Agenda packet — San Mateo City Council, November 13, 2023

CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Adjourned Special
Meeting
November 13, 2023
6:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber 330 W.
20th Avenue San Mateo CA 94403
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Amourence Lee, Mayor
Lisa Diaz Nash, Deputy Mayor
Rich Hedges
Adam Loraine
Rob Newsom Jr.

AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.

PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTEL Y.

SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

To join via Zoom – click here:

November 13, 2023
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 875 0769 2591 Passcode: 705081

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call

OLD BUSINESS
Public comment for this item was taken during the October 30, 2023 Special Meeting. This item will continue with Council deliberation.

1. Draft General Plan 2040 – Land Use Element – Supplemental Information Continue deliberation from the October 30, 2023 Special Meeting and provide direction on the Land Use Element.

CEQA:

This Project is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)

ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:

Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.

WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:

City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.

For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:

There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream

PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting

1 of 112

Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.

During the meeting
By Zoom:

Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.

By telephone:

Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.

In Person:

At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form, submit a request at the speaker kiosk or scan the QR code.

ACCESSIBILITY:

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected]
. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

2 of 112

CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 5
7 2

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS Account Number: 25-3112 File ID: 23-8192 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: November 13, 2023
SUBJECT:

Draft General Plan 2040 – Land Use Element – Supplemental Information RECOMMENDATION:

Continue deliberation from the October 30, 2023 Special Meeting and provide direction on the Land Use Element.

BACKGROUND:

The information provided in this report is supplemental to the Agenda Report that was published for the October 30, 2023, City Council meeting. Please refer to that report for background and other information related to this item.

On October 30, 2023, the City Council held a special meeting to receive an overview of Draft General Plan 2040’s Land Use Element, Introduction and Glossary, receive public comments and provide direction to staff on these sections. During the meeting, the Council discussed and provided direction on updates and revisions to the Introduction, Glossary, Land Use Element and Land Use Map. The final part of the discussion focused on if the High II land use designation, with a height range of 6-10 stories and density range of 100-200 units per acre, should stay in the Land Use Element, or if it should be removed, with all sites receiving a High I designation (5-8 stories and 100-130 du/ac). Following robust deliberation and discussion, a majority of Council appeared interested in setting High I as the maximum for heights and densities, but were open to potentially allowing High II heights and densities in exchange for meaningful community benefits. Given the late hour and an interest in getting additional information on this topic, Council voted to adjourn the meeting to November 13, 2023 before final direction was provided. Council requested additional information on parcels within ¼-mile of a Caltrain station, the Measure Y community benefits framework, and what could be allowed under the recently enacted state legislation AB 1287.

To provide additional information related to parcels in close proximity to a Caltrain station, three maps have been prepared (Attachments 1-3) and include the following information:
•Map A – Shows all parcels with a High I or High II land use designation and a 0.25-mile radius around each Caltrain station.
•Map B – Shows parcels over 0.5 acre that are within ¼ mile radius of a Caltrain station; these parcels are shown with their Draft GP designation.
•Map C – Shows all parcels over 0.5 acre that are within a Study Area; these parcels are shown with their Draft GP designation.

These maps provide a visual representation of some parameters that could be used to define what sites could be eligible to provide community benefits in exchange for additional height /density. These parameters include proximity to a Caltrain station, minimum lot size (1/2-acre), within a study area, and adjacency to low density residential neighborhoods.

3 of 112

CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 5
7 2
With regard to the framework to allow for additional height and density in Measure Y, and Measures P and H before, it notes that “densities up to 75 units per acre, heights up to 75 feet and appropriate FARs may be allowed in the following areas ... for projects which provide public benefits or amenities substantially greater than code requirements.” The specified areas where projects could seek additional height and density include portions of the El Camino Real corridor, certain areas within Downtown, an area around the HWY 101/HWY 92 interchange and Mariners Island. Staff was unable to locate any documentation that elaborated on why those specific areas were selected.

Since the original Measure H was approved by the voters in 1990, various Community Benefit policies have been adopted by Council, with an updated interim community benefits framework adopted in 2021 being the most recent version (Attachment 4). However, only two projects have been built that have been granted additional height in exchange for community benefits. Both projects, with the community benefits provided, are outlined in the table below.

Project Year Built Community Benefits
Bridgepointe Office
Building
No address on record
1996 Ongoing general fund revenue (TOT), assumed responsibility of farmers market, shoreline park improvements, mariners island improvements, purchase of tidelands park, skateboard and roller hockey facility, library equipment, and contributed to library business/investment center
San Mateo Marriott
1770 S. Amphlett Ave
1997 Concar Park Improvements, Street and sidewalk frontage improvements, crosswalk improvements, and landscape and irrigation improvements More recently, projects have utilized State Density Bonus laws to achieve density bonuses and height concessions in exchange for providing affordable housing units. Thus, the community benefits framework, as well as earlier versions that were adopted to implement Measures H and P, have not been utilized by any projects in more than 20 years.

Turning to the Density Bonus Law, AB 1287 (2023) amended these rules and goes into effect on January 1, 2024. Under AB 1287, a development project would first have to maximize the production of Very Low, Low, or Moderate-Income units under current Density Bonus Law rules, which would yield a maximum 50 percent density bonus. Only then must a city or county grant a housing development an additional density bonus when an applicant proposes to provide additional deed- restricted units at the Moderate-Income level (which now could be rental units) or at the Very-Low income level. This could result in an additional density bonus of up to 38.75 percent in return for providing additional Very-Low Income units, or an additional density bonus of up to 50 percent in return for providing additional Moderate-Income units. A fact sheet on AB 1287 is included as Attachment 5. Density bonuses, waivers, and concessions that result from the application of State Law are allowed to exceed the local limits set by Measure Y.

With this additional information to help guide the decision-making process, staff seeks clarification on two key questions:

1. Should there be a focused framework to allow for projects in specified areas to request heights up to 10 stories and/or densities up to 200 units/acre (High II)?

2. Should eight stories and 130 units/acre (High I) be the maximum limits established in the Land Use Element?

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Map A – High I and High II Land Use Designations Att 2 – Map B – Parcels Over ½-Acre Within ¼-Mile Caltrain Station Radius Att 3 – Map C – Parcels Over ½-Acre within a Study Area Att 4 – Interim Community Benefits Framework Handout
Att 5 – AB 1287 Fact Sheet (distributed by Assemblymember David Alvarez)

STAFF CONTACT
Zachary Dahl, Interim Director Community Development
[email protected]
(650) 522-7207

4 of 112

5 of 112

6 of 112

7 of 112

INTERIM COMMUNITY BENEFIT

FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

 Does the city have a community benefit program?

Yes. On March 15, 2021, the City Council adopted a Resolution to document the interim process for determining community benefits and public improvements for certain development projects. This is an “interim program” as a more comprehensive and detailed program will be completed in conjunction with the General Plan Update.

 When is a community benefit required?

There are several scenarios where an applicant may be required to provide community benefits beyond code requirements as part of their development application. These additional benefits are typically provided as part of a development agreement negotiation or as required by existing General Plan goals and policies; and are only required in circumstances when a developer has a request that exceeds baseline City standards.

Development Agreement - State law allows cities to enter into development agreements with developers. The purpose of development agreements is to allow developers to vest standards in effect at the time an agreement is signed – in exchange for providing benefits beyond standard fees, mitigations and conditions of approval (which must have a nexus to project impacts). The City’s development agreement procedure is outlined in Resolution No. 1990 -120.

General Plan Provisions - There are several General Plan provisions that allow for increased building height in exchange for community benefit or public improvements in certain areas of the city such as downtown, El Camino Real corridor area and the State Route 92/Grant Street/Concar Drive/Delaware Street vicinity.

 What is the purpose of the interim community benefit framework?

The purpose of the Interim Community Benefit Framework is to provide guidance for determining the appropriate value and provide a list of Community Benefits and Public Improvements.

Program Structure
Appropriate Value – An increased building height and a longer vesting period can increase the value of a development; however, it may be challenging to determine the appropriate value. The adopted Resolution requires city staff to contract with an economic land-use consultant to determine or confirm the appropriate monetary value of the proposed community benefits given the development capacity increase (or certainty provided by a development agreement). The cost for consultant services are to be paid for by the applicant consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule.

CITY OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org

8 of 112

Building Division (650) 522-7172 · Code Enforcement Division (650) 522-7150 Housing Division (650) 522-7220 · Planning Division (650) 522-7212 · General (650) 522-7200 Revised October 2021 Page 2 of 2
List of Potential Community Benefits and Public Improvements - A list of potential community benefits and public improvements is provided below. The list has been developed based upon feedback received during public workshops, community meetings, and City Council guidance.

As you review the list, there are a few important aspects to note:
• All developments are required to pay standard fees and make certain improvements based on the impacts of their project. In order to be considered a community benefit, the contributions must exceed standard requirements.
• The list has been acknowledged by the City Council as the preferred list of improvements, which is intended to provide a sense of certainty for the community, developers, and staff. However, developments vary in size, scope and location, and a developer must work with staff and the community in the beginning of the process to select the appropriate benefits.
• Whether the benefit is provided onsite or in the neighborhood, they usually still do have a positive citywide impact. Examples: additional onsite affordable housing helps the City meet its housing goals, a protected bike lane would help everyone get across the city.

 Where can I find out more information?

March 15, 2021 - Agenda Report for Interim Community Benefits Framework and adopted Resolution.

If you have questions, please reach out to the Planning Division staff at [email protected] or (650) 522-7212.

9 of 112

Bill Summary
AB 1287 would require a city or county to grant a
housing development a density bonus and incentives
when an applicant proposes to maximize existing
incentives to construct deed-restricted affordable
units, and provides additional deed-restricted
moderate-income units. The project would become
eligible for an additional density bonus and incentives, stacked on top of the existing available benefits
available under Density Bonus Law.

Existing Law

The Density Bonus Law is a housing statute that
incentivizes developers to build affordable housing. In exchange for dedicating a certain percentage of their
base density to Very-Low, Low, or Moderate Income
homes, projects become eligible for a density bonus,
among other benefits.

The law prescribes the amount of bonus and incentives
that a development can claim, which depends on the
percentage of Very-Low, Low, or Moderate Income
homes built in the project. There is a sliding scale, such that the more affordable units are dedicated, the more
bonus and other benefits become available. In addition
to more density, projects receive other benefits,
including "concess ions” from local development
restrictions.

Most projects using Density Bonus Law choose to
build at the deeply affordable Very-Low Income level,
because it requires deed -restrictions on the fewest
number of units. The bonuses and concessions for that
level of affordability are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Current Density Bonus Law for Very-Low
Income Units
Percentage
Very-Low
Income Units

Percentage
Density Bonus Concessions
5 20 1
6 22.5 1
7 25 1
8 27.5 1
9 30 1
10 32.5 2
11 35 2
12 38.75 2
13 42.5 2
14 46.25 2
15 50 3

For projects to be eligible to use Density Bonus Law,
they must provide:

- At least 5% of the housing units are restricted to
Very Low-Income residents,

- At least 10% of the housing units are restricted to
Low-income residents, or

- At least 10% of the housing units are restricted to
Moderate Income residents in a for-sale development.
100% of the housing units (other than manager’s
units).

AB 1287 (Alvarez) Middle Income Homes Bonus

10 of 112

Problem
The current structure of Density Bonus Law
encourages developers to dedicate a relatively small
number of base density units at the deeply affordable
Very-Low Income level. This has proven successful to
create homes for the most in need , as well as more
market-rate homes . However , it leaves a “missing
middle” with very few projects choosing to included
homes that are deed-restricted at Moderate Income.

Prior efforts to create incentives for Moderate Income
homes under Density Bonus Law have raised concerns
that they might come at the expense of the preexisting
incentives to build more deeply affordable Very -Low
Income units. It has been a challenge to create new
incentives for Moderate Income production, without
undermining the continued production of Very -Low
Income units, which continue to be very necessary for
Californians who have the greatest challenges finding
affordable homes.

Solution

AB 1287 creates a new incentive that can only be used
when a project maximizes the production of Very-
Low, Low, or Moderate Income units, as allowed by
current Density Bonus Law. Only when those
maximums are met, does an additional bonus become
available when a project deed-restricts an additional
set of Moderate Income units.

This structure ensures that the new Moderate Income
Bonus never undermines existing incentives under
Density Bonus Law. In fact, it even creates new
economic reasons to maximize deeply affordable unit
production, by offering an additional sweetener in the
form of the stacked bonus and additional
concessions.

Use of this program could allow a development to
dedicate 15% at Very-Low income to receive a 50%
bonus, and to also dedicate another 15% at Moderate
Income, to receive a second stacked 50% bonus. The
Moderate Income benefits would stack on top of the
existing Density Bonus Law benefits, in an amount
shown on Figure 2.

Figure 2:

Once projects maximize the Very Low, Low, or
Moderate-Income under preexisting Density
Bonus Law, additional stacked bonuses can
include:

Percentage of
Additional
Moderate
Income Units

Percentage
Density Bonus
Concessions
5 20 1
6 22.5 1
7 25 1
8 27.5 1
9 30 1
10 32.5 2
11 35 2
12 38.75 2
13 42.5 2
14 46.25 2
15 50 3

Support
 Circulate San Diego, SPUR, Bay Area Council

For More Information
Vincenzo Caporale, Legislative Aide
Assemblymember David Alvarez, District 80
Office: 916-319-2080
[email protected]

11 of 112

From: Dave Clark <
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 5:11 PM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan 2040

I participated in this plan and feel that it accurately reflects the reality of our housing needs.

Please ignore the NIMBYs who for years have opposed every rational plan and never once proposed their own.

dave clark
san mateo

12 of 112

From: CONNIE DAVIS
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 3:02 PM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Over development

I think all this over development in San Mateo. Traﬃc and infrastructure is not ideal already, and it does not look like this has been considered.

Sent from my iPhone

13 of 112

From: Judith Paton
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 3:08 PM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: GP2040

Please do not go ahead with this accelerated building plan. If San Mateo isn’t able to atract developers who will build low-cost housing there is no point in tearing down exis�ng houses and businesses just to add to the current over abundance of oﬃce space and high-priced apartments.

Thank you
Judith Paton

Sent from my iPhone

14 of 112

From: Michelle Byron
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2023 11:00 AM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Dra� General Plan 2040

Please send this back and revise it to reﬂect future reali�es.

Thank you, Michelle Byron
District 5

15 of 112

From: Lavine
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2023 9:27 AM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Stop the growth GP2040

To the San Mateo City Council,

I am a resident of San Mateo and very seriously concerned about all of the current and ongoing commercial building construction in our beautiful city, including those huge apartment complexes, that I am seeing happening. Please keep to a minimum of 4 stories when designing and development! Developers come in and make their mega millions and then leave without thought of environmental impacts and the diminishing beauty of our city.

Respectfully,
Lavine Mar

Please stop this rapid push of growth!

Sent from my iPhone

16 of 112

From: Evan Powell
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2023 10:38 AM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: new data undercuts the premise of general plan discussions

Dear Council Members

Thank you for your service.

I'm writing to point out that our extensive - and expensive - general plan process was conducted with false premises that undercut its credibility. I strongly suggest we revisit some of the discussions with the benefit of more accurate information.

1. Population growth:
- Since the planning process has kicked off, the state of California and local universities and others have revised their growth projections. We are on the precipice of changing the character of our community to accommodate a wave of population growth - that no longer looks likely. Covid really did happen, causing an increase in remote work. Demand for local office space has dropped, with San Francisco vacancies leading major metro areas.
- Eventually the state will have to face this reality and loosen the requirements for mega building; given this uncertainty, we should delay ratifying any decisions with a multi-decade impact.

2. Central neighborhood streets classified as arterials:
- As you know, in the last few weeks our public works department has let us know that the current plan is for two of the primary streets in our neighborhood to be classified as arterials, making them unable to have traffic calming. The basic promise we have been given is that with increased density and hence potential traffic the city will act to protect pedestrians. In practice every bit of traffic calming in our neighborhood has taken countless discussions, begging, our neighborhood performing traffic studies and suggesting grants via routes to school, and so on. And now we hear that our traffic will likely get worse thanks to this reclassification of 5th and 9th.to arterials. This is a massive change at the last minute - at least our awareness of it is without doubt new - and this would have changed the input from at least the central neighborhood.

3. Measure Y and city council elections
- Last but not least, it's extremely clear from elections and from more informal polls at recent open house meetings concerning the general plan that there is NO mandate for building very tall buildings in San Mateo. Ultimately this must matter; the direction you are going is not popular.

Thank you again for your work on behalf of us, the residents of San Mateo. Please consider a pause during which time the process can incorporate new data and information. A pause would give us the best chance to make a credible decision about the general plan, a decision that will impact our area and the lives of all of our residents for decades to come.

Evan

Evan Powell

17 of 112

South Central neighborhood

18 of 112

From: Nan Presley
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2023 7:46 AM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: GP2040 feedback

GP2040 is out of step in every respect.

SEND IT BACK, IT'S OUT OF WHACK‼‼

Sent from my iPad

19 of 112

From: Jen.robertson06
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2023 8:23 AM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: GP2040

Regarding GP2040:

PLEASE!!! Send it Back! It’s out of Whack!!

20 of 112

From: Tammy Wong
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2023 10:55 PM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Building limit

To council members:

Please limit building heights to ﬁve stories only. Thank you for listening.

Concerned San Mateo resident,

Tammy Wong and family

Sent from my iPad

21 of 112

From: weller323 >
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2023 9:26 PM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft Plan 2040

Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject the fast tracking of the current General Plan 2040. With record high vacancy rates for office space, predictions for stagnant population growth for California, and unfavorable financials for developers why is there a rush for upzoning for a 50% population increase and 3.2 million more square feet of office space?

This over reach of development is tone deaf to both real statistics and to the wishes of San Mateo residents. San Mateans will support reasonable and responsible growth, not the knee jerk stampede encouraged by developers and ill advised legislators. The current General Plan 2040 does not represent thoughtful future planning. Send it back!

Nancy Weller
San Mateo resident

22 of 112

From: Philip Holsworth 5
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2023 10:27 PM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: New General Plan

San Mateo City Councel,

Having been licensed and trained as a real estate agent and a real estate broker, and having worked for a land developer, I totally understand the concept of Highest and Best Use.

However, the people of San Mateo have consistently expressed their desire to live in a village community rather than a mini-San Francisco.

As a "representative," you have a duty to represent your citizens' desires.

Please reject this current proposal.

The State wants us to build more housing. Everyone agrees that this is a good cause. The State is saying nothing about needing more commercial space. I don't believe they are demanding we double our housing, either.

I suggest you look at encouraging our current homeowners to build more ADUs. Perhaps offer them an extremely "low-interest loan" to build funded through a bond, and offer them "no increase in their property tax" providing they rent it to long-term tenants for at least the first 10 to 12 years. I know I would build if I had the funds.

Represent the voters who put you in office. Please do your job.

Thank you.

All the best,
~ Philip Holsworth

23 of 112

From:

Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2023 7:22 PM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Respect Residents of San Mateo

Please show respect for the VOTERS of San Mateo. We have passed a five story height limit in San Mateo. However our City council is continually looking for ways to disregard.

Enough already ….. take a pause and let’s occupy the current empty space that is prevalent in our City.

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

24 of 112

From: Joanne Kiefus
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2023 3:02 PM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject:

I am so disappointed in City Council’s
pushing GP 2040.

Don’t you trust the California Department of Finance forecast of future ﬂat popula�on growth? When will we learn the vacancy rate in San Mateo?
Our streets are ﬁlthy and need of repair.

Trucks are everywhere causing huge traﬃc snarls.

How can you ignore Measure Y , the people’s choice?
JoAnne and Rod Kiefus
Residents of San Mateo since 1974

Sent from my iPhone

JoAnne Kiefus

25 of 112

From: Bobbi Maniscalco
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2023 4:27 PM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: The General Plan

No to the General PLan and keep Measure Y in place.

Barbara & Paul Maniscalco

26 of 112

From: Lynda Paﬀrath
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2023 3:48 PM
To: City Cou
ncil (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: extreme growth in San Mateo

I don’t know why our San Mateo leaders don’t see that the San Mateo residents want reasonable growth in our area. The passage of Measure “Y” made it very clear that we don’t support the extreme growth that is envisioned in GP2040. Please listen to what is being said in our community and tell the city council to do a beter job of represen�ng the people of San Mateo.

Lynda Twyman Paﬀrath

27 of 112

From: Stephen Weller
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2023 2:12 PM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan 20040

Councilmembers:

The San Mateo General Plan for the year 2040 is, in my opinion, deeply flawed.

The projections for "growth" in population and growth in the need for additional office space are not based upon reality.

San Mateo City, and San Mateo County, will not grow at the pace projected in "The Plan", and I strongly suggest that the approval process should be placed on hold, step back for a reality check and revision before approval.

Once again, the "planners" are influenced by developers and contractors whose goals are to build, regardless of the true "need" for new development.

Please step back and allow further analysis of actual "need" for building for a future that I feel will not require the apartments and office space that The Plan envisions.

Stephen A. Weller
San Mateo Resident

28 of 112

From: Jennifer Bock
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 5:55 AM
To: Patrice Olds
<[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Building Height Vote Tonight

Dear City Council:

Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

Medium II (4-6 stories allowed; 8-12 with density bonuses), High I (5-8 stories; 10-16 with bonuses), and
High II (6-10 stories allowed; 12-20 with bonuses)
for both residential and mixed use designations in the General Plan land use section.

The citizens voted three times to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Bock Hughes, MD

29 of 112

From: Sally Carnevale
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 7:56 AM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Disapproval

Dear City Council:

Please respect the San Mateo ci�zens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

Medium II (4-6 stories allowed; 8-12 with density bonuses), High I (5-8 stories; 10-16 with bonuses), and High II (6-10 stories allowed; 12-20 with bonuses) for both residen�al and mixed use designa�ons in the General Plan land use sec�on.

The General Plan and EIR should not be approved un�l the new density bonus law is addressed in the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan and the EIR.

The ci�zens voted three �mes to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed litle support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels.

Sincerely,

Sally Carnevale
San Mateo resident

30 of 112

From: Ruthmary Cradler
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 6:57 AM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Height limits and General Plan-- Council Meeting 11/13/23

Dear City Council

It is rather frustrating to witness so much time being wasted on endless discussions and proposals that would overturn Measure Y in the General Plan. The people of San Mateo have spoken three times in voting to limit building heights and densities. The most recent vote was only 3 years ago for a 10-year limit on height and density.

With all due respect, you are our elected representatives to enact programs and plans that reflect the wishes of our community. We have spoken, and now you should be listening.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

Sincerely,

Ruthmary Cradler

🇺🇺🇺🇺 🇺🇺🇺🇺 🇺🇺🇺🇺 🇺🇺🇺🇺 🇺🇺🇺🇺 🇺🇺🇺🇺

Ruthmary Cradler
Educational Support Systems

31 of 112

From: Sandra Fricke
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 7:23 AM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Gp2040

Please do NOT implement this plan under discussion. This is excessive growth and would strain many elements, traﬃc, general conges�on, schools and increase the popula�on by a huge percentage. I am not in favor of this kind of progress and extreme growth.

Thanks you,

Sandra Fricke,
Resident in the Peninsula Regent.

32 of 112

From: Marcie Maffei
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 8:03 AM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Why you do what you do?

Council,

I wonder how you sleep at night? The Peninsula has been destroyed. Each town thinking it is an empire on its own island and now we can't move and there is nothing left of the quality of life that once existed.

Recently a realtor sent out a flyer saying how happy his client was to sell their home and move back to their hometown which was not covered by concrete like here.....great for them but this is my home. My family has been on the Peninsula since 1908....where do I go?

We needed housing and you built offices to increase the need for more housing. That makes no sense at all and has created havoc.....sorry the big plan of bike and work by your job just doesn't seem to have come to fruition and I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime.

And please plant some trees for all the open land we lost. Permits are given out to cut down heritage trees and no one is following up if they are being replanted. I know of dozens in my neighborhood that have been felled and are not replaced. The office building on S. Grant near Concar cut down nearly half of their trees and removed all the privacy wall between the homes and the offices along the creek. I just spent $6,000.00 to plant 4 trees so I could have some privacy back....such a caring town San Mateo is. I called 3 departments and they all said too bad. The tree department actually tole me they had better things to do than listen to me and hung up. Great services here...also my home had an attempted burglary and my alarm went off but the police don't come in San Mateo unless there is a two call set-up...well I have one phone. My mother's alarm in South City goes off and I barely have time to reset it before the police are there...well actually South City is very responsive to all needs. They are kind on the phone and get to things in less than a day. (Yes, I hear you...so if you like it better move there. I'm stuck here for now and that's what I feel is stuck...probably literally since our street is sinking.....oh that's another problem that just keeps getting worse and not fixed.)

Stop building until what we have is all filled up.

Please think it all through, it's such a mess

Marcie Maffei

33 of 112

From: Deborah Villanueva
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 8:07 AM
To: City Counc
il (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Council vote on Building Height Decision

Dear City Council:

Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

The citizens voted three times to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

Sincerely,

Deborah Villanueva

34 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Building height
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:30:21 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Killeen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 9:14 AM
To: [email protected]; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Building height
> Dear City Council:
>
> Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:
> Medium II (4-6 stories allowed; 8-12 with density bonuses), High I > (5-8 stories; 10-16 with bonuses), and High II (6-10 stories allowed; > 12-20 with bonuses) for both residential and mixed use designations in > the General Plan land use section.
>
> The General Plan and EIR should not be approved until the new density bonus law is addressed in the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan and the EIR. The new law will likely substantially increase the number of units in the City because of the increased density; therefore, it is not necessary to include 6-10 story buildings in the General Plan.
>
> The citizens voted three times to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.
>
> Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.
>
> Sincerely,
> Amy Killeen

35 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Building Heights" decision tonight
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:33:21 PM

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

From: Kathy Whitman
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:33 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Building Heights' decision tonight

Dear City Council,

As our elected representatives, I ask that you uphold our votes to limit building heights and density in San Mateo.

The developers ARE NOT your constituents, we residents ARE! Please remember that!!!

Sincerely,
Kathy Whitman
.
(Owned my home since January, 1974)

36 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Building Heights
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:32:54 PM

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

From: MICHAEL/ JACQUELINE Grubb
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:28 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Building Heights

Dear City Council:

Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

Medium II (4-6 stories allowed; 8-12 with density bonuses),

High I (5-8 stories; 10-16 with bonuses), and
High II (6-10 stories allowed; 12-20 with bonuses)
for both residential and mixed use designations in the General Plan land use section.

The citizens voted three times to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

Sincerely,

Michael and Jacqueline Grubb

37 of 112

38 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: City of San Mateo General Plan 2040
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:28:21 PM

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

From: Jim O'Keefe
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 11:00 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: City of San Mateo General Plan 2040

Dear City Council Members

As residences of San Mateo for over 50 years and natives of the Mid-Peninsula, my wife and I are very concern with the direction that the San Mateo Draft General Plan 2040 will be pushing the city with expansive rezoning to encourage/accommodate significant population growth.

We have always
enjoyed San Mateo because it has focused on providing it residences a small-town environment with excellent schools, public services, and a thriving local business community. The draft General Plan 2040 should be significantly revised to better reflect the vision of the residents of San Mateo and the recent passage of Measure Y.

Regards,

Jim and Linda O’Keefe

39 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Comments on General Plan 2040
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 2:05:36 PM

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

From: Francie Souza
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on General Plan 2040

Dear City Council:

We are residents of Central San Mateo, and see firsthand every day the impact of growth on our neighborhood, not all of it positive, such as increased traffic and poorer air quality. We feel that the General Plan does not take into consideration the changing dynamics of in-office work and the forecast of stagnant population growth in California over the next many years.

As the news shares, office vacancies are at record highs.

In addition, the majority of residents in San Mateo are asking for reasonable growth, without huge high rises in our downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods. There is little community support for 10+ story buildings. Take consideration of our support services, such as police and fire, and the impact of traffic in our neighborhoods.

Plan for the huge impact
that this growth will undoubtedly have and please take a more reasonable approach for our city.

-We support 2-4 story buildings in Downtown, to align more with existing buildings, and to consider the effect of density bonuses, population growth and lower demand for office space -We reject Medium II, High I and High II, which could be more than doubled with state density
bonuses. This will better align with community preferences, help with our traffic volumes and air quality in nearby neighborhoods.
-Keep 5
th and 9th Avenues as local and collector streets, not arterials. We need traffic calming measures NOW for safety reasons.

40 of 112

Sincerely,
Tom & Frances Souza

41 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Council Meeting Evening of 11/13/23
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:54:20 PM

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

From: linda lara
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:51 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Council Meeting Evening of 11/13/23

Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

Please take the following points into consideration when you make your decisions on the General Plan and Housing Elements, regarding the new density bonus laws that allow up to 100% height increases.

• The citizens of San Mateo have voted numerous times in support of Measure Y. They have made their voices clear on Measure Y.

• Please respect the decision of your constituents and not reverse election results.

• I am not aware of any measures being planned for additional water, power, city services support such as public works, sewer, police force, traffic enforcement, fire safety personnel, hospitals, parks and recreation etc. if adding additional housing and population at extreme levels ends up being your decision.

Thank you for your time, attention, and consideration.

Sincerely,
Linda Slocum Lara
San Mateo Resident since 1961.

Very concerned citizen. Mother and Grandmother of San Mateo residents, and a consistent, responsible voter.

42 of 112

43 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: General Plan 2040
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:30:11 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Bilteau
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 9:16 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan 2040
Members of the City Council,
This e-mail seems pretty futile but I will go ahead and register my objection to the high density proposals that the city seems to insist on having in the General Plan 2040. With bills like AB 1287 being churned out of Sacramento the potential negative impact on San Mateo continues to grow. Some like to call this progress.

Destroying the quality of life by overdeveloping is not progress. Can any one of you tell me how many 10 to 12+ story buildings will be enough? I doubt it. At the risk of sounding a bit radical, I said to one of my neighbors a few years back that it seems to me the suburbs have been found to be evil and Sacramento has declared war on them.

As time goes by the feeling that there are folks out there that won’t be happy until the suburbs have been destroyed grows.

I look at the Ca. Department of Finance projection that population growth in the state will remain flat for the next 40 years and wonder why the city of San Mateo is in such a mad rush to give developers, at this stage, the green light to be able to build way, way beyond Measure Y.

Please Do Not Move Forward with the General Plan 2040 in it’s current state.

Thank you,
Don Bilteau

44 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: General Plan Land Use and Building Heights Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:31:26 PM

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

From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 8:46 AM
To: Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Land Use and Building Heights

Dear City Council:

Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

The General Plan and EIR should not be approved until the new density bonus law is addressed in the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan and the EIR. The new law will likely substantially increase the number of units in the City because of the increased density; therefore, it is not necessary to include 6-10 story buildings in the General Plan. Please direct staff to calculate the amount of new housing that could be created if the 100% housing density bonus is implemented in 25%, 50%, and 100% of available locations to disclose to the public what the proposed General Plan could allow with the density bonuses.

The citizens voted three times to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit Mixed Use and Residential heights and densities to Measure Y levels given the housing

45 of 112

density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

Sincerely,

Laurie Hietter

46 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: General Plan
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:26:03 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: John Monfredini
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 11:33 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Arlette Monfredini
Subject: General Plan
The premise of the GP is totally wrong and moving San Mateo in a direction that threatens to destroy much of what is wonderful about our community.

First of all the narrative of a “ housing shortage “ is false. Totally erroneous.

On the contrary there is a surplus of available housing. Consider Station Green. A disaster. Huge vacancy factor.

No one will divulge the true vacancy in that development. We are bleeding jobs. Losing tax paying population throughout the state. Time to get real and tell the truth to the voters. Who benefits from massive development.

Probably construction unions, and the County which receives an increase in property tax revenues. Look around and see the office and apartment vacancies. Look at BART. Finances are a mess. Ridership is disastrously down as more workers opt to work from home. Time to reassess. John Monfredini Sent from my iPad

47 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Height Limits in San Mateo
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:22:26 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg

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

From: Carmela Wagner
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:12 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Height Limits in San Mateo

To our City Council Members,
Thank you for advocating for what your constituency has voiced – height limits in San Mateo!

The citizens voted three times to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

Thank you!
Carmela Wagner

48 of 112

Carmela Wagner
VP | GLOBAL BRAND CONSULTANT

49 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Limit Building Heights!!
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:26:44 PM

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

From: Lisa Cohen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 11:24 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Limit Building Heights!!

Dear City Council:

Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

Medium II (4-6 stories allowed; 8-12 with density bonuses), High I (5-8 stories; 10-16 with bonuses), and
High II (6-10 stories allowed; 12-20 with bonuses)
... for both residential and mixed use designations in the General Plan land use section.

I honestly don't understand why this topic is even being debated. I find it upsetting and sneaky. We VOTED three times to limit height and density! Do our votes not count? I am frustrated that the city council is moving forward with measures that citizens who LIVE in these communities have clearly communicated that they do not want.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels.

Sincerely,
Lisa Cohen

50 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Monday meeting
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:27:46 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Christine McGinty
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 11:09 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Monday meeting
Send it back… This is totally out of whack!
I’ve been a resident of San Mateo since I was a child and our beautiful city is getting ruined by all the construction.

All the reporting is that there are no more office jobs everybody is working remotely so this is just going to be a lot of more empty spaces!
Christine McGinty
Sent from my iPad

51 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Oppose Maximum Growth Option
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:30:02 PM

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

From: Tom Lease
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 9:18 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose Maximum Growth Option

Dear Council,

Insanity is the only word I can use to describe the consideration for the maximum growth option for the General Plan.

Has Council considered The Ten Big Ideas in The General Plan?

If the idea is to add up to 50,000 people then at least five of the big ideas will have to be removed.

1. Balance Growth with Change

2. Enhance SM Neighborhood Fabric and Quality of Life

3. Preserve Nature as Foundation of the City

4. Focus on Equity and Health for All Residents

5. Improve Community Safety and Awareness
Does the City of San Mateo have the resources fund Police Department with more officers needed
for the traffic and crime increases with the over development plan? We don't even have the money to properly manage storm drain and flood control measure responsibilities and we have an amazing and incredible police department but they are overwhelmed with the current crime and traffic problems we have today, Is there money available for the necessary increase in police, fire, parks and recreation and all the other vital services for all these additional residents?

I know Kaiser San Mateo has no more doctors if you are a new patient. Has the City coordinated with the hospitals and medical professionals to see if they have the bandwidth for this dramatic increase in population?

52 of 112

El Camino and Hillsdale and other streets are already strained and traffic is already a problem, is there any advance planning for all the extra cars and the are going to park with each new development providing was too few spaces?

Windy City has just has paused two large developments and has a huge ugly fenced off block and we are considering a maximum development option?

That is insanity.

The vast majority of San Mateo residents want and deserve well managed growth. The quality of life has degraded with poorly planned and managed over development and the city has not the resources or plan to mange more over development.

We can't even afford to manage our flood planning
or hire enough officers for all the crime and
traffic problems we have so it boggles the mind how considering maximum growth is even and option.

Thank you for your service and consideration.

Writing as a private citizen.

Tom Lease

Tom

I am also struggling to figure out how the claim the True North survey is “statistically accurate” when that survey was only available to people who responded to email or text. That skews the results heavily and is a very dubious method of getting an accurate representation of San Mateo diverse demographic. Although possible to be statistically accurate, it seems a sample size of under 700 people in a city of over 100,00 seems pretty small.

53 of 112

54 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Please limit building height
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:26:32 PM

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

From: Lissa Irons Seem
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 11:26 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Please limit building height

Dear City Council:

I am writing regarding my hope that we can increase housing density in San Mateo without substantially increasing the height of our city skyline.

Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

Medium II (4-6 stories allowed; 8-12 with density bonuses),

High I (5-8 stories; 10-16 with bonuses), and
High II (6-10 stories allowed; 12-20 with bonuses)
for both residential and mixed use designations in the General Plan land use section.

Our citizens voted three times to limit height, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels.

Thank you so much for listening.

Sincerely,
Lissa Seem

55 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: San Mateo General Plan
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:22:53 PM

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

From: Linda Aguirre
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:05 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo General Plan

As a resident of San Mateo for over 25 years, I had to take a moment to express my extreme discomfort with many of the elements of the SM 2040 General Plan.

I recognize that a lot of work has been done on the GP, but it is so short-sighted to push through a plan than does not recognize all of the realities of the day. In the current commercial real estate market and with population growth forecast must more conservative than the projections in the plan, there seems to be no rationale basis for so much additional development.

Yes, we need to tackle the need for low-income housing, and we should help our downtown become the jewel of the City (instead of restaurant and nail salon row).

The proposed GP has
extreme goals with are out of step with the realities of our beloved city.

I hope the council will listen to its constituents and take a step back to reevaluate a plan that is not supported by many, many San Mateans.

If it is approved, we will remember who
approved it at the next election.

Sincerely

Linda Aguirre
Baywood Resident

56 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Transparency and Clear Height Limits in the General Plan Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:54:37 PM

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

From: Connie Weiss
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:47 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Transparency and Clear Height Limits in the General Plan

Dear City Council Members,

The General Plan needs to be transparent on potential heights of new buildings that reflect the new density bonus law that allows for up to 100% height increases with the right mix of low and moderate housing. Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

Medium II (4-6 stories allowed, but could be 8-12 with density bonuses), High I (5-8 stories, but could be 10-16 with bonuses), and High II (6-10 stories allowed, but could be 12-20 with bonuses)

for both residential and mixed use designations in the General Plan land use section.

The citizens voted three times to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

57 of 112

Thank you,

Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident

58 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Yes to Measure Y & No to Density Bonus Law Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:27:01 PM

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

From: Michelle Maccarra
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 11:21 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Yes to Measure Y & No to Density Bonus Law

Dear City Council:

Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

Medium II (4-6 stories allowed; 8-12 with density bonuses),

High I (5-8 stories; 10-16 with bonuses), and
High II (6-10 stories allowed; 12-20 with bonuses)
for both residential and mixed use designations in the General Plan land use section.

The citizens voted three times to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

Sincerely,
Michelle Maccarra
13 Year San Mateo Resident and Bay Area Native

59 of 112

Mayor Lee,
Deputy Major Diaz-Nash,
Council Members Hedges, Lorraine and Newsom
October 30, 2023

Land Use Element of the SM General Plan Update

Please reject the proposed Land Use Element of the General Plan Update as presented tonight.

The proposed Land Use Element as drafted, proposes the MAXIMUM development alternative for building heights and densities (Alternative A); NOT Alternative C for more moderate growth.

Recently signed by Governor Newsom, Assembly Bill 1287 will allow developers to increase building heights by 100% over local regulations, in exchange for providing SOME very low, low, or moderate income housing units.

How will the City’s current infrastructure – roads, schools, sewer, etc. - support this major increase in development proposed by Alternative A, and now modified by the State?

San Mateo residents have expressed their desire for more moderate height and density limits for new buildings several times; most recently by passing Measure Y.

Please respect and uphold the vote of the people. Reject the proposed Land Use Element of the San Mateo General Plan as presented this evening.

Thank You,

Dianne Whitaker
San Mateo

60 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: General Plan: Please support High II!
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:21:14 PM
Attachments: 2023-08-09 Housing Action Coalition Comments on San Mateo July 2023 Draft Housing Element.pdf

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

From: Ali Sapirman
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 2:55 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: General Plan: Please support High II!

Dear San Mateo Councilmembers,

I am writing on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition regarding the General Plan update in strong support of zoning for High II. We have submitted multiple letters over the past year regarding the City's Housing Element, indicating the city is significantly out of compliance. I have attached our August comment letter for your reference, which identifies how the draft site inventory is inadequate. The Housing Element will remain out of compliance until the City increases the density
in the General Plan to allow for the sites in the inventory to have accurate realistic capacities, or until the City identifies more areas of the city to rezone for housing. Until the City is in legal compliance, San Mateo will also be subject to losing additional
local control through the penalties imposed by SB
423.

The path to a compliance housing element is simple, and it starts with supporting High II without any delay.

--
Ali Sapirman
| Pronouns: They/Them
South Bay & Peninsula Organizer | Housing Action Coalition

61 of 112

To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".

62 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Height Limits
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:21:01 PM

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

From: Steve Weiss..

Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 2:58 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Height Limits

Dear City Council:

Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

Medium II (4-6 stories allowed; 8-12 with density bonuses),

High I (5-8 stories; 10-16 with bonuses), and
High II (6-10 stories allowed; 12-20 with bonuses)
for both residential and mixed use designations in the General Plan land use section.

The General Plan and EIR should not be approved until the new density bonus law is addressed in the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan and the EIR.

The new law will likely substantially increase the number of units in the City because of the increased density; therefore, it is not necessary to include 6-10 story buildings in the General Plan.

The citizens voted three times to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights. This is very important to the quality of living in our city.

Sincerely,
Steve and Rebecca Weiss

63 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Reimagine the Draft General Plan Land Use Element, Reimagine San Mateo Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:20:29 PM

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

From: Lisa Vande Voorde
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:04 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Reimagine the Draft General Plan Land Use Element, Reimagine San Mateo

Dear City Council,

The draft General Plan 2040 must be revised to reflect new State density bonus laws. If the City Council truly wants affordable housing while satisfying required RHNA numbers, it is exactly these laws that enable both goals to happen while keeping height limits at current Measure Y levels and with less adverse impact on, and push-back from, the community as a whole.

I am asking the City Council tonight to eliminate the following building types (for both Residential and Mixed-Use) from the draft General Plan Land Use Map in ALL areas of San Mateo:

Medium II: 4-6 stories allowed, but could be 8-12 stories with density bonuses High I: 5-8 stories allowed, but could be 10-16 stories with density bonuses High II: 6-10 stories allowed, but could be 12-20 stories with density bonuses

I am proposing the City Council tonight cap heights/densities for Residential and Mixed-Use Development in ALL areas of San Mateo at:

Medium I: 3-5 stories (6-10 stories with density bonuses)

You did not have the latest density bonus laws in place, the most impactful being

64 of 112

AB1287, when the draft General Plan 2040 was first developed. Well, you do now, and it’s time for the draft General Plan to be updated to reflect them.

The new density bonus laws make it easy to provide affordable housing at the lowest heights and densities. If the City Council truly wants more housing, more affordable housing, while maintaining quality of life for its residents, there is no need to push for High I or even Medium II.

Doing so would indicate to me that you must have another agenda other than representing the best interests of San Mateans.

Thank you for your consideration and serious deliberations on our behalf.

Yours truly,

Lisa Vande Voorde
San Mateo

65 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: building height limits- please adhere to the limits that we as citizens have voted for and passed Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:19:44 PM

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

From: martha moore
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:17 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: building height limits- please adhere to the limits that we as citizens have voted for and passed

Dear City Council:

Please respect the majority of San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo.

The proposed end run around the community's opinions regarding building height limitations is unacceptable and should not occur.

The citizens voted three times to limit height and density. How can you possibly justify overriding this very clear voter mandate?

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

Sincerely,

Martha Moore

66 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: GP 2040
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 2:51:28 PM

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

From: jan dollard
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 2:39 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: GP 2040

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: jan dollard
Date: November 13, 2023 at 11:56:32 AM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: GP 2040
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: jan dollard
Date: November 13, 2023 at 11:46:14 AM PST
To: Marilee Callahan
Subject: Fwd: GP 2040
Hi M,
If you can, please email our city council regarding GP 2040.

They meet tonight and every email will make our voices heard. [email protected]

67 of 112

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Jan Dollard
Date: November 13, 2023 at 12:03:19 AM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: GP 2040
Dear City Council Members,
We agree with Keith Weber’s letter to the Daily Journal editor that the GP 2040 is untenable, unrealistic and
impractical.

People continue to leave our state; in 2022, 343,000
residents moved out due to ever increasing taxes and cost of living.

In addition to what Keith mentioned, Hwy. 92 traffic is gridlocked, affording motorists an extended view of the piles trash and weeds lining both sides of the road; it’s a disgrace.

This poorly designed freeway continues to contribute
to
many weekly accidents. El Camino is an unofficial Laguna Seca, as cars blow through those pesky red and yellow lights.

Side street stop signs go unheeded, serving only as corner ornaments. Ciitations would curb the madness. The Windy Hill Block 20 dust bowl? Consider making it a green space, to balance the surrounding concrete structures.

Please hit the pause button, and Listen, as citizens continue to express our desire for responsible growth.

Sincerely,
Jan and John Dollard
San Mateo

68 of 112

69 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 2 ends

at 1690/1700 El Camino Real. If the City wants to comply with state law, a more ambitious program of rezoning, motivated by a genuine desire to affirmatively further fair housing, is necessary to do so.2

A. The Capacity of the Site Inventory To Meet The RHNA Need Is Not Realistic, Because It Ignores The Applicable Law And The Relevant Data.

The RHNA capacity numbers on the site inventory are unrealistic, because the draft deliberately avoids doing what HCD directed and what the law requires. The estimate of units on each site is governed by Government Code section 65583.2(c), which provides:

The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site as follows:

(1) . . . If the city or county does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.

(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the realistic development capacity for the site, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

2 A brief note about process: We have heard that City staff are bringing the new draft of the Housing Element only to the City Council, without having a hearing with the Planning Commission to obtain their recommendation, even after the Planning Commission repeatedly requested the opportunity to do so. Given the Planning Commission’s familiarity with development standards, policies, and land use in the City, it is surprising that their knowledge, experience, and expertise would not be desired as part of the process. We also note that under the San Mateo Municipal Code provides, at section 27.060.040(b), governing the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction, that the Commission “shall review and make recommendations to the Council upon all . . . General Plan Amendments.” The Housing Element is part of the General Plan, and so amendments to it are General Plan Amendments. In January the Planning Commission advised the City Council that the draft was non-compliant, and had it exactly right; the Commission identified the very issues that HCD then found prevented certification. The City Council should want to hear what the Planning Commission recommends with respect to the current draft, rather than relegating the Commission’s members to separate public comments as private citizens.

70 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 3 ends

A concrete example will illustrate how the draft currently estimates capacity. The draft calculates a total capacity number as 90% for most sites, absent a filed pre-application or application. See H-C-68. Thus, for example, the Walgreens complex at 4060 South El Camino Real, zoned for either commercial use or residential use with a maximum density of 50, is projected to accommodate 46 units on 1.02 acres (~90% of maximum). Then, to estimate the realistic capacity for each income category, the draft simply multiplies the total units by the proportion of each RHNA category for the City as a whole. July 2023 version at H-37 (“Most sites in the inventory have unit affordability distributed in proportion to the RHNA allocation.”).

Because the lower income categories represent approximately 40% of the RHNA numbers assigned to San Mateo, the inventory claims that the realistic capacity of the Walgreens site to accommodate affordable housing for lower income households is 40% of 46 units: 19 units.

The problem is that these capacity numbers are inflated, as explained further below:

 Even if Walgreens is torn down, the commercial zoning might mean that another retail building is constructed without any housing at all. The possibility of nonresidential redevelopment means that claiming 46 total units for the site is too high.
 Claiming that, on average, 40% of the units will accommodate the need for lower income housing is an overestimate. Under a new 2018 state law (AB1397, codified at Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)), the City is required to consider the actual production of lower income housing in coming up with its realistic capacity estimates, and adjust its capacity numbers accordingly. A typical project does not include 40% affordable housing.
 For sites that have filed applications or pre-applications (unlike Walgreens), the site inventory ignores its own realistic capacity methodology and simply uncritically accepts the number on the application, without any evaluation of how city zoning laws would reduce it. This too, leads to an overestimate.

An inflated capacity analysis leads to a major violation of state housing law: claiming that the RHNA numbers are satisfied when they are not, and failing to plan and take additional actions to meet the actual need. HCD specifically directed the City that one reason why its Housing Element did not substantially comply with the law is because the capacity numbers were not realistic. Using realistic capacity numbers for all levels of affordability will show that the City needs to add a lot more more than just two sites to come into compliance with state law.

1. The City Should Use Data From Existing And Approved Projects, As The
Statute Requires, Rather Than Relying On “Applications.” The first step is to make sure the estimates are based on valid data. The law requires a realistic capacity estimate to be adjusted by considering “typical densities of existing or approved residential developments . . .” Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2). The January

71 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 4 ends

version tried to do that in Table 4 at page H-30 and H-31, listing 2017-2022 project densities.

But unfortunately, the January version improperly ignored three large projects to make the average look like it was over 100%, calling them “outliers” so that they wouldn’t affect the total, and omitting a few others. HCD’s March 27 letter told the City to revisit this issue: “The majority of sites still assume 100 percent maximum density as realistic capacity. The analysis must demonstrate that all projects in those zones developed at maximum density to support assumptions.”3

The new draft now ignores and even removes relevant data, and relies on an irrelevant chart instead. Table 4 in the July version, now at page H-32, has been edited to remove some of the information, including the maximum density. But worse, it removes the totals and averages, so that no one can easily figure out what is typical.

So that the Planning Commission and City Council can be fully informed, we have included (in an appendix to this letter, after the signature block) the data from the original table 4 in the January version, plus the data for the sites added in the new July draft, adding a column to show the maximum density for the acreage, and including the totals and the relevant average.

The chart shows that the 3,028 units were approved/developed on land that had a maximum zoned capacity of 3,263 units: 92.8% of the maximum.4 Interestingly, based on this data, the current draft’s reasonable capacity numbers – 90% for most sites, and 75% for those in residential zones – is in the range of reasonable as a starting point, if further adjusted as set forth in A.2 below. (This will need to be adjusted downward – this is the percentage of maximum for those projects that developed with residential units, but ignores that not every project has residential units.) There is no reason to omit the totals as the new draft now does.

The Jul
y draft capacity estimate doesn’t rely on this data set of existing/approved projects, however: it looks at applications instead of approvals. See H-C-68 (chart based on “Applications from 2019 – present”). Applications are irrelevant. State law expressly requires consideration of “existing and approved” projects, rather than applications. The reason the statute requires consideration of “existing or approved” developments is simple: those developments have gone through the close study of whether they comply with all zoning requirements (setbacks, height limits, etc.) and the economics of building a project. “Existing and approved” projects have been battle-tested through the gauntlet of Planning Division, Planning Commission, and City Council review, unlike application or pre-application numbers that reflect only an initial proposal. The City knows well that many projects initially propose a

3 As Table 4 shows, 9 of 25 projects approved during 2017-2022 that included a residential component did not develop at or over the maximum density. 4 One site on the July version of Table 4 has been omitted from ours, because of an atypical situation: Kiku Crossing. Kiku Crossing achieved higher density only by invoking a unique state statute (AB1763) that overrode both the Measure Y height limit and eliminated the density limit entirely. Because this state law meant the project was not subject to a maximum density, it is not typical and cannot be used to calculate a percentage of maximum density for typical projects.

72 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 5 ends

higher number than what is eventually approved after the review process takes place. Table 4 should be edited to include the average capacity by acreage of approved projects, which helps show what is realistic to expect from future ones.

2. The City Must Adjust Downward To Account For The Possibility Of Non-
Residential Redevelopment.

While there is a significant demand for housing that may result in redevelopment of many of the sites on the inventory, housing is not the only possible outcome for the sites. Most of the sites on the inventory have mixed zoning: they could be used for housing, but they could also be used for an entirely non-residential use like commercial or office space. HCD directly instructed the City to evaluate the probability of this occuring when it explained why the City’s January Housing Element did not comply with state law:

In addition, the calculation of residential capacity must also account for the likelihood of residential development in zoning where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed. . . . For example, the element could analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly.

HCD March 27, 2023 letter, Appendix at p. 2. HCD also said the same thing, word-for-word, in its September 2022 comment. HCD September 28, 2022 letter, Appendix at p. 3. Yet the current draft still does not comply.

Despite HCD’s direction to evaluate this issue, the new July draft deletes the chart – former Table 5 in the January version – that addresses it. Hiding the data will not help. As we explained back in January, the City’s own data shows that residential capacity numbers should be reduced by approximately 25%, based on an 75% likelihood that a mixed-zoning site will be redeveloped with some residential units, and a 25% likelihood that it will be redeveloped with no residential units. Table 5, at page H-32 to H-34 of the adopted Housing Element showed that 78% of projects by number, and 75% of the acreage, contained some residential units, but that 25% of the re-developed acreage contained no residential units at all.5

5 Larger sites are more likely to be developed for commercial or office uses. The January adopted Housing Element Table 5 shows that while 20 of 25 sites contained at least some residential component, only 19.99 of the 80.88 acres (75%) did. A realistic calculation of the likelihood of residential development should apply the proportion developed by acreage before multiplying it times the allowable units per acre, not the site count.

We note that the deletion was only partial; the July version of the Housing Element still states that “[H]istorically 78% of the commercially zoned sites included housing,” and then claims – incorrectly – that realistic capacity numbers are reduced for mixed-use sites. (Housing Element at page H-31). There is even a new, stray reference to the old, now-omitted Table 5. (See H-34, referring to “the history described in Tables 4 and 5”). Table 5 should be restored to

73 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 6 ends

The capacity numbers of sites on the inventory, for those sites with mixed zoning, should therefore be, at most, 92.8% times 75%: 69.6%. (Or if the draft’s 90% number is used, then

67.5%). The draft currently applies a capacity number of 90% to sites where nonresidential uses are authorized by the zoning, with no consideration of the probability of nonresidential development, and so the capacity numbers will need to be reduced for most of the sites on the inventory.

We note that the City could rezone so that housing is a required use in these zones (i.e., a minimum residential density), so that a 100% nonresidential project is not possible. This would guarantee that these sites would include housing if they are redeveloped, and enable the City to ignore the probability of nonresidential development. The only other alternative is to do as HCD has now directed twice: Unless the City rezones to eliminate the possibility of a 100% nonresidential project in these zones, it must discount its capacity numbers to incorporate the probability that underutilized sites become office or retail spaces, rather than being used for housing. It is time to incorporate the discount into the analysis, and recognize that the site inventory lacks sufficient sites to provide for the necessary RHNA housing at all income levels.

3. The City Should Consistently Apply The Realistic Capacity Methodology, Including To Sites With Unapproved Applications or Pre-Applications.

As just explained, the draft states that the realistic capacity of the majority of sites is 90% of the zoned maximum. But for sites where an application or pre-application has been made, the draft now always uses a much higher capacity number – sometimes well in excess of the City’s own zoning laws – even though the project has not yet been approved. In most cases, these applications or pre-applications include a density bonus request, and so the inventory projects development at up to 150% of the zoned capacity. While in the January version the capacity number was at least sometimes adjusted to a reasonable projection of the realistic capacity, the draft now uncritically embraces any number that has been suggested by an applicant or pre- applicant.

If the City were to accept that its January Housing Element was invalid, and that the Builder’s Remedy now applies – so that it cannot use its zoning laws to prevent these projects from being built as proposed, absent a health and safety concern – then the City could approve all of the applications now, and count these numbers towards the RHNA. But until and unless the applications are approved, there is insufficient basis to claim these numbers as realistic: the fact that an owner has proposed a number in a “pre-application” or even a formal application does not mean that the number is valid or likely to be accepted by the City. The history of actual approved projects, not the face value of a pre-application, is what should supply the realistic capacity of not-yet-approved sites on the inventory.

the draft, and the effect of its analysis should be included in estimating capacities as HCD directed.

74 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 7 ends

Moreover, the approach of including state law density bonus numbers ignores that the City’s Housing Element is supposed to evaluate the realistic capacity based on the City’s zoning restrictions, and not merely assume that the City’s zoning laws are adequate to accommodate the need because state law can override them. The City should apply the same realistic capacity methodology to all sites that have not yet received a formal approval. An unanalyzed application or pre-application is not sufficient evidence to claim a higher number.

4. The Estimate Of Lower Income RHNA Capacity Is Overstated.

Proba
bly the most significant problem with the site inventory is in its estimate of the realistic capacity of the sites to provide housing opportunities for households in the lower (very- low and low) income categories. Here, the Housing Element ignores the new 2018 (AB1397) statutory requirement that realistic capacity numbers consider typical densities of existing/approved projects “at a similar affordability level in [the] jurisdiction,” Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2), and instead projects that, on average, 40% of the units will be affordable to those in the lower income category.6 The only reasoning given for the 40% prediction of lower income units is that lower income units reflect 40% of the RHNA requirement for the City. This logic is circular: the City predicts that it will satisfy its goal by assuming that the goal will be satisfied. No one in San Mateo could possibly think that it is a realistic estimate to say that 40% of the units, on average, will be affordable to those in the lower income category.

We have included a second chart in the appendix, this time adding a column to the Table 4 data to show the typical densities “at a similar affordability level” by showing the percentage of total units that are affordable to households in the lower income RHNA category.

The result shows that, based on an average of recent existing and approved projects, the median project includes only 8-9% affordable units (not even 15%, because of the interaction between the inclusionary ordinance and state density bonus law).7 The average, taking the atypical Kiku Crossing into account, is around 18%, though we note here that our chart is incomplete and that the City will have the necessary data to complete it. Even the incomplete data makes clear that

6 We do not fault the City for attributing the units across all properties, because it can be difficult to predict which parcel will develop in which way. The issue is what percentage should be applied across all properties.

The significant exception to the use of the 40% number is for the Hillsdale Mall site. For that site, the site inventory projects only 15% lower income units, explaining that this was reasonable based on the city’s inclusionary zoning ordinance. As we explain, an estimate like the one used for Hillsdale is far more reasonable than the one used for other sites. 7 Here, the median is more relevant than the mean in evaluating typical densities at this level of affordability, because the mean is heavily skewed by the high number of affordable units in the atypical Kiku Crossing project, which combined both a significant land donation by the City with a special state law that removed density limits and significantly raised the height limit.

The City does not have a significant city-owned land inventory to repeat this success.

75 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 8 ends

the site inventory’s estimate, using 40% as a formula for the “realistic capacity” of the site inventory to meet the RHNA need for lower income housing, is not a realistic projection or estimate based on typical existing/approved projects.

Applying a realistic estimate of lower income production to the site inventory has a major impact. If a realistic percentage for the lower income category is applied, based on the data, then the current site inventory has a RHNA shortfall of more than 1,000 units in this category. In order to satisfy the RHNA for this category at current levels of affordable housing production, if the City does not develop new programs and policies, and succeed in the Measure Y effort to allow greater density, the City would need to rezone hundreds of acres at 50 dwelling units per acre to result in the required level of lower income housing, or come up with a more aggressive program of building affordable housing itself.

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

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

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

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1).

HCD has twice told the City to correct this issue. In the September 28, 2022 letter, HCD wrote:

The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element

76 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 9 ends

describes in general the existing use of each nonvacant site, for example, ‘commercial’ or ‘parking lot.’ This alone is not adequate to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning period. The description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development in the planning period. . . . [T]he housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period (Gov.

Code § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).)

Despite this specific guidance from HCD, the site inventory still lists existing uses as “commercial” or “parking lot” without any additional discussion of most of the parcels, the existing uses are not described in detail to facilitate an analysis, existing leases are ignored, and the housing element does not demonstrate that existing uses are likely to discontinue in the planning period. In its March 27, 2023 letter, HCD reiterated:

[T]he element should describe the likelihood that existing uses will discontinue during the planning period, whether there are current leases, or other factors of whether the uses will impede residential development.

Unfortunately, the draft doesn’t respond to these instructions. The following examples show that the City has listed unrealistic sites without evidence that the existing uses are likely to discontinue.

1. The Bridgepointe Shopping Center Parking Lot
(APN 035-466-100) 8.5 acres, 383 units (155 lower income)

The City’s new draft has dropped the unrealistic Bridgepointe shopping center buildings, but tries to claim, contrary to the evidence, that much of the parking lot is nevertheless likely to become housing before January 2031.

Most of the shopping center buildings are occupied under long-term leases by major retailers (Ulta Beauty, Total Wine & More, Ross, Marshall’s, Hobby Lobby, Starbucks, Petco, Cost Plus). The center is highly successful, and a new Benihana restaurant is currently being built on one edge of the parking lot. Other restaurants dot the perimeter, including BJ’s, Lazy Dog (opened May 2022), and California Fish Grill (also opened 2022). An ice rink that was closed at the time of an earlier draft of the Housing Element has now re-opened. These are all long-term uses that are not likely to discontinue.

The parking lot is used by all of the tenants. The City nonetheless claims that the parking lot will meet the need for 383 units of housing, including 155 lower income units. In order to do so, the City needs substantial evidence that the existing use of the parking lot will discontinue.

77 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 10 ends

There is no such evidence. The City has no evidence that the owner plans to build high density residential on even a portion of the parking lot during the term of the existing leases.8 Nor does the City have any evidence that the leases with the major retailers and restaurants – which almost certainly provide for rights to have customers park in front of their businesses – would allow the owner to do so. Given the evidence we have already provided the City that the long-term leases run throughout the planning period, and the continued evidence of retail use of the center (including the new Benihana construction), the City lacks substantial evidence that the regional need for housing, particularly for the lower income category, is met by this parking lot.

As we have previously commented, our client would strongly support dense residential construction on the parking lot, and we hope the site evolves in this manner. The City, however, has not met its burden of showing, based on substantial evidence, that the parking lot is available for development or realistic as the site of 155 lower income units, in spite of the economic and legal constraints on its use.

2. The Atrium: 1900 South Norfolk Street
( A
PN 035-391-090) 8.18 acres, 368 units (149 lower income)

As stated in Housing Action Coalition’s earlier comment letters: The executive office building known as “The Atrium,” located at 1900 South Norfolk Street, is currently used by a large number of office tenants. The draft Housing Element does not perform any analysis of the current use, including whether existing leases would create obstacles to residential development of the site during the next eight years. Publicly available information shows that the owner continues to sign long-term leases with new tenants, even in 2023. https://property.compstak.com/1900-South-Norfolk-Street-San-Mateo/p/3970 (indicating a lease
was signed with new tenant Golden Gate Regional Center in 2023 that expires in 2035). In prior letters we also submitted publicly available information indicates that a number of other leases continue to be signed or renewed for this three-story office building, with at least one other lease publicly reported to extend until 2030. Housing Action Coalition Comment Letter Dec. 16, 2022, Appendix Tab 9. Despite this information, the City does not analyze whether the existing leases present an obstacle to residential development during the 6th cycle as required by Government Code section 65583.2(g)(2), emphasizing only “owner/developer interest” in redevelopment.

Based on the results of a recent Public Records Act response, the evidence of owner/developer interest is insufficient to conclude that the existing use of the property as an office building is “likely to discontinue” during the 6th cycle, or that the property should be projected to provide the 368 units, and 149 low income affordable units, claimed on the inventory. A 2020 email shows that a developer was exploring the idea of building townhomes on a small portion of the parking lot only: 3 acres, for 55-60 townhome units, “while still

8 The earlier draft of the Housing Element had suggested that there was owner interest in redevelopment. In response to our Public Records Act request, no evidence of this was produced. On the new site inventory, the box for “Owner/Developer Interest” is left blank; the chart argues that the site is realistic solely because it is a parking lot with no structures on it.

78 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 11 ends

preserving the office building and all of its associated tenants.” A lower-intensity development proposal like this is consistent with the similar townhome development at 1, 2, and 3 Waters Park a few hundred feet away, but does not justify claiming that the entire 1900 S. Norfolk site would be redeveloped, particularly at the intensity claimed in the site inventory. A second communication, directly from the owner Seagate Properties in April 2022, sought a General Plan designation that would make residential development possible, but did not provide any timeline or state that the existing use would be eliminated during 2023-2031: “we . . . believe there will be opportunities now or during the 20-year period of the General Plan for the property to be redevelop[ed] with housing on the portions of the existing surface parking lot. A Medium Mixed-Use designation will allow both office and housing to occupy the site.” Both of the communications provide no evidence that the existing office use of the site will discontinue at all, much less that it is likely to discontinue soon enough that housing can meet the 6th Cycle RHNA need. Both these communications confirm that the existing use will continue, rather than providing evidence that it will not; the expressions of owner interest do not justify claiming that all 8.18 acres will develop. Moreover, the continued signing of new long-term leases, including after the April 2022 letter, show by the owner’s current actions that housing is not expected to happen before 2031.

If the City pivots and claims that a portion of the parking lot can be redeveloped consistent with the owner’s actual statements, rather than the entire 8.18 acres, it would need to make a site-specific adjustment to the capacity. The office building, and the need for parking for its tenants, reduce the available space. So does the large utility substation that isolates a strip of the acreage from the rest of the parcel, rendering that portion unbuildable. There are other site- specific constraints, including the Measure Y height limit, the height limits adjacent to the Highway 92/101 interchange (bordering this site on two sides), and the required setback from Borel Creek/Seal Slough, all of which may lower the realistic capacity. The draft fails to analyze these site-specific constraints in projecting 368 units.

3. Hillsdale Mall
(APN 042-121-040, -060, -080; 039-490-050, -170; 039-353-010, -020, -030, - 040) 28.91 acres, 1200 units (180 lower income)

As discussed in Housing Action Coalition’s prior comment letters, the question about Hillsdale Mall is not about whether the owner is interested in some mixed use housing for the site. The issue is when and how much housing will be built, and on which parcels or portions of parcels. Here, the City lacks evidence to justify the projections on the site inventory, or to claim that the existing uses are likely to discontinue soon enough for housing to be built during the required timeframe. The letter that the City cites at page H-35 fn.8 shows a proposal for densities higher than San Mateo zoning law allows (absent amendment of Measure Y). The new draft does not address these issues further, though it has – as explained in section A.4 above – reduced the number of affordable units to a more reasonable number.

79 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 12 ends

4. Parkside Plaza Shopping Center: 1825 and 1850 S. Norfolk (APN 035-381-020 and -030) 6.65 acres, 299 units (121 lower income)

The owner of Parkside Plaza shopping center has, according to the site inventory, expressed no interest in redevelopment. And, there are existing uses that would presumably prevent the owner from doing so anytime soon. The shopping center is full of retail tenants:

Smart & Final, Pet Club, a Round Table Pizza, a large optometrist, dry cleaners, restaurants, a beauty supply, a martial arts school, “Fluff and Puff Dog Wash,” and others. If not for the tenants, and not for the lack of ownership interest, it might seem like a reasonable site for housing: other developments are happening or planned in this neighborhood. But with the large number of existing tenants, including national chains, the site is unlikely to redevelop before 2031. Under Government Code section 65583.2(g)(1) and (g)(2), it is not properly listed as accommodating the need for sites for lower income housing.

We note here that a similar retail shopping center site – the Concar Passage project – has recently put their project on hold due to current economic conditions.9 Five years after first applying for approval, and three years after obtaining it, the project proponent there has – just before expiration of its rights – asked for another extension of two years to sign a ten-year development agreement and exercise options to consolidate ownership of the parcels. While the Concar Passage project might still provide housing during the 6th cycle planning period, there is no housing being built right now even with a motivated developer with a plan who has been pursuing it for five years so far. Contrast that with Parkside Plaza: no owner or developer interest and no plan. It is simply unrealistic to expect that Parkside Plaza will be redeveloped as residential in time to meet the need for housing, including lower income housing, during 2023- 2031.

5. Borel Shopping Center (71-77 Bovet; 1750 El Camino Real) ( C
onsolidated Site AH: APN 039-011-450, -460, -470, -480, -500, -510)

6.65 acres, 213 units (86 lower income)

The City has repeatedly been told by public comments why the Borel Shopping Center site is not realistic: tenants have long-term leases that preclude development even if the owner is interested. As explained by the comment letter by Campaign for Fair Housing Elements in April 2022, the major tenants (CVS and 24 Hour Fitness) have long-term leases that will not expire until long after January 2031, and have indicated they do not want to leave. See draft Housing Element, Appendix G at page 13.10 Our recent communication with CVS’s Northern California director of real estate confirms that CVS has no present intention or belief that it will move out before 2031. (Attached email from CVS, dated August 7, 2023). As demonstrated by our earlier

9 See staff report for item 26 of the July 17, 2023 City Council meeting for additional details. https://sanmateo.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=6875 10 Long-term leases are unsurprising, particularly after buildings are extensively remodeled.

As the City knows from the building department, 24 Hour Fitness did major renovations under its long term lease: $2.2 million in improvements in 2008.

80 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 13 ends

comment letter, Jack’s Restaurant and Bar likewise has a long-term lease that lasts for most of the period (the lease runs from 2013-2029). The City lacks substantial evidence that the site’s existing uses are “likely to be discontinued” during the next eight years. It should not count towards 86 units of housing affordable to lower income households.

6. Borel Estate Building, 1690 (1700) S. El Camino Real (APN 039-012-010)
Acreage not shown on inventory, 155 units (63 lower income)

1700 S. El Camino Real, the entire block between Borel and Bovet, is a five story office building with two banks (California Bank and Trust and Beacon Business Bank) on the first floor, and 32 offices on floors 2-4. The tenants are primarily in the financial services industry and other professionals.

If the City has evidence that the owner is likely to discontinue office leasing during the 2023-2031 period, it does not describe it. Despite this being one of the larger sites on the inventory, there is not a page in the Housing Element Appendix C that answers the critical question: is there substantial evidence that this site is likely to redevelop as housing before January 2031? Absent such evidence, it should not be listed. If what the City means instead is that the parking lot is a likely housing site, with the five story office building remaining, it should designate a smaller segment and analyze how much of the parking lot use is likely to discontinue during the planning period.

7. Office Building at 1650 Borel
(1650 Borel)

2.51 acres, 113 units (46 lower income)

This office building is filled with professionals: law firms, accountancy practices, psychiatrists, mortgage brokers, opticians, and engineers. New leases continue to be signed; in 2022, one of their longtime occupants – a CPA firm (Galligan, Thompson & Flocas) – signed a new 10 year lease that will run to 2031.
https://property.compstak.com/1650-Borel-Place-San-
Mateo/p/4097 The site inventory shows that no owner or developer interest has been expressed in redevelopment. The law requires the city to presume that this site’s existing use will continue, even if the city thinks this two-story building could or even should redevelop. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2). Existing uses preclude listing this site as meeting the need for lower income housing.

8. The Elks and The Shriners – 229 W. 20th Street and 150 W. 20th Street (Consolidated Site H) 5.4 acres, 140 units (57 lower income) (APN 039-030-220) 1.98 acres, 89 units (36 lower income)

The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Lodge 1112 (“San Mateo Elks Lodge”), has been located at 229 W. 20th Street since 1954. The San Mateo Elks Lodge has a membership of over 1,100 as of earlier this year. The Elks use their lodge to operate a popular swimming

81 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 14 ends

center for kids and families, hold crab feeds and other events in the meeting hall, and engage in fun activities and philanthropic works.

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

Preliminary conversations with the owner to convert to residential have occurred.”11 Nothing has happened in the last eight years to suggest that “preliminary conversations” are substantial evidence on which to predict a likely discontinuation of the existing use, even if the more recent note is based on more recent preliminary conversations, instead of the “preliminary conversations” that took place eight years ago. No records were produced in response to our Public Records Act request showing that any conversation about likely redevelopment has taken place recently or at all. Nor does an offhand email from a curious real estate broker, asking about the Housing Element designation, show a likelihood that the Elks plan to move. This site should not be counted towards accommodating the need for 77 units of housing affordable to lower income households. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2).

Meanwhile the Housing Element also pairs the Shriners’ property with two neighboring parcels: 205 W 20th and 2010 Pioneer Court. The City has no evidence that the owners are coordinating or will do so.

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

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

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

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

11 In order to rely on conversations purporting to express intent, the public needs to know much more. Who had the conversation cited by the City, and with whom did they have it? Has the Lodge taken any affirmative steps toward redevelopment beyond this conversation? Without more, the vague reference to “preliminary conversations” between unidentified speakers on an unidentified date does not constitute “substantial evidence.”

82 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 15 ends

years. Sections 65583.2(g)(1) and (g)(2) require more analysis, more evidence, and more likelihood.

9. Mollie Stone’s – Olympic Shopping Center
( C
onsolidated Site AD:

APN 042-242-050, -060, -070, -160, -180;
042-243-020, 042-244-040, -050;
042-245-040, -050, -060, -070, -080, -090, -100, -110, -120, -130; 042-263-010, 042-264-010)

8.82 acres, 296 units (120 lower income)

This site, consisting of twenty parcels including the only grocery store in the neighborhood (Mollie Stone’s), a CVS, a bowling alley, a church, and a number of small retail businesses, is claimed to accommodate 120 units of housing affordable to those with lower incomes. Many of the sites are separated by city streets. The only basis for including this group of sites appears to be the claim that there is “ownership interest in specific plan redevelopment,” which does not indicate that all of the parcels would be redeveloped as housing at the maximum density, or indicate who said what to whom, and when.12 There are three separate owners, and no indication that they are working together or have the agreement of the tenants to temporarily close during redevelopment. As with Borel Square, we note our recent communication with CVS’s Northern California real estate director (attached), showing that one of the major tenants has no current intention or belief that it will move out so that its store can be redeveloped as housing before 2031. We also note that, while the interest in redevelopment was in a specific plan process – probably necessary given that the city streets break up the site – the City has nothing in its Housing Element indicating it plans to engage in a specific plan process for this area. The City appears to lack substantial evidence that this site will likely redevelop during 2023-2031.

10. Downtown Retail Block on East Fourth: Site N
(Consol
idated Site N: 034-144-220, 034-144-230, 034-144-240)

3.14 acres, 141 units (58 lower income)

The city claims that three parcels under separate ownership will consolidate and be redeveloped in the heart of downtown: Consolidated Site N is a combination of (1) the long downtown block on East Fourth with Dean’s Produce, Equinox, First Bank, Jamba Juice, Noah’s Bagels, Starbucks Coffee, Chase Bank, a bicycle shop, and other restaurants and stores; (2) an

12 Here too, the concern about specificity is not idle. There are five separate owners.

Carstens Realty owns most of the parcels, but CLC Investments, Sadigh Sassan, Shamco E LLC, and San Mateo Investment Co. each own one. The City does not discuss or address whether the five are willing or interested in a joint project, though it lists each of them as having expressed interest in a specific plan. Without evidence of what makes consolidation likely, the smaller sites are deemed insufficient to accommodate the need for lower income housing. See Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(A).

83 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 16 ends

old bank building now occupied by a Mattress Firm store, and (3) the parking lot on East Fifth across from Central Park, behind the shops on East Fourth.

The parking lot is under separate ownership from the other parcels, and had proposed a project in 2013 called “Essex at Central Park.” https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2708/Essex-at- Central-Park But the owners have not moved it forward for the last five years (the last meeting about it was a Planning Commission meeting in August 2018), and the Housing Element site inventory indicates both that there is no “Pipeline Project” here (i.e., that the prior project was abandoned) and further, that the City has no indication of owner interest. Whatever enthusiasm for redevelopment the owner once had ten years ago seems to have gone away.

It should be easy enough to determine if the owners of these parcels, who are known to City staff, are likely to develop their properties during this Housing Element cycle. But the City apparently has no indication that either of them are interested in building. Given the apparent disinterest in residential development by the separate owners, combined with a robust and thriving set of existing uses and a lack of indication of coordination between the owners, the City cannot overcome the presumption that the existing uses will continue, and are an impediment to affordable housing. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2).

11. Pioneer Court
(Consol
idated Site I: 2040-2070 and 2041-2075 Pioneer Court)

1.6 acres, 63 units (25 lower income)

Consolidated Site I contains six distinct parcels on either side of Pioneer Court. The multi-unit office park at 2041 Pioneer Court has at least 6 tenants, including two general dentistry practices, a spa, an acupuncture center, a chiropractor, and a consulting firm. Across the street at 2050 Pioneer Court is the offices of a manufacturing company, and next to that at 2070 and 2075 Pioneer Court are a law firm and a financial services firm, respectively. None of these proposed lots have evidence of owner/developer interest in converting to residential use during the planning period. These existing office uses are presumed to be an obstacle to residential development.

12. Villa Plaza (Walgreens and others)
(4060-4070 S
. El Camino Real)

1.02 acres, 46 units (19 lower income)

It’s unlikely that a major national retailer like Walgreens doesn’t have a long-term lease.

But the City does not appear to have made any effort to determine whether it does, or whether it would preclude development at this site. Also on the site are smaller businesses. One of them does have a publicly reported lease, signed in 2021, that extends to 2031, precluding development even if the owner were interested.
https://property.compstak.com/4060-South-El-
Camino-Real-San-Mateo/p/4092. Absent further analysis, this site lacks evidence that it is likely to redevelop, particularly in light of the known lease that extends for the entire planning period.

84 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 17 ends

13. Site B: Downtown Parking
(Consolidated Site B: 5 N. San Mateo Dr., 123 Baldwin Ave., 117 Baldwin Ave., 26 N. San Mateo Dr., 27 N. San Mateo Dr.)

0.98 acres, 44 units (18 lower income)

Consolidated Site B is made up of 5 distinct lots that are currently used as parking lots.

These parking lots are surrouded by medical office buildings that need parking for the comings and goings of doctors and patients; one of the lots is even owned by Sutter Health. These parking lots service family medicine office, an episcopal day school, two cosmetics stores, a dermatologist, a pediatrician, and an oral surgeon, to name a few. While the site might make sense for housing, the City cannot say, without affirmative owner interest, that the existing use is likely to cease. Sometimes surface parking lots turn into housing and sometimes not; when listing a property as meeting the need for lower income units, the City is required to show evidence and show that housing is the likely outcome before January 2031.

14. Lack of A Meaningful Buffer
HCD guidance is to have a buffer of at least 15% in each income category. That helps ensure that there are adequate sites not just to avoid constant rezonings due to the No Net Loss statute, but also helps account for the known-unknown: that even sites that seem poised to become housing may not do so, or may not do so in a timely way. Several approved projects have recently asked for years-long extensions to assess economic conditions and decide whether to move forward, including Concar Passage (two-year extension, after one year extension), Block 21 (three-year extension), Hillsdale Terraces (five and a half years of extensions so far).

Others are trying to sell their property without proceeding with the proposed development. (4 W. Santa Inez, on the market since mid-2022).

Despite this, the City’s new draft has very little buffer, particularly in the lower and moderate income categories. Particularly given that the City did not meet its goals in these categories during prior cycles, the City’s plan should ensure that more than enough opportunity sites exist, to increase the likelihood that the RHNA goal is actually met.

C. The Draft Ignores HCD’s Repeated Rejection Of The ADU Number, And Fails To Address The Legal Standard.
“The department [HCD] may . . . allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units based on the number of accessory dwelling units developed in the prior housing element planning period . . . .” Government Code § 65583.1(a); see also § 65852.2(m).

However, HCD has repeatedly told San Mateo that it needs to take 2018 numbers into account.

In its September 28, 2022 letter, it wrote: “The trend does not consider the number of permits in 2018.” When the City included the same chart of 2019-2022 numbers, and presented a four-year average, HCD expressed annoyance that the City still didn’t comply: “The element did not address the finding regarding the City’s ADU projections, please see HCD’s prior review.” Despite this clear direction, the draft continues to omit 2018 numbers and projects the same

85 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 18 ends

number of ADUs (440, or 55 per year) that were in the non-compliant version adopted in January. See July version at H-39.

The draft should be edited to project a lower number, based on the number of units developed during the five-year 2018-2022 time period directed by HCD. Notably, many people decide not to build a permitted unit after they learn how expensive it is. If people aren’t going to actually build the units, then the City should consider additional rezoning so that apartment buildings can legally be built to accommodate the unmet need for housing.

Based on data produced by the City, only 170 ADU permits were “finaled” (i.e., construction completed) during 2018-2022:
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Avg
Applications -- 56 94 94 115 90
Permits issued 8 44 47 66 84 49.8
Permits
finaled13
6 21 35 55 53 34

Averaged over 5 years, the number of ADUs developed during 2018-2022 was only 34 units per year.14 Projected over the eight year period, this would be 272 units, not 440, with proportional reductions across each of the income catgories.

HCD has also twice indicated that if ADU production was insufficient, the City should have a program in place to rezone elsewhere in the City, to ensure that the RHNA need is met.

The draft does not implement this comment; it amends policy 1.4 (at page H-76) to “monitor” ADU production, but does not include a program to rezone if the numbers fall short. We propose that Policy H1.4 should add, under (f), that “If ADU production is lower than the projection in any two consecutive years, then, within six months, the City will address the shortfall in ADU production by rezoning additional realistic sites for multifamily development (30 du/ac or more) sufficient to accommodate the shortfall.”

D. Minor Corrections.

We also noticed some minor errors and discrepancies in the site inventory that we call to staff’s attention for correction:

13 This is based on a document produced in response to a Public Records Act request.

Included in these totals are at least 14 existing units that had been constructed at some prior date, but which were finalizing a permit to make the unit legal in response to a code enforcement action.
14 The real number of ADUs added to the housing stock is less than the number of “finaled” permits. Some people use ADUs as home offices, as AirBNB short-term rentals, or for out-of- town visitors, not to provide full-time housing.

86 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 19 ends

1. The totals on the site inventory are incorrect. The total of all of the numbers in the column titled “Total” is 9,848, not 9,948. The correct total appears to be used in the text at H-C-14, however.

2. The total of the three categories does not add up to either of these numbers: 2,970 + 1,181 + 5,704 = 9,855 (not 9,848, and not 9,948). This problem is due to rounding errors in the spreadsheet. The following addresses have a discrepancy (either positive or negative, by 1-3 units, between the sum of the three categories (LI + M + AM) and the total: 121 N. San Mateo, 2833 S. El Camino, 3101 S. El Camino, 885 S. El Camino, 100 E 4th, Bridgepointe parking lot, 2955 S. El Camino, 3520 S. El Camino, 210 S. San Mateo, 2900 S. El Camino, 2838 S. El Camino, 1106 S. El Camino, 93 Bovet, 3880 S. El Camino, 1801 S. Grant, 1017 E. 3d, 4142 S.

El Camino, 1690 El Camino. The subcategories should be adjusted so that they do not exceed the estimated total capacity of the site.

3. There are math errors in applying the capacity formula, even if 90% times zoned maximum is valid. For example, 151 W. 20th is 0.36 acres but is listed for 18 units. 50 du/ac times 0.36 acres times 90% = 16.2 units = 16, not 18. The problem may be related to rounding up, rather than rounding down, for the RHNA categories, or could be because some sites were inadvertently left at 100% in the spreadsheet. For some, the total even exceeds 100% of the zoned maximum even though the property is not a pipeline project and has not invoked density bonus. The following non-“Pipeline Project” sites have a unit total on the spreadsheet that exceeds the acreage times 90% of the zoned maximum: 121 N. San Mateo, 205 W. 20th, 151 W. 20th (by 2 units), 2833 S. El Camino, 2825 S. El Camino, 3101 S. El Camino, 487 S. El Camino, 168 E 4th (both parcels), Bridgepointe Parking, 1500 Fashion Island (by 22 units), 2118 S. El Camino (by 23 units), 3011 S. El Camino, 2900 S. El Camino, 4060 S. El Camino, 1106 S. El Camino, 901 S. El Camino, 3600 S. El Camino, 350 N. San Mateo, 1 Baywood (3 units), 406 1st (2 units), 93 Bovet (4 units), 1650 Borel (34 units), 1900 S. Norfolk (111 units15), 1801 S. Grant, 2030 S. Delaware (5 units), 480 S. Ellsworth (17 units), 1620 S. Delaware (2 units), and 1690 El Camino Real (15 units). Seventeen of these appear to be from rounding errors (that 90% of the maximum is slightly lower than the number shown as the total capacity), but the ones with larger numbers in parentheses have other less easily identified problems that require correction/adjustment.

4. The approach of assigning 40% of the total capacity (i.e., the RHNA proportion) to the lower income category was exceeded by more than a rounding error for the following non- Pipeline sites: Bridgepointe Parking (155 is not 40% of 383), 1850 S. Norfolk, 2838 S. El Camino, Consolidated Site AC (Mollie Stone’s), 3880 S. El Camino, 1900 S. Norfolk, and especially 480 S. Ellsworth (25 is not 40% of 39).

5. For certain sites, redevelopment would displace existing housing. For example, at Site AJ, the building at 245 S. Humboldt is an apartment building that appears to have at least

15 If 1900 S. Norfolk is zoned for 50 du/ac instead of 35 du/ac as shown on the spreadsheet, this will correct the discrepancy.

87 of 112

88 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 21 ends

2017-2022 Residential Project Densities
(based on combination of January and July versions)
Address Acres Units Max
Zoned
Density17
Max Capacity
(max zoned
times
acreage)
1650 Delaware 1.1 73 50 55
BM Montara, 2775 S. Delaware 1 68 50 50
Central Park South, 31 9th Ave 1.1 60 50 55
Station Park Green, 1790 S. Delaware St. 12 599 50 600
200/210 S. Fremont St. 0.4 15 50 20
BM Morgan, 2901 E. Kyne St. 1.6 82 50 80
BM Res 6, 3069 E. Kyne St. 1.1 54 50 55

Passage, 666 Concar Dr. 14.5 961 50 725
1919 O’Farrell St. 0.7 49 50 35
4 W. Santa Inez Ave. 0.25 10 40 10
1 Hayward Ave. 0.29 18 44 12.76
401 Concar Dr. 2.81 191 50 140.5
1, 2, 3 Waters Park Dr. 11.1 190 35 388.5
Promenade, 220 N. Bayshore Blvd. 2.1 42 50 105
Peninsula Heights, 2988 Campus Dr. 15.5 290 35 542.5
2089 Pacific Blvd. Multi-Family 2.37 16 35 82.95
406 E. 3d 0.88 25 35 30.8
303 Baldwin 0.93 64 50 46.5
5 Delaware St. at Landing 1.51 67 50 75.5
222 E. 4th 1.13 10 50 39.55
500 E. 3d (Block 21) 1.51 111 50 75.5
435 E. 3d 0.25 18 50 12.5
405 E. 4th 0.51 15 50 25.5
Totals 74.64 3028 3263

92.8% of max

17 Because the maximum density was not shown on the July version, we have tried our best to indicate what we think is the maximum for the additional sites added to the chart. We have italicized the ones where information does not appear on the site inventory. The City will have better information to complete the chart.

89 of 112

Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 22 ends

2017-2022 Residential Project Densities For Lower Income (based on combination of January and July versions)
Address Acres Units Lower
Income
Units
Percentage
1650 Delaware 1.1 73 6 8%
BM Montara, 2775 S. Delaware 1 68 68 100%
Central Park South, 31 9th Ave 1.1 60 5 8%
Station Park Green, 1790 S. Delaware St. 12 599 12 15%
200/210 S. Fremont St. 0.4 15 0 0%
BM Morgan, 2901 E. Kyne St. 1.6 82 ?? ??
BM Res 6, 3069 E. Kyne St. 1.1 54 5 9%

Passage, 666 Concar Dr. 14.5 961 73 8%
1919 O’Farrell St. 0.7 49 4 8%
4 W. Santa Inez Ave. 0.25 10 0 0%
1 Hayward Ave. 0.29 18 18 11%
401 Concar Dr. 2.81 191 16 8%
1, 2, 3 Waters Park Dr. 11.1 190 19 10%
Promenade, 220 N. Bayshore Blvd. 2.1 42 0 0%
Peninsula Heights, 2988 Campus Dr. 15.5 290 29 10%
2089 Pacific Blvd. Multi-Family 2.37 16 ?? ??
406 E. 3d 0.88 25 3 12%
303 Baldwin 0.93 64 6 9%
5 Delaware St. at Landing 1.51 67 7 10%
480 E. 4th (Kiku Crossing) 2.41 225 223 99%
222 E. 4th 1.13 10 10 100%
500 E. 3d (Block 21) 1.51 111 12 11%
435 E. 3d 0.25 18 1 6%
405 E. 4th 0.51 15 ?? ??
Totals 77.05 3253 579 18% mean (= 579/3253)
9% median

90 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: City Growth Plan
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:50:18 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary H Tatomer
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:33 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: City Growth Plan
I urge the city council to consider the wishes of the residents of San Mateo and scrap any plans for future density increases. Please comply with the recent votes on this issue.

Regards Mary Tatomer

91 of 112

From: Patrice Olds
To: General Plan; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: BUILDING HEIGHTS
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:30:49 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Garcia
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:29 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Jean Garcia
Subject: BUILDING HEIGHTS
The Garcia family at 244 Parrott Drive is against changing the building height limits.

The idea that large buildings along and near the railroad corridor will somehow not create more auto traffic and won’t negatively affect our quailty of life, is absolute fantasy.

Vote no on changing height limitations.

Ralph and Jean Garcia.
34 year residents
Active community volunteers
Observers of too much change too fast.

RG2 has sent this message.

92 of 112

From: MARILEE CALLAHAN
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 4:13 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: GP-2040

Dear Council members,
Please slowdown your untenable & unreasonable GP-2040 City Plan.

No one slows down anymore on the roads as they seem to be late for their own funeral. (old joke, sorry) We need responsible growth with height limits. Thank you, Marilee Callahan San Mateo

Sent from my iPhone

93 of 112

From: Michelle Maccarra
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:57 PM
To: P
atrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Limit Height and Density in San Mateo

My na
me is Michelle Maccarra, I am a working mother and have lived in San Mateo for almost 14 years, and I grew up in the Bay Area. My Husband was born and raised in San Mateo.

I have seen a lot of change – some good, some bad. The plan in place to add housing in the city of San Mateo needs to be reevaluated. There is a better and more thoughtful way to go about this.

I believe the requirement is 15,000 new units by 2040.

San Mateo doesn’t have the infrastructure to support all of these people. Hetch Hetchy doesn’t have the water to satiate all of these people. California has been in a drought since I can remember, as a child I was taught the importance of water conservation – a lesson I teach my son today. I’ve heard people say that water usage is lower in denser cities, but this is inaccurate especially with so many residents taking out their grass and putting in native plants or turf.

Keep in mind Just one 8 minute shower uses 17 gallons of water, a 20 minute shower uses 50 gallons. An average American family uses 300 gallons of water daily – 70% of it from indoor use. The largest use of household water is from flushing toilets at 5-7 gallons per flush w/the average person flushing at least 5 times per day. That adds up extremely quickly.

The streets are already congested with traffic. I’m not talking about traffic on the freeways – I realize that a large % of people that work in the Bay Area commute here. I am talking about traffic in neighborhoods, on El Camino, in downtown etc.…This is NOT caused by a lack of housing and people commuting into the city for work. It is caused by too many people living in a town that can’t accommodate them. And more housing will only make this worse. How could it not? Just last week a man was hit while walking his dog – the dog died, and the man is in the hospital because of a reckless driver. This was a hit and run and the man was left lying in the street. This is the 4 th
pedestrian hit in recent weeks – the other 3 were children.

Crime is only getting worse as the population increases. Bike gangs roam the streets at night, just last week a Walgreens worker was punched by robbery suspect – in downtown San Mateo! Recently I walked into CVS on Bovet and was told a shoplifter had just threatened an employee with a gun. People are stealing cars, motorcycles and tools out of trucks parked in people’s yards. There have been multiple stabbing incidents, rape, public masturbation and the list goes on. This is the city I am raising my son in, and the crime rate will only increase as the population rises.

In this environment, homeowners are being criminalized. We are being blamed for the housing crisis and the exorbitant housing costs. That is completely inaccurate and unjust. We as homeowners have worked hard, saved and sacrificed to be where we are. We pay property taxes in San Mateo. We should have a say in what happens in our city. We want our quality of life to stay intact and for this city to be a safe place to raise our families. The cost of living here is high because according to the SM Daily journal “we have a higher supply of large homes than San Francisco, and a more central location to technology and life sciences firms”. We also have a wonderful climate.

94 of 112

San Mateo has such an amazing history and I think it is extremely important to preserve what little is left. Historic buildings are constantly being leveled to make way for new construction or parking lots/garages. Recently I discovered a wonderful book on the centennial history of San Mateo. It made me so sad to see that only a fraction of the historic buildings are left. In fact, of all of the beautiful historic estates, only one is left to admire (that of A.P. Giannini, founder of Bank of America). The majority of the buildings shown in that book have been demolished. San Mateo has such a rich history, and so much of it has already been lost. Central Park has been preserved, but its beautiful aura will be forever changed if it is surrounded by high rises.

One of the things that makes San Mateo beautiful are the many magnificent trees. The new buildings near downtown don’t even leave room for trees to be planted on the sidewalk. We need more trees to provide shade, filter the air and create a sense of nature within the city. Heritage trees are being hacked down to make way for new buildings and all builders need to do is pay a fee. Heritage trees are just that – heritage. They should not be removed -PERIOD. Even Dr. Suess so many years ago understood the importance of preserving nature and our beautiful trees when he wrote the children’s book, The Lorax.

To be clear, I am not against allowing more people to live here - but I think we are rushing into this, and we need to find a better way to fit them thoughtfully into our community without ruining what we already have. The addition of too many people too quickly will ruin this city. So many people are leaving the Bay Area, working remotely etc.… why then do we need to build so much new housing? People aren’t leaving the Bay Area because they can’t afford housing, or there isn’t enough. They are leaving because the taxes in California are ridiculously expensive and they can save so much by moving to different states, such as Nevada.

Please DO NOT move forward with the 2040 general plan. Please reevaluate what the population will look like in the future (15,000 new units is ridiculously too much) and take time to put together a thoughtful plan that involves working with current residents/homeowners that support the city with their tax dollars.

Please respect the San Mateo citizens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

The citizens voted three times to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed little support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

95 of 112

Thank you,
Michelle Maccarra

96 of 112

From: Randell Mcmills
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 6:09 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Building Heights in San Mateo

> Dear San Mateo City Council:
>
> Please respect the San Mateo ci�zens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:
> Medium II (4-6 stories allowed; 8-12 with density bonuses), High I > (5-8 stories; 10-16 with bonuses), and High II (6-10 stories allowed; > 12-20 with bonuses) for both residen�al and mixed use designa�ons in > the General Plan land use sec�on.
>
> The General Plan and EIR should not be approved un�l the new density bonus law is addressed in the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan and the EIR. The new law will likely substan�ally increase the number of units in the City because of the increased density; therefore, it is not necessary to include 6-10 story buildings in the General Plan. >
> The ci�zens voted three �mes to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed litle support for 10+ story buildings.
>
> Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.
>
> Sincerely,
> Randell J McMills
>

> Sent from my iPhone

97 of 112

From: Pam Mills Casey
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 4:00 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Height limits

San Mateo City Council members,

Thank you for taking the �me to consider input from all your community members. I am a long�me resident of San Mateo, residing at 345 Fairfax avenue. I am asking that you consider the opinions of your fellow San Mateo city dwellers.

Please respect the San Mateo ci�zens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

Several years ago, I signed a pe��on- Y- to call for a vote on height limits. The voters overwhelmingly opposed more height allowances. And while it is understandable that our city needs to adopt responsible ways to encourage and increase the ability of folks to have residences here- the answer does not lie in taking away the ﬂavor of San Mateo. We don’t need more height or density. We have several high-rise buildings now in the downtown area, and there is not a pressing need for more at this �me.

Please pause any moves to push for increased density in our downtown San Mateo. Thank you for your aten�on and eﬀorts in this regard.

Pam Mills Casey

98 of 112

From:

Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 4:01 PM
To:

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

Dear City Council:

Please respect the San Mateo ci�zens who on mul�ple elec�ons over more than a decade have voted to limit building heights in San Mateo.

As representa�ves of the voters of San Mateo, uphold their democra�c votes and reject the elements of the General Plan that overrule the voters.

REJECT the sec�ons of the general plan which allow:

Medium II (4-6 stories allowed; 8-12 with density bonuses), High I (5-8 stories; 10-16 with bonuses), and
High II (6-10 stories allowed; 12-20 with bonuses)
for both residen�al and mixed use designa�ons in the General Plan land use sec�on.

The ci�zens voted three �mes to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed litle support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to the most recent Measure Y.

Sincerely,

Sandy (Osgood) Montevaldo

99 of 112

From: Martha Park
Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 3:59 PM
Sub
ject: San Mateo Building Heights and Housing Density
To: <[email protected]>

Martha Park

10:51 A
M (4
hours
ago)

to me

I am concerned about excessive building heights in San
Mateo's future. My understanding is that the housing
numbers in the 2040 General Plan Land Use Element
need to be recalculated, taking into account the new
housing density bonus law - which may allow increased
height and density in exchange for more affordable
housing.

The citizens of San Mateo have voted three times to limit building heights and densities. Please respect their wishes in your decisions.

Respectfully,
Martha Park

100 of 112

From: Anne Sortwell
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 4:43 PM
To:

City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: BUILDING HEIGHTS IN SAN MATEO

Dear City Council:

Please respect the San Mateo ci�zens who voted to limit building heights in San Mateo and reject:

The General Plan and EIR should not be approved un�l the new density bonus law is addressed in the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan and the EIR. The new law will likely substan�ally increase the number of units in the City because of the increased density; therefore, it is not necessary to include 6-10 story buildings in the General Plan.

The ci�zens voted three �mes to limit height and density, and the recent survey showed litle support for 10+ story buildings.

Please limit the allowable stories to Measure Y levels given the housing density bonus laws could double the allowable heights.

Sincerely,
Anne Sortwell

101 of 112

City Council
Draft General Plan 2040
November 13, 2023

102 of 112

2 StriveSanMateo.orgof 11
Tonight’s Discussion
» City Council Discussion
• Continue deliberation from the October 30, 2023 Special Meeting and provide direction on the Land Use Element
» City Council Direction
• Should there be a focused framework to allow for projects in specified areas to request heights up to 10 stories and/or densities up to 200 units/acre (High II) in exchange for community benefits?
 Maps A, B and C illustrate different parameters that could be used for the focused framework.
• Should eight stories and 130 units/acre (High I) be the maximum limits established in the Land Use Element?

103 of 112

3 StriveSanMateo.orgof 11
Map A
• High I and High II Land Use Designations
• 1/4 –mile Caltrain Station radius
• Study Area Boundaries
• Very Low Residential Areas

104 of 112

4 StriveSanMateo.orgof 11
Map B
• Parcel Over ½-Acre in Size, within
Caltrain Station Radius
• 1/4 –mile Caltrain Station Radius
• Study Area Boundaries

105 of 112

5 StriveSanMateo.orgof 11
Map C
• Parcel Over ½-Acre in Size, with Land
Use Designation in a Study Area
• 1/4 –mile Caltrain Station radius
• Study Area Boundaries

106 of 112

6 StriveSanMateo.orgof 11
Draft General
Plan 2040
Land Use
Map

107 of 112

7 StriveSanMateo.orgof 11
Measure Y Community Benefits Framework
• Language in Measure Y
“Densities up to 75 units per acre, heights up to 75 feet and appropriate FARs may be allowed in the following areas ... for projects which provide public benefits or amenities substantially greater than code requirements.”
• Two projects utilized this framework
• Bridgepoint Parkway Offices (Sony Interactive)
• Community benefits: Ongoing general fund revenue, assumed responsibility of farmers market, shoreline park improvements, mariners island improvements, purchase of tidelands park, skateboard and roller hockey facility, library equipment, and contributed to library business/investment center
• San Mateo Marriott (1770 S. Amphlett)
• Community Benefits: Ongoing general fund revenue (TOT), Concar Park Improvements, Street and sidewalk frontage improvements, crosswalk improvements, and landscape and irrigation improvements

108 of 112

8 StriveSanMateo.orgof 11
Draft General Plan – Community Benefits Framework
• Policy LU 2.3 Community Benefits.

Develop a framework to allow density/intensity bonuses and concessions in exchange for the provision of community benefits, such as additional affordable housing, increased open space, public plazas or recreational facilities, subsidized retail space for small businesses, subsidized community space for nonprofits that provide community support services or childcare facilities, pedestrian and multimodal safety improvements, and/or off-site infrastructure improvements above minimum requirements. • Action LU 2.5 Community Benefits Dashboard.

Create an online public portal that highlights the community benefits derived from new development projects, such as payment of in-lieu fees, contribution to the childcare fund, contribution to the public art fund, and other benefits to improve and standardize communication about new development projects and their benefits. • Under current conditions, with State Density Bonus laws, only projects with no residential component, such as office or biotech, are anticipated to utilize this framework.

109 of 112

9 StriveSanMateo.orgof 11
AB 1287 – Additional Density Bonus
• If a development project maximizes the production of Very Low, Low, or Moderate- Income units under current Density Bonus Law rules, which would yield a maximum 50 percent density bonus.
• Then a city or county must grant a housing development an additional density bonus when an applicant proposes to provide additional deed-restricted units at the Moderate-Income level (which now could be rental units) or at the Very-Low income level.
• This could result in an additional density bonus of up to 38.75 percent in return for providing additional Very-Low Income units, or an additional density bonus of up to 50 percent in return for providing additional Moderate-Income units. • Development projects that provide additional deed-restricted units are also eligible for additional incentives/concessions.
• Density bonuses, waivers, and concessions that result from the application of State Law are allowed to exceed the local limits set by Measure Y.

110 of 112

10 StriveSanMateo.orgof 11
Where We Are
» 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
• November 13 – Land Use (tonight)
» January 2024
• Publish General Plan 2040 and Final EIR
» February and March 2024
• General Plan 2040 Adoption Hearings

111 of 112

11 StriveSanMateo.orgof 11
Tonight’s Discussion
» City Council Discussion
• Continue deliberation from the October 30, 2023 Special Meeting and provide direction on the Land Use Element
» City Council Direction
• Should there be a focused framework to allow for projects in specified areas to request heights up to 10 stories and/or densities up to 200 units/acre (High II) in exchange for community benefits?
 Maps A, B and C illustrate different parameters that could be used for the focused framework.
• Should eight stories and 130 units/acre (High I) be the maximum limits established in the Land Use Element?

112 of 112

San Mateo City CouncilNovember 13, 2023

San Mateo City Council
November 13, 2023