Draft General Plan 2040
Overview

446 of 516

11 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
10 Big Ideas
» Carries forward existing General
Plan
• Balancing Growth
• Neighborhood Fabric
• Nature Preservation
• Supporting Local Economy
• Historic Preservation
» Reflects new policy direction in
this iteration of the General Plan
• All Ways to Travel
• Community Outreach
• Equity
• Sea Level Rise Strategy
• Safety
» Represents policy priorities that
surfaced through community
outreach

447 of 516

12 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
General Plan Elements

2. Land Use

3. Circulation

4. Housing (prepared separately)

5. Community Design and Historic Resources

6. Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Recreation

7. Public Services and Facilities

8. Safety

9. Noise

448 of 516

13 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
General Plan – Other Components

1. Introduction
[Elements – 2 through 9]

10. Glossary

11. Implementation Plan (separate from General Plan)
• Explains how actions will be implemented
 Who is responsible
 Timing
• Tracks progress
• Finalized after completion of the General Plan

449 of 516

14 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Draft General Plan 2040 Key Themes
» Draft General Plan embodies three key themes which are woven throughout the document:
• Sustainability. Help ensure that San Mateo can meet its current needs and leave viable resources for future generations.
• Environmental Justice. Reduce the unique or compounded health risks in San Mateo’s equity priority communities.
• Community Engagement. Increase community participation in the planning and development processes

450 of 516

15 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Example General Plan Page
» Each goal number starts with the element
acronym, followed by the number of the goal
» Policy or action numbering based on the
number of the goal and is numbered
sequentially
» Icons identify which policies and actions are
related to the three General Plan themes
Sustainability
Environmental Justice
Community Engagement

451 of 516

16 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Maintaining Continuity, Improving Transparency

452 of 516

Draft General Plan
Community Outreach
Summary

453 of 516

18 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Public Input Channels
» Draft General Plan Online Comment Tool
» Pop-Up Events
» Virtual Workshop
» Town Hall Meetings
» Staff Presentations
» Written Comments

454 of 516

19 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Getting the Word Out
» Project Website
» Self-Guided Open House
» Social Media
» Citywide Newsletter
» Town Hall Postcard
» Sidewalk Decals
» Earned Media
» Eblasts
» Print Advertisements
» Canvassing and Flyer Distribution
» Draft General Plan User Guide
» Ten Big Ideas in San Mateo’s General Plan

455 of 516

20 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Outreach to Equity Priority Communities
» PCRC and Good City outreach
» Distributed approximately 1,400 flyers
» Visited 5 religious' institutions
» Visited the Adult School of San Mateo
» Distributed flyers at approximately 35 businesses
» Attended North B Fiesta and two food distribution events » Canvassed at Martin Luther King Jr Park
» Pop-up event and tabling event on North B Street

456 of 516

21 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Community Outreach Events
Date Outreach Event # of Participants
Friday, July 17, 2023 to Sunday,
October 1, 2023 Draft General Plan Online Comment Tool 236 Comments Friday, July 17, 2023 to Monday,
October 9, 2023 Written Public Comments 52 Comments
Monday, June 12, 2023 Meeting with Neighborhood Group (25th Ave Speaks) 4 Wednesday, July 26, 2023 Sierra Club Land Use Subcommittee Staff Presentation 6 Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Video Loco (North B St) Pop-up 20 Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Canvassing and passing out flyers to local businesses in North B Street 25 Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Distribute flyers at La Huerta Market & El Ranchito Market n/a Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association Meeting Staff Presentation 34 Wednesday, August 16, 2023 Virtual Workshop 30
Wednesday, August 16, 2023 Canvassing at Idaho & Poplar Neighborhoods 6 Wednesday, August 18, 2023 Flyers were left at local businesses at Kingston Street in North Shoreview n/a Tuesday, August 22, 2023 Canvassing at Tilton/Delaware Food Distribution 20 Friday, August 25, 2023 Canvassing at Norfolk and 3rd Ave Shopping Center 10 Saturday, August 26, 2023 Firefighter’s Chili Cook-Off Pop-Up 85 Sunday, August 27, 2023 North B Street Fiesta Pop-up 115 Monday, August 28, 2023 Canvassing Rogell Street Food Distribution 35 Tuesday, August 29, 2023 Canvassing at North Shoreview Shopping Center 30 Thursday, August 31, 2023 District 5 Town Hall Meeting 125 Wednesday, September 6, 2023 Canvassing at Hacienda Market and commercial center on North Amphlett 40

457 of 516

22 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Community Outreach Events – Cont.

Date Outreach Event # of Participants
Wednesday, September 6, 2023 Canvassing at La Raza Family Market 40 Wednesday, September 6, 2023 District 1 Town Hall Meeting 120 Thursday, September 7, 2023 Canvassing at King Center/Soccer Fields 60 Thursday, September 7, 2023 September Nights on B Pop-Up 100 Friday, September 8, 2023 Movies in the Park Pop-Up 50
Wednesday, September 13, 2023 District 2 Town Hall Meeting 40 Thursday, September 14, 2023 September Nights on B Pop-Up 100 Friday, September 15, 2023 Movies in the Park Pop-Up 75 Sunday, September 17, 2023
Canvassing at Iglesia Pentecostal de San Mateo,
Second Baptist Church, Sturge Presbyterian Church,
Shoreview United Methodist Church, St. Timothy Catholic Church 8 individuals + 300 total fliers left
with church staff
Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Canvassing at Chavez Market, North Shoreview Shopping Center and along Cary Avenue 30
Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Phone call and email reminders to religious institutions and businesses 5 Wednesday, September 20, 2023 District 4 Town Hall Meeting 30 Thursday, September 21, 2023 Home Association of North Central San Mateo (HANCSM) Meeting Staff Presentation 25
Friday, September 22, 2023 Movies in the Park Pop-Up 75 Friday, September 23, 2023 Autumn Moon Festival Pop-Up (materials provided in simplified Chinese with bilingual staff) 75
Thursday, September 28, 2023 District 3 Town Hall Meeting 50 Saturday, September 30, 2023 Chamber of Commerce Downtown FestivalPop-Up 100

458 of 516

23 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Outreach Audience Characteristics
» 44% of the workshop participants were new.
» 56% had participated in a previous General Plan meeting. » 43% of participants heard about event through email/social media.
» 75% of participants were homeowners; 25% were renters. » Outreach audience had more representation from white, higher income, and over 41 years old groups compared to City population.

459 of 516

Introduction and Glossary

460 of 516

25 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Introduction and Glossary
» Introduction Overview
• What is a General Plan?
• Planning context setting
• Overview of Draft General Plan 2040
• Equity Priority Communities
• Implementing the General Plan
» Glossary Overview
• Explains the technical terms used in this General Plan

461 of 516

26 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Community Input
» Discuss how the Draft 2040 General Plan differs from the existing General Plan.
» Increase outreach to bilingual households.
» Need to better define sustainability.
» Define criteria for what is considered transit accessible. » Define what community means.

462 of 516

27 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Staff Recommended Changes
» Introduction
• Update Big Ideas text
• Update Equity Priority
Communities text
• Add more narrative about how
current General Plan themes have
been incorporated into General
Plan 2040
» Glossary
• Define “Story”
• Story. The term to define building height in the
General Plan. The General Plan assumes each
story is an average of 11 feet, provided that the
applicable overall height limit shall not be
exceeded.
• Define “Active Transportation”
• Active Transportation. Biking, walking, and
other human-powered ways of getting around.
• Remove “disability” because this
term is not used in the General
Plan

463 of 516

Land Use Element

464 of 516

29 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Land Use Element
» Balanced, Orderly, and Equitable Growth and
Preservation
» Allowed Land Uses and Heights and Densities
» Downtown, El Camino Real Corridor, Hillsdale
Station Area
» Environmental Justice
» Food Access
» Community Engagement
» Climate Change and Sustainability
» Economic Development
» Development Review
» Regional Cooperation
» General Plan Maintenance

465 of 516

30 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Draft General Plan 2040 Land Use Map
» Designations identify
where specific types of
land uses may occur.
» Allowed uses are broad
enough to give the City
flexibility, but also
provide clear enough
direction to achieve the
General Plan Vision.

466 of 516

31 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
10 Study Areas from Land Use Alternatives
» Greatest potential to experience and to
accommodate land use changes over the next 20
years
» Areas near transit, services, and jobs
» Areas where current buildings are aging, vacant, or
not maintained
» Areas where property owners have expressed
interest in considering redevelopment

467 of 516

32 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Equity Priority Communities
Pollution
Burden
Low
Income
Area
“Equity Priority
Community” or
"Disadvantaged
Community“
(SB 1000)
Map: Cal Enviro Screen 4.0

468 of 516

33 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Community Input
» Support and maintain local businesses.
» Ensure there will be sufficient retail and other services available to support future growth.
» Maintain Measure Y height and density limits.
» Increase allowed density in single-family neighborhoods. » Increase heights and densities to allow for more affordable housing. » The City should not address climate change.
» Add stronger climate change policies and actions.
» Determine whether there is sufficient demand for the new office and commercial uses being proposed.
» Require developers to provide new parks and open space as part of new development.

469 of 516

34 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
General Plan Subcommittee Feedback
» Some GPS members do not want residential uses within 500 feet of high- volume roadways
» Ensure a single block does not have more than one land use designation » Policy LU 1.9 Voter Approved Growth Limits
» New action to annually monitor housing and job growth » Update Action LU 8.4 City Investment
» Add actions to support Policy LU 8.5 Community Preservation and Policy LU 8.6 Safe and Sanitary Homes
» Add policy direction to support accessory commercial units in residential areas
» Add support for future land acquisition by the City

470 of 516

35 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Planning Commission Recommendations
» Explore allowing accessory commercial units
» Limit residential densities in Study Areas 7 and 8 near the highways.
» Provide incentives to retain local businesses
» Incentivize new park and plaza spaces on private property » Policy LU 8.6 Safe and Sanitary Homes
» Action LU 8.12 City Services
» Action LU 8.13 Neighborhood Beautification
» Policy LU 9.1 Inclusive Outreach
» LU 12.13 Fiscal Neutrality

471 of 516

36 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Staff Recommended Changes
» Update narrative to better
communicate no changes to
Measure Y outside of Study Areas
» Clarify that height limits are
defined by stories
» Figure LU-1 Land Use Map
» Table LU-1 Land Use Designations
» Policy LU 3.3 Neighborhood
Commercial Preservation
» Policy LU 3.4 Convenience Retail
» Policy LU 3.5 Support Service
Uses
» Policy LU 3.10 Service Commercial
» Policy LU 3.12 Publicly Accessible
Spaces
» Action LU 8.4 City Investment
» Action LU 8.11 City Services
» Action LU 8.12 Neighborhood
Beautification
» Policy LU 10.1 Effects of Climate
Change

472 of 516

37 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Staff Recommended Changes - Cleanups
Change:

Res Med II to
Mixed-Use Med II
• 1515 El Camino Real
• 1528 El Camino Real
Change:

Res Med I to
NeighborhoodCom
• 221 E. Hillsdale Blvd
Change:

Res Med II to
Mixed-Use Med II
• South side of 25th
Ave, between Palm Pl
and railroad tracks
(12 parcels)
Change:

Res Med I to
Mixed-Use Med I
• 4200 Olympic Ave
Olympic Village
Shopping Center
Change:

Remove from Study Area
• Waypoint Church
Parking Lot at 25
th
Ave and Hacienda St

473 of 516

38 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Staff Recommended Changes – Palm Ave
Change:

Mixed-Use Med II to
Service Commercial
• East side of Palm,
between Trinta Park
and 25th Ave
• Existing service
commercial area
• Directly adjacent
to rail corridor
• Many locally
owned and
operated
businesses

474 of 516

39 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Staff Recommended Changes – Study Area 7
Change:

Res Med II (51-99 du/ac) to
Res Med I (35-50 du/ac)
• East side of Idaho St,
between E. Santa Ynez and
2nd (46 parcels)
• West side of N. Kingston
St, between Monte Diablo
and Cypress (11 parcels)
• 2nd Ave at Bayshore Blvd
(5 parcels)
Change:

Res Med II (51-99 du/ac) to
Res Med I (35-50 du/ac)
• 470 and 490 Idaho
Street (2 parcels)
• Rogell Court, north of
and Rogell Ave (15
parcels
• Dore Ave at N. Bayshore
Blvd (5 parcels)
• Avoid adding density on sites in close proximity to HWY 101 (pollution source) and adjacent to lower density neighborhoods in North Central and North Shoreview • Maintain current density (50 du/ac max)

475 of 516

40 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Land Use Map Requests
» 2929 and 2955 Campus Dr
• Requesting Office High instead of Res Med II
• Residential Medium II allows 4-6 stories and 51-99 du/ac • Office High allows 3-5 stories and 51-130 du/ac
• Office Med allows 2-4 stories and 36-50 du/ac
• Staff recommends redesignating to Office Medium
» Mixed-Use Med I and Office Medium
• Requesting reducing density minimum to 15 du/ac
• Mixed-Use Medium I allows 36-50 du/ac
• Office Medium allows 36-50 du/ac
• Staff recommends:
 Mixed-Use Medium I (20-50 du/ac)
 Office Low and Medium with maximums only
o Office Low (up to 35 du/ac)
o Office Medium (up to 50 du/ac)
Office
Medium
Res
Low II Res
Med IIRes
Low I
Res
Low II
Res
Med II

476 of 516

41 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
High I and High II Land Use Designations
Designation Density Max FAR Height Limit Description
Residential
High I
100 to 130
du/ac
n/a 5-8 stories
This designation allows higher-density multifamily residential dwellings, such as condominiums and apartments, in
Downtown, in proximity to Caltrain stations and along major streets, such as El Camino Real.

Residential
High II
100 to 200
du/ac
n/a 6-10 stories
This designation allows high-density multifamily residential dwellings, such as condominiums and apartments, in
Downtown, in proximity to Caltrain stations, and along major streets, such as El Camino Real.

Mixed-Use
High I
100 to 130
du/ac

4.5 5-8 stories This designation allows high-density mixed-use buildings that provide a mix of commercial, office, and/or residential uses within the same site or building. It is intended to allow a mix of uses near major streets, train stations, and shopping centers, and within Downtown.

Mixed-Use
High II
100 to 130
du/ac

5.0 6-10 stories This designation allows high-density mixed-use buildings that provide a mix of commercial, office, and/or residential uses within the same site or building. It is intended to allow a mix of uses near major streets, train stations, and shopping centers, and within Downtown.

477 of 516

42 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
High I and High II Land Use Designations
» April 3, 2023 Council Direction:
• Study High II designations in the EIR
• Complete a statistically significant survey to gauge
community feedback on High II designations
» 231 parcels have a High II designation
• Over 24,000 parcels citywide
» Removing High II would reduce 2040 buildout
by approx. 1,000 units
» Land use changes to buffers and transitions at
edges of Study Areas would likely reduce 2040
buildout

478 of 516

43 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Recent Public Input on Land Use Element
» Voters have already expressed support for Measure Y
• Maintain current heights and densities (5 stories/55 feet and 50 du/ac) » Housing density bonuses should be reflected in land use designations
» Need to understand fiscal impacts
» Public services and infrastructure cannot support this level of growth
• Need to plan for sufficient public services and infrastructure » General Plan projections inconsistent with State demographic projections

479 of 516

44 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Responses to Recent Public Input
» Voters will have an opportunity to vote on the potential changes to measure Y » Height ranges were adjusted to factor in potential Density Bonus Height Concessions » A fiscal impact analysis will be prepared for the Final General Plan » Statewide demographic projections are different from Bay Area and Peninsula housing needs and growth patterns
» Housing needs on the Peninsula and in San Mateo County are real, and thousands of people need a house and/or are housing insecure.
» Local businesses cannot find the workers they need to operate because workers cannot afford to live here; improving affordability and supply supports local business » Young people and families are leaving the Bay Area and San Mateo because of the cost of housing and lack of availability
» The General Plan is comprehensive and issues like safety, congestion, services and infrastructure and quality of life are addressed

480 of 516

Other Staff
Recommendations

481 of 516

46 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Cultural and Entertainment Recommendations
» Update the narrative under Diverse Range of Land Uses:
• (first paragraph) Commercial centers and an active Downtown provide a space where people can work, recreate, and build communitythrough cultural and entertainment events while also supporting the city’s fiscal health. • (second paragraph) It also promotes parks, open space, cultural venues, and recreational facilities, and community gathering spaces for all members of the San Mateo community.
» Policy LU 3.7 Visitor Economy. Collaborate with other Peninsula cities and the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau to support the continued development of the visitor economy of both the city and the region, including lodging, entert ainment, cultural, recreation, retail, and local events; encourage uses that attract visitors. Incentivize through fee reduction and visitor perks, sustainable modes of travel to and from the city to reduce both the use of air travel and gas -powered vehicles. » Policy LU 3.13 Cultural Facilities and Public Art. Recognize cultural facilities, entertainment events, performing arts, and public art as part of a healthy and thriving community. Use funds from the City’s art in-lieu fee to enhance existing public art and cultural facilities and encourage new facilities that reflect the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhoods. » Policy LU 4.1 Downtown Land Uses. Allow and prioritize a wide range of residential, dining, cultural, entertainment, lodging, and other commercial uses downtown, at high intensities and densities, with strong multi-modal connectivity to the San Mateo Caltrain stat ion and other transit.
» Action LU 4.4 Downtown Area Plan. Update the Downtown Area Plan to support and strengthen the Downtown as a vibrant and active commercial, cultural, entertainment, and community gathering district. The updated Downtown Area Plan shall align with the General Plan, integrate recommendations from other concurrent City efforts, focus growth and intensity in proximity to the Caltrain station, encourage superblock concepts or approaches and allow parklets, update parking standards and parking management strategies, allow for i ncreased housing units and density, and support high-quality, pedestrian-oriented design and architecture. » Policy COS 5.2 Creating Community. Cultivate opportunities to come together as a community, celebrate our heritage, cultures, and milestones, through cultural and entertainment events and have social supports available, which are key to creating a sense of community and building community resilience.
» Policy COS 5.3 Creative Outlets. Provide skill development, cultural, and performance opportunities within each of the major art forms with an emphasis on promoting lifelong enjoyment to nurture creative discovery.

482 of 516

47 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Circulation Element
» Add additional support for pedestrian safety improvements along El Camino Real:
• Policy C 1.5 El Camino Real
• Action C 3.7 Pedestrian Connectivity
• Policy C 5.6 Transit Safety

483 of 516

48 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Air Quality
» Air Quality contained in the Conservation, Open Space and Recreation Element » Current Air Quality Policies and Actions related to New Development • Policy COS 4.1 Air Quality Thresholds. Use thresholds of significance that match or are more stringent than the air quality thresholds of significance identified in the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Air Quality Guidelines when evaluating air quality impacts of projects.
• Policy COS 4.2 Health Risk Assessment. Require new development not exempt from CEQA that includes sensitive receptors to prepare Health Risk Assessments. Identify appropriate mitigation, based on the findings of the Health Risk Assessment, to reduce health risks from major sources of toxic air pollution, such as high-volume roadways, stationary sources, permitted sources from BAAQMD, and warehousing.
• Policy COS 4.6 Toxic Air Contaminants. Require that when new development that would be a source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) is proposed near residences or sensitive receptors, either adequate buffer distances shall be provided (based on recommendations and requirements of CARB and BAAQMD), or filters or other equipment/solutions shall be provided to reduce the potential exposure to acceptable levels. When new residential or other sensitive receptors are proposed near existing sourcesof TACs, either adequate buffer distances shall be provided (based on recommendations and requirements of CARB and BAAQMD), or filters or other equipment/solutions shall be pro-vided to the source to reduce the potential exposure to acceptable levels. • Action COS 4.10 Air Quality Improvement. Support and partner with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in monitoring, education, permitting, enforcement, grants programs, or other efforts to improve air quality issues and health outcomes for all.

484 of 516

49 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Air Quality (cont.)
» Recommended updates to Air Quality policies/actions
• Policy COS 4.9 Air Pollution Exposure. For new development that is located within 1,000 feet from US Highway 101 and State Route 92, require installation of enhanced ventilation systems, vegetative barriers and other strategies to protect people from respiratory, heart, and other health effects associated with breathing polluted air indoors and outdoors.
• (new) Action COS 4.12 Outdoor Air Quality Mitigation. Explore the feasibility of funding and installing pollutant screening solutions such as walls and vegetation to address outdoor air quality in residential areas close to pollutant sources such as highways.

485 of 516

50 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Changes for Council Consideration
» (New) Policy PSF 5.12 City Property Acquisition. Seek opportunities to purchase or acquire property to meet current or future needs for the expansion of specific City services and facilities or if there is a demonstrated public need. » Policy LU 3.12 Publicly Accessible Spaces. Integrate a variety of privately owned and maintained publicly accessible spaces into new development . Spaces should
be safe, welcoming, easy to access, and include require signage that clearly identifies these spaces as publicly accessible.

486 of 516

51 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Next Steps
» July to October 2023
• Draft General Plan Community Outreach
» City Council Meetings
• October 2 – CD and HP; COS and R; and Noise
• October 16 – Circulation, PSF and Safety
• October 30 – Land Use, Introduction and Glossary (tonight) » January 2024
• Publish General Plan 2040 and Final EIR
» February and March 2024
• General Plan 2040 Adoption Hearings

487 of 516

52 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
City Council Discussion and Direction
» Discussion process:
• Provide comments by:
 Introduction and Glossary
 Land Use Element and Land Use Map
» Discussion questions:
• Do you support the staff recommended revisions?
• Are there any other changes or updates that should be made to the Draft General Plan?

488 of 516

53 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

489 of 516

54 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

490 of 516

55 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

491 of 516

56 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

492 of 516

57 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

493 of 516

58 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

494 of 516

59 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

495 of 516

60 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

496 of 516

61 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

497 of 516

62 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

498 of 516

63 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

499 of 516

64 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

500 of 516

65 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

501 of 516

BACK-UP SLIDES

502 of 516

67 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

503 of 516

68 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
General Plan Subcommittee Feedback
» Look at the allowed density ranges for Residential Low I and Residential Low II land use designations and confirm whether the allowed uses of triplexes, fourplexes, condominiums, and apartments can feasibly be accommodated under these designations. If not, consider whether these uses should be removed from the designation descriptions. » Some GPS members requested that housing not be allowed within 500 feet of high-volume roadways while maintaining the overall residential capacity of the Draft General Plan Land Use Map. Other GPS members feel more comfortable with housing near high volume thoroughfares given building technology and buffers that can reduce exposure to particulate matter and a vehicle fleet that is transitioning to electric.
» Revisit the Draft General Plan Land Use Map to ensure that a single block does not have more than one land use designation.
» Clarify Policy LU 1.9 Voter Approved Growth Limits so that it is clearer that Measure Y stays in effect after adoption of the General Plan until voters determine whether or not to modify the height and density requirements.
» Support for new Action LU 1.10 to annually monitor housing and job growth.

504 of 516

69 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
General Plan Subcommittee Feedback (cont.)
» Communicate more transparently that only the ten Study Areas would be exempt from Measure Y upon voter approval and that other areas of the city would still be regulated by Measure Y requirements. » Update Action LU 8.4 City Investment as follows: “Use funds collected by the park impact fee and other additional resources to invest in programs and public improvements that connect residents with opportunities to increase their physical activity and improve their physical and mental health, especially in equity priority communities with higher risk of negative public health outcomes. Identify new funding sources for programs and public improvements, if needed.” » Add actions to support Policy LU 8.5 Community Preservation and Policy LU 8.6 Safe and Sanitary Homes. • Policy LU 8.5 Community Preservation. Prevent displacement in equity priority communities by protecting tenants, helping homeowners remain in place, and funding affordable housing. • Policy LU 8.6 Safe and Sanitary Homes. Encourage homes and neighborhoods that are free of environmental health hazards.
» Add policy direction to support accessory commercial units in residential areas at a scale that would not be disruptive to the surrounding neighborhoods.
» Provide incentives for low-income homeowners to maintain their properties. » Add more specific policies or actions about future land acquisition by the City.

505 of 516

70 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Planning Commission Recommendations
» Add an action to explore allowing accessory commercial units to accommodate small businesses to operate out of small units in residential areas. » Revise the draft land use map to limit residential densities in Study Areas 7 and 8 along US 101 and at the intersection of US 101 and SR 92 to existing density. Do not increase allowed residential densities in these areas.
» Add new Action LU 3.10 “Explore providing incentives to support local community serving businesses such as density bonuses for retaining retail at the ground floor at low rental rates.”
» Add a new Action 3.11 to explore providing incentives to encourage developers to provide publicly accessible new park and plaza spaces on private property. » Add text to LU 8.6 to ensure that open space is aggregated away from pollution sources to the greatest extent possible.
» Change Action LU 8.12 City Services, “Improve Services provided by the City and other partners in order to achieve full neighborhood level parity in areas of safety, security and sanitation in equity priority communities. ”

506 of 516

71 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Planning Commission Recommendations (cont.)
» Modify Action LU 8.13 Neighborhood Beautification. “Support and promote neighborhood clean-up and beautification initiatives in equity priority communities, such as planting and maintenance of street trees to support neighborhood beautification,
including in partnership with neighborhood organizations.” » Modify Policy LU 9.1 Inclusive Outreach, “Notify the community when planning and development decisions are being considered and inform community members about how they can engage in the process. Use outreach and engagement methods that encourage broad representation and are culturally sensitive, particularly for equity priority communities.

Provide language translation services as needed at City Council and Planning Commission meetings.”
» Modify Action LU 12.13 Fiscal Neutrality. “Study the feasibility and potential impacts of adopting a Fiscal Neutrality Policy that would require new development to offset any difference between future tax revenue and the cost of City services to that development. The policy should
must also consider the City's goals to provide a
diverse range of housing affordable to all members of the community.”

507 of 516

72 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
How are you affiliated with San Mateo?
61%
7%
25%
6%
1% 0.2%
Live in San Mateo Work in San
Mateo
Live and work in
San Mateo
Visit San Mateo to
shop, dine, etc
I am not
connected to San
Mateo
Own property in
San Mateo

508 of 516

73 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
What kind of stakeholder are you?
1%
10%
8%
6%
8%
11%
3%
10%
67%
I am a representative of a homeowners association
I am a representative of a neighborhood/community group I own a business here
I am a representative of another organization/group
I am a renter
I work here
I am a visitor or patronize San Mateo businesses
I am a resident
I own property here

509 of 516

74 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
How did you hear about the event?

0.3%
4%
18%
22%
21%
11%
43%
News article
Sidewalk decal
Word of mouth
General Plan newsletter
Other
StriveSanMateo website
City email/Social media

510 of 516

75 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
How long have you lived in San Mateo?
7%
9%
6%
71%
7%
Less than 5 years
5-10 years
10-15 years
More than 15 years
Do not live in San Mateo

511 of 516

76 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
What best describes your current housing situation?
Owner
Occupied
75%
Renter
Occupied
25%
Outreach Participants
Owner
Occupied
54%
Renter
Occupied
46%
City of San Mateo, 2019

512 of 516

77 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
What is your age group?

2.8%
24%
46%
28%
0-25 years 25-40 years 41-64 years 65+ years
27%
32%
25%
15%
0-25 years 25-44 years 45-64 years 65+ years
Outreach Participants City of San Mateo, 2019

513 of 516

78 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
What is your race or ethnicity?
Outreach Participants City of San Mateo, 2019
8%

0.4%

0.4%

0.2%
17%
7%
14%
52%
Other
Native American
Black/African American
Pacific Islander
Latino/Hispanic
Mixed or other
Asian
White
6%
0%
2%
25%
26%
41%
Other Race or Multiple
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latinx
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic

514 of 516

79 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52
Which best describes your household income?
Outreach Participants City of San Mateo, 2019
11%
13%
14%
63%
Less than $75,000
$75,000-$99,000
$100,000-$149,000
$150,000 or more
29%
5%
16%
50%
Less than $75,000
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000 or more

515 of 516

80 StriveSanMateo.orgof 52

516 of 516