Att 6 - Public Comments — San Mateo City Council, November 20, 2023

11/15/23, 3:49 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJR… 2/3 Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Big thanks to you and the larger team for pung this together and opening it up to comments earlier this year at the developer round tables. We are excited to see the ﬂexibility you have built into this plan!

We do have two follow-up comments to your team for you all to consider.

One, at the start of this document you deﬁne Mid-Rise Buildings to “mean buildings between four (4) and seven (7) stories but not more than ninety (90) feet in height.” We recommend your team redeﬁne it to “mean buildings between four (4) and eight (8) stories but not more than ninety (90) feet in height.” We have found that ﬁve levels of type III over three levels of type I construcon is a viable path for residenal development and hope that this type of development would be included within the ODS pathway.

Secondly, the ODS speciﬁcally calls out Spanish Colonia Revival architectural style as a requirement for projects within the Downtown Plan Area. Our team has walked throughout the downtown and noted various historic architectural styles inclusive of Mission Revival, Greek Revival, Art Deco, Post Modern, and Spanish Revival, as noted in your “
Downtown San Mateo Historic Building Self-Guided Walking Tour” which all add up to create the charm that is Downtown San Mateo. We recommend your team expand the opons for architectural styles within Downtown San Mateo to help preserve the charm of Downtown San Mateo.

We greatly appreciate your team’s consideraon on this item and are happy to discuss over the phone if you have any quesons.

Thanks,

Kevin Choy, P .E. | Associate Director
Harvest Properes, Inc.

From: Laura Richstone <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 4 59 PM
To: Laura Richstone <[email protected]>
Subject:

San Mateo Citywide Objecve Design Standards City Council Mee ng Date & Updated Standards

Happy Friday Everyone,

An updated Citywide Objective De ign Standard (ODS) document i available online for review Thi document has been updated in response to the modifications proposed by the Planning Commission at their October 24, 2023 hearing

The updated ODS for multi family and re idential mi ed u e project and a ociated code amendment to streamline the review of small-scale housing projects that meet objective standards will be heard and con idered by the City Council at their November 24, 2023, 7 p.m. public hearing

The revi ed ODS document, a ociated draft code amendment , and pa t meeting material are available online for public review. The staff report and full meeting materials will also be posted online for public review the Thur day before the City Council meeting

If you have que tion , comment , or would like to be removed from thi mailing li t plea e reach out to me directly.

Thank you,

11/15/23, 3:49 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJR… 3/3

Laura Richstone
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7205 |
[email protected]

* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any aachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or enty to which it is addressed It may contain informaon that is conﬁdenal and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noﬁed that any disseminaon or copying of this message or any aachment is strictly prohibited If you have received this message in error, please nofy the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any aachments from your computer Thank you
11/13/23, 3:03 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJRpuSh… 1/4 Re: 727 - 9th Avenue
Laura Richstone <[email protected]>
Mon 11/13/2023 3:03 PM

Bcc: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Rendell Bustos <[email protected]> Hi Laurie,
Your comment has been received.

Thank you,
Laura Richstone
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
330 W 20th Ave , San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7205 | [email protected]

From: Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 7:50 AM
To: Laura Richstone <[email protected]>
Cc: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 727 - 9th Avenue

Hi Laura,

Below is a public comment regarding the Objecve Design Standards, speciﬁcally on ADUs.

-Rendell

Rendell Bustos
Senior Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650 522 7211 |
rbustos@cityofsanmateo org

From:

Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2023 2 05 PM
To: Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Cc
Subject: Re: 727 - 9th Avenue

Hi Rendell,

Thanks for reviewing this project.

11/13/23, 3:03 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJRpuSh… 2/4

If the ADU Handbook is a living document, I would like to submit a comment that the detached ADU be the same architectural style, windows, ﬁnishes, materials, and roof pitch as the primary unit especially in older neighborhoods. You can see the ADU along the cross streets. The new ADU’s will impact the character of our pre- war neighborhood especially when it is visible from the street.

Also, I was reviewing the proposed Objecve Design Standards on Page 52. It states:

6.1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND ENCLOSURES – GENERAL

STANDARDSAPPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENT

6.1.1 Accessory Structures.

Accessory structures that require a building permit shall be designed with the same finishes, materials, and details as the primary building(s) and shall include the same roof pitch(es).

It would make sense to be consistent in the design standards of accessory units especially if it is detached from the primary unit.

Thanks.

Laurie W.

On Nov 9, 2023, at 5:18 PM, Rendell Bustos <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Laurie,
Thanks for your paence as I reviewed your concerns. I reviewed the approved plans and the Zoning Code, speciﬁcally the architectural standards for detached ADUs. I would point out that detached ADUs are not required to be of the same architectural style as the primary unit, as aached ADUs are. In addion, because the ADU was approved ministerially (Building Permit only), no public noce was required. Let me know if I can clarify or if you had addional concerns.

Thanks,
Rendell Bustos
Senior Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 |
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: l watanuki <
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 9:19 AM
To: Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Cc
Subject: Re: 727 - 9th Avenue
Thanks Rendell.

On Nov 6, 2023, at 5:32 PM, Rendell Bustos <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Laurie,

11/13/23, 3:03 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJRpuSh… 3/4 Thanks for ﬂagging these concerns. I will review the plans and your comments this week and get back to you by the end of the week.

Regards,
Rendell Bustos
Senior Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 |
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: l watanuki <
Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2023 8:01 AM
To: Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Cc:

Subject: Re: 727 - 9th Avenue
Hi Rendell,
Aer reading the Municipal Code, there are some quesons.

Why didn’t the property owner at 727 - 9th Avenue follow the architectural standards, and how did they this work permied? Their permit was never posted on the outside and there was no noﬁcaon from the city on the project. The architectural style of the ADU with the windows and roof do not match the architectural style of the primary unit. The primary home is Spanish Revival. We would like to maintain the pre-war character of our neighborhood.

Thanks.

Laurie
On Oct 30, 2023, at 11:52 AM, Rendell Bustos
rbustos@cityofsanmateo org wrote
Hi Laurie,
There are architectural standards for aached and detached ADUs Please see Municipal Code Secon 27.19.050(j):
hps //law cityofsanmateo org/us/ca/cies/san mateo/code/27 19 050# (j). In addion, the ADU Handbook can be a helpful source for explaining frequently asked quesons
hps://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/89871/San- Mateo ADU Handout 1222?bidId
Thanks,
Rendell Bustos
Senior Planner | Community Development Department
330 W 20th Ave , San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 |
[email protected]

11/13/23, 3:03 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJRpuSh… 4/4 -----Original Message-----
From: l watanuki < >
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 3:43 PM
To: Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Cc
Subject: 727 - 9th Avenue
Hi Rendell,
I had a queson on ADUs.

There is a corner home on 727 - 9th Avenue with a large ADU being constructed in the backyard. The ADU is visible from Fremont Street. Do the new ADU’s get approved without reviewing the building design with your neighbors next door? I was looking for the new ADU ordinance on the City website.

Thanks.

Laurie Watanuki
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any aachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or enty to which it is addressed. It may contain informaon that is conﬁdenal and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noﬁed that any disseminaon or copying of this message or any aachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please nofy the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any aachments from your computer. Thank you.
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any aachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or enty to which it is addressed. It may contain informaon that is conﬁdenal and prohibited from disclosure If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noﬁed that any disseminaon or copying of this message or any aachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please nofy the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any aachments from your computer Thank you
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any aachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or enty to which it is addressed It may contain informaon that is conﬁdenal and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noﬁed that any disseminaon or copying of this message or any aachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please nofy the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e mail and delete this message along with any aachments from your computer. Thank you.

Hillsdale area should continue to apply to the project instead of new, non-targeted requirements. In fact, most of the Hillsdale-specific requirements in the ODS originate from the currently-controlling planning documents, notably the Hillsdale Station Area Plan, which provides additional guidance and context. Future redevelopment of the Hillsdale Shopping Center is currently in development consistent with the Hillsdale Station Area Plan, which specifies other standards and guidelines in greater detail and with more optionality to allow for a high-quality development program that suits the City’s needs and market demands. The Owners are also already in the process of developing even more detailed ODS-type development standards for any redevelopment that accomplishes the same goals as the ODS, tailored to the unique needs of the Hillsdale area, and would be included as conditions to any future project approval. This is consistent with the “master plan” requirements imposed by several existing planning documents (for example, see General Plan 2030 p. II-63, Hillsdale Station Area Plan p. 64). Therefore, the Owners request that the ODS include that the Hillsdale area is exempt in Section 2.2 where the ODS specifies its applicability in different circumstances.

Accordingly, we request that the following be included as a new subsection H to Section 2.2:

H. These Objective Design Standards shall not apply in the Hillsdale Station Area, where existing standards and guidelines in existing specific plans and other planning documents already provide comprehensive design coverage. Further, any future redevelopment of the the Hillsdale Shopping Center is required to include master plan-level design standards analogous to these Objective Design Standards.

2. Section 2.3 – Building Types & Number of Stories
As currently provided, the ODS differentiates between “Mid-rise” buildings as four (4) to seven (7) stories and no more than ninety (90) feet in height, and “High-rise” buildings as eight (8) or more stories and more than ninety (90) feet in height. While these heights are entirely appropriate, we recommend modifying the number of stories to allow up to eight stories for “Mid-rise” buildings and to designate “High-rise” buildings to include nine (9) or more stories, and update references to the number of stories associated with each building type throughout the ODS. This is consistent with widely-applicable building code requirements for construction types and maximizes potential housing production. It is also consistent with Planning Commissioners’ comments during their October 24, 2023 meeting.

Accordingly, we recommend the following revisions to Section 2.3:

These standards establish regulations for three general building types: low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise buildings, defined below:

A. Low-rise shall mean buildings up to three (3) stories but no more than thirty-five (35) feet in height.

B. Mid-rise shall mean buildings between four (4) and seven (7) eight (8) but not more than ninety (90) feet in height.

C. High-rise shall mean buildings eight (8) nine (9) or more stories or more than ninety (90) feet in height.

D. Where a standard within this document does not specify building type, the standard shall apply to all building types.

3. Section 3.1.2 – Pedestrian Paseos
The current draft ODS includes detailed requirements for the dimensions and amenities of pedestrian paseos. We strongly support design efforts to encourage pedestrian-oriented development and circulation, but recommend scaling back the scope of these requirements to accommodate other amenities that serve the same purposes, such as modest skybridges to connect structures over paseos across multiple levels of active space.

Accordingly, we recommend the following revisions to Section 3.1.2:

If provided, pedestrian paseo(s) shall:

A. Be open to the sky and connect to public sidewalks (i.e., paseos shall not dead end), except to allow design features such as sky bridges or elevated walkways.

B. Have a minimum twelve (12)-foot width, as measured from building face to adjacent building face for low-rise buildings.

C. Have a minimum twenty (20)-foot width, as measured from building face to adjacent building face for mid-rise and high-rise buildings.

D. Provide a minimum eight (8)-foot-wide public pedestrian access easement within the required minimum paseo width for pedestrian access.

E. Provide pedestrian scale lighting along the length of the paseo. Such lighting shall be mounted not higher than twelve (12) feet,that meets the latest Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommended values, and beis directed downward or havehas a light cap.

F. Pedestrian paseos shall include at least three (3)two (2) of the following pedestrian amenities every twenty (20)thirty (30) linear feet:

1. Bench(es) 5. Cafè

2. Shade structure(s) 6. Textured, multi-colored, or patterned pavement

3. Tree(s) consistent with the City
Landscape Ordinance

7. Public art

4. Water feature or water fountain 8. Decorative overhead lighting

4. Section 3.2.1.B – Project Frontage for Parking

The ODS currently limits surface parking areas or driveways from occupying not more than twenty-five percent (25%) or sixty (60) feet of project frontage, whichever is greater. Because there may be unique circumstances for some uses where a greater proportion of project frontage will be necessary for surface parking or driveways, we request that this requirement be eliminated. Instead we anticipate that the separate screening requirement satisfies the intent to screen parking from public view and activate the street experience.

Accordingly, we recommend that the following language should be removed from Section 3.2.1:

Where vehicles are visible from a public right-of-way (i.e. surface parking lots or rooftop garages), the following standards shall apply:

A. Parking areas shall not be established within any required front setback area.

B. Surface parking areas, including driveways, shall not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent or sixty (60) feet of the project frontage, whichever is greater.

C.B. Parking areas shall be screened from view from the adjacent primary street with a three (3)-foot-high textured or patterned block wall that is capped, or a landscape hedge, or combination of the two. If a wall is used, the wall shall be treated with a graffiti-resistant coating.

D.C. Chain link or vinyl fencing shall be prohibited as a screening material for parking, lightwells, and utility structures/equipment.

5. Chapter 4 – Massing and Articulation Requirements Generally The ODS includes a wide variety of massing and articulation requirements, some of which are discussed further below. Such requirements can restrict flexibility of design and use, as do several provisions in the draft ODS. To rectify these issues, we strongly support the changes recommended by the Planning Commission and encourage the City Council to adopt those recommendations. Specific additional recommendations follow.

6. Section 4.1.1 – Blank Walls
Currently, the ODS limits blank walls to a limit of twenty (20) feet in length on all stories. While this is reasonable on walls facing streets, it would unintentionally impact design on off-street walls. We recommend revising this section to limit the prohibition on blank walls greater than twenty (20) feet in length to street-facing walls.

Accordingly, we recommend the following revision to Section 4.1.1:

Blank walls that face a public street shall be limited to a maximum of twenty (20) feet in length on all stories.

7. Section 4.1.4 – Qualify minimum change between planes and minimum façade portions for massing breaks

Section 4.1.4 requires that structures of three (3) or more stories must follow the rule of thirds and divide the structure into at least three primary masses. In addition to the changes recommended by the Planning Commission, we also recommend providing clear flexibility to determine the width of the primary masses, and not to require each to be exactly one-third of the structure. Such a requirement could unintentionally constrict potential uses and design programs. Instead, the standard could include a minimum percentage of overall façade length (i.e., require the minimum width of each primary mass to be at least 20% of the overall façade length). In addition, this requirement should also specify a minimum two (2) feet change in plane between each massing break to assure that the breaks are more than perfunctory.

Accordingly, we recommend the following revisions to Section 4.1.4 and the removal and/or replacement of Figure 21:

Structures of three (3) or more stories (measured from existing grade) shall follow the rule of thirds in which a structure is be divided into at least three primary masses., where each primary mass is separated by at least a two (2) foot minimum change in plane between each massing break, and where each primary mass shall contain a minimum width consisting of at least twenty (20) percent of the overall façade length.Possible ways to break a horizontal mass into three elements are illustrated below.

8. Section 4.1.6.B – Wall Planes
The ODS includes a variety of options for wall plane treatments, including horizontal and vertical wall plane changes and flat plane variations. The ODS requires “at least one (1) of the following wall plane treatments shall be incorporated into the building design as described below,” but does not specify if a single wall plane treatment is required on the horizontal and vertical wall planes and flat planes, or only one wall plane treatment is required on either horizontal or

vertical wall planes or flat planes. We advise the later. For context, horizontal wall plane changes can pose significant challenges for residential development.

Accordingly, we request the following revision to the initial requirement of Section 4.1.6.B:

B. Wall Planes. At least one (1) of the following wall place treatments on either the horizontal wall plane, vertical wall plane, or flat planes shall be incorporated into the building design as described below.

9. Section 4.1.6.B.3.a – Flat Plane Variation
The ODS as drafted requires at least four (4) of a provided list of design elements every twenty (20) to forty (40) feet of horizontal street frontage of building façade. We recommend reducing this requirement in order to avoid overly complicated and busy façades to a minimum of three (3) (or lower) design elements per frontage segment.

Accordingly, we recommend revising the first sentence of subsection (a) of Section 4.1.6.B.3 as follows:
a. For every twenty (20) to forty (40) feet of horizontal street frontage, the building façade design shall change in detailing to create distinct building segments. This change in detailing shall include at least four (4)three (3) of the following:

10. Section 4.2.1.A – Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial Wall Glazing The ODS currently requires seventy-five percent (75%) of ground floor wall to be glazed in mixed-use developments. We recommended using a linear-foot basis instead to provide greater flexibility for larger structures with more complex and demanding ground floor usage needs to support diverse uses above the ground floor.

Accordingly, we recommend revising Section 4.2.1.A as follows:

A. At least seventy-five (75)sixty (60) percent of the ground floor commercial wall arealinear street frontage shall be glazed.

11. Section 4.6 – Windows & Doors Generally
The draft ODS includes a variety of standards for windows and doors, and the Planning Commission provided numerous well-considered revisions at their October 24, 2023 meeting.

We agree with and recommend approval of the Planning Commission’s changes, and recommend one additional change below.

12. Section 4.6.1.C.3 – Curtain walls and upper-floor window size As drafted, the ODS imposes requirements on all windows and doors except curtain wall windows, and includes that “Windows, bays, doors, arches, and balconies must be equal in size

or smaller than the element they are aligned with on the floor below.” First, the exemption for curtain wall windows should encompass window walls and storefronts. Second, the upper-story window size limit is overly-restrictive. While it is appropriate for certain architectural styles and scale—most notably Spanish-style single-family residences—it prohibits many other architectural styles for single-family homes and is inappropriate for larger-scale buildings, in particular multi- family and mixed-use residential development. Anecdotally, few of the mixed-use mid-rise buildings shown in the draft ODS comply with this requirement.

Accordingly, we recommend the following revisions to Section 4.6.1.C and the removal of Section 4.6.1.C.3:

C. Window and Door Size. The following shall apply to all windows and doors except for curtain wall windows, window wall, and storefront.

1. Windows, bays, and doors shall be vertically oriented, rectangular, and taller than they are wide.

2. For non-residential uses, vertical window elements shall be maintained through proportionality and divided lights.

3. Windows, bays, doors, arches, and balconies must be equal in size or smaller than the element they are aligned with on the floor below.

4. Where wider glazed openings are desired use, ganged or group windows, subject to the following:
a. Grouped windows shall have a minimum of three (3) inches of building façade surface between them
b. Ganged windows shall have a mullion between them

13. Section 4.7.1.C – Materials Quality
Consistent with the concerns raised by members of the Planning Commission, we recommend removing the standard for minimum material life expectancies. Life expectancies cannot be readily calculated for many construction materials, including some of the most durable (cut stone) because they do not have a pre-determined lifespan. As a result, this standard is of little practical effect and should be removed.

Accordingly, we request the removal of Section 4.7.1.C.:

C. Quality. Durable architectural materials and finishes with a minimum life expectancy of fifty (50) years and roofing with a minimum life expectancy of thirty (30) years shall be used on the exterior of the buildings.

14. Materials: Table 2A and Table 2B

A broad range of construction materials should be allowed for projects in the City. This provides greater flexibility to adapt project design to changing materials costs and new technologies. It enables more sustainable design and is critical to controlling the price of housing development.

We recommend the following changes to Tables 2A and 2B:

Table 2A:

Material Notes
Brick Including brick veneer
Concrete
Stone
Stucco True stucco only (Lime or Portland
Cement); excluding synthetic stucco and
Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS)
Plaster Verified for exterior use only
Fiber Cement Panel
Glass
Tile
Rammed Earth Low-rise only
Wood siding Shingle, Clapboard, Panel
Metal Excluding corrugated metal
Wood Plywood allowed only as accent; not a
main material
Precast concrete
Glass Fiber Cement Panels
Ceramic
Porcelain
Terracotta
Building Base
Brick
Concrete
Stone
Metal
Ceramic Tile
Metal Excluding aluminum and corrugated
metal
Wood Plywood allowed only as accent; not a
main material
Fiberglass composite
Glass
Porcelain
Terracotta

Table 2B:

Material Notes
Window Frames
Wood Excluding plywood
Metal Excluding corrugated metal
Fiberglass
Composite
Vinyl
Roofing Materials
Composite, asphalt, and fiberglass shingle
Clay and concrete tile
Slate
Green roofs
Solar shingles
Colored metal/natural copper
Single-ply roof membranes

15. Section 5.1.1.B – Private balconies and open space

This ODS section contains requirements for private open space for individual residential units, including balconies. With respect to the balcony requirements, we request further explanation of the meaning of “open” as applied to glass guardrails, and also request further guidance on if 50% clear glass and 50% obscured glass can be used for guardrails.

With respect to enclosed ground-floor open spaces, we recommend that the ODS allow a greater range of enclosure materials, including steel or aluminum fencing, as well as stainless steel or cable enclosures. Allowing a greater range of materials will provide projects with better flexibility to adapt to unique contexts and provide better products for residents.

Accordingly, we recommend the following additions to Section 5.1.1.B:

B. Private Open Space for Individual Units

1. The fronts and sides of balconies shall consist of obscured glass, slats, or partially transparent grating or railing that is at least fifty (50) percent open.

2. Enclosed private ground-floor open spaces fronting a public street and/or sidewalk shall have an enclosure between three (3) and four (4) feet in height.

Enclosure materials shall be limited to the following:
a. Walls of a color and material(s) that match those used for the main building(s)
b. Wrought iron, steel, or aluminum fencing
c. Glass
d. Wood
e. Stainless steel

f. Cable

16. Figure 7.1 – Location of Hillsdale Station

Figure 7.1 maps the various specific plan areas in the City, but also locates Hillsdale Station at its old location prior to the 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project and the construction of the new Hillsdale Station, completed in 2021. We recommend relocating Hillsdale Station as indicated in this figure to its current location.

17. Section 7.2.1.B.2 – Build-to-Lines for corner parcels

The ODS currently requires that for corner parcels, buildings must be built to the required street setback for a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the side street property frontage. While we recognize that this serves important planning and urban design goals in general, it does not apply well to long buildings with large floorplates, and can impact the commercial viability of such projects by interfering with efficient floorplate design strategies. In turn, this can impact the viability of housing production on floors above. As a result, we recommend limiting the scope of this requirement by either cabining this requirement to apply only to building frontages less than a specific length, or to establish a maximum required property length at the required setback.

We recommend the follow revision to Section 7.2.1.B.2:

B. Build-to-Lines

1. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the total property line frontage along El Camino Real shall be occupied by buildings built to the required setback line.

Building(s) may be set back up to a maximum of twenty (20) feet behind the build-to line to provide a public amenity such as a wider sidewalk, plaza, outdoor seating, outdoor dining, or landscape area or any combination thereof.

2. For corner parcels, the building shall be built to the required street side setback for a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the side street property frontage.For parcels with greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet of side street frontage, buildings shall not be required to be built along the side street at a length greater than seventy-five (75) feet.

18. Section 7.2.1.C – Frontage Features

Here, the ODS requires one of a specified list of ground floor elements to be provided as a function of property frontage along El Camino Real. We applaud the City’s effort to design standards that will activate the streetscape, and recommend adding “canopies” of all materials to this list as an outgrowth of the existing “awnings” and “trellises” currently listed.

We request the following addition to Section 7.2.1.C:

C. Frontage Features. For each twenty-five (25) feet of building frontage along El Camino Real, at least one (1) of the following ground floor elements shall be included (can be multiple instances of one [1] element):

1. Arcades

2. Awnings (no wider than a structural bay)

3. Trellises

4. Canopies (of all materials)

5. Residential entry porch

19. Section 7.2.2.A – Curb Cuts

This section limits curb cuts to one (1) “per development” along El Camino Real. We recommend amending this provision to “per building” in recognition that there will be multi-building developments constructed along El Camino Real, and individual buildings may require individual curb cuts to accommodate required loading zones and other services necessary for each building within the development.

Accordingly, we recommend the following revision to Section 7.2.2.A:

A. Curb Cuts. Curb cuts along El Camino Real shall be prohibited if alley or secondary frontage is available. A maximum of one (1) curb cut along El Camino per developmentbuilding is permitted.

20. Section 7.3.1.A.1 – Setbacks

In the Hillsdale Station Area, the ODS currently requires setbacks from the curb along El Camino Real to create at least twenty (20) feet combined effective sidewalk. We recommend that this be amended to include that setbacks include curb cuts and cut outs for bus stops, out of recognition that both currently exist and will be required in the future along El Camino Real in the Hillsdale Station Area.

Accordingly, we request the following addition to Section 7.3.1.A.1:

1. Buildings shall be set back from the back of curb along El Camino Real to create at least twenty (20) feet of combined effective sidewalk, including curb cuts and cut outs for bus stops.

21. Section 7.3.2.A.2.B – Ground floor parking

This section currently provides that if structured parking is included within a mixed-use building, a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of the ground floor may be dedicated to parking. This limitation should be softened or removed because it would severely reduce the commercial viability of multifamily residential development, including affordable housing development.

Instead, we recommend applying the same screening requirements in Section 7.3.2.B to ground floor parking, which could include requirements for specified materials, art installation, or other requirements to improve the streetscape experience.

Accordingly, we request the following revision to Section 7.3.2.A.2.B:

2. Vehicle parking shall be prohibited in front setback areas and along primary and secondary street frontages
a. If a parking garage is an individual building part of a project of a project, retail, or other active uses, such use shall occupy the ground-floor space of that parking garage along at least ninety (90) percent of the frontage of El Camino Real, at a minimum depth of forty (40) feet.
b. If structured parking is within a mixed-use building, a maximum of fifty (50) percent of the ground floor may be dedicated to parking.The parking screening requirements provided in Section 7.3.2.B shall apply to ground floor parking in a mixed-use building.

22. Section 7.3.4 – Laurel Creek views

The ODS requires in this section that all residential units and residential units in a mixed-use development in the Hillsdale Station Area must have at least one (1) window facing Laurel Creek.

We recommend eliminating this requirement. It is not practical for all of the units across the Hillsdale area to face the creek. Even on properties adjacent to the creek, imposing this requirement would limit building configurations and reduce the density and total units that could be developed on adjacent properties.

Accordingly, we recommend the deletion of Section 7.3.4:

All residential units and residential units of mixed-use development shall have at least one (1) window that faces the creek.

23. Section 7.6.2.A.1 – Building Design & Articulation

This section requires that all upper-floor residential units facing local streets include at least one (1) outdoor deck, balcony, or bay window. We recommend removing this requirement. It is impractical for smaller units with less street-facing frontage, increases costs and makes it more difficult to provide affordable housing, and mandates a very specific, uniform aesthetic on all local streets contrary to the vision expressed in the ODS renderings, where it is unlikely that any of the buildings shown comply with this requirement. If the Council decides not to remove this requirement, it should be reduced to apply to only 25% of units facing local streets.

Accordingly, we recommend the following deletion from Section 7.6.2:

1. All upper-floor residential units facing local streets shall include at least one (1) of the following:
a. Occupiable outdoor deck designed as usable space
b. Balcony
c. Bay window

24. Section 7.6.2.A.2 – Façade Elements

This section requires street-facing facades to include at least three (3) of six (6) listed façade elements. We recommend reducing this requirement to two (2) elements, as the guidance we have received indicates that requiring three (3) elements will lead to unnecessarily busy, aesthetically-limited building façades.

Accordingly, we request the following revision to Section 7.6.2.A.2:

2. All building facades visible from a public street or public area shall include at least three (3)two (2) of the following across the entire façade:
a. Trellises
b. Arcades
c. Awnings
d. Balconies
e. Belt courses along sill lines
f. Capped parapets

25. Section 7.6.3 – Landscaping & Open Space

While this requirement imposes new open space requirements on large-scale development, there are already requirements in the General Plan Update that have been subject to rigorous testing and community consultation. Accordingly, we recommend removing this requirement as redundant and relying on the General Plan Update requirements.

Accordingly, we request the following deletion of Section 7.6.3:

For mixed-use developments of at least three (3) acres of site area or an entire block, a publicly accessible park or plaza of at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area, with a minimum dimension of fifty (50) feet for any side, shall be developed within the central portion of the site.

We thank you for your time and your consideration and your efforts on the ODS.

Sincerely,

David Bohannon

Cc: Zach Dahl ([email protected])
Manira Sandhir ([email protected])
Mazarin Vakharia ([email protected])
Planning Commission ([email protected]) John Ebneter ([email protected])
Seema Patel ([email protected])
Adam Nugent ([email protected])
Martin Wiggins ([email protected])
Margaret Williams ([email protected])
City Council ([email protected])
Amourence Lee ([email protected])
Lisa Diaz Nash ([email protected])
Adam Loraine ([email protected])
Rob Newsom, Jr. ([email protected])
Rich Hedges ([email protected])
Chelsea Maclean ([email protected])

11/8/23, 2:52 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJRpuSh5Fe… 1/3 Re: Objective Design Standards - downtown area San Mateo Laura Richstone <[email protected]>
Wed 11/8/2023 2:52 PM
To: Maurine Killough
Cc: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Hi Maurine,
Thanks for reaching out. To clarify, I am only the Project Planner managing this project. However, you did send your comment to the right person and it will be included in the public record for the City Council to consider as they review the proposed regulaons.

To address some of the concerns raised:

The Objecve Design Standards (ODS) are focused only on the design of structures. The bounds of the Vision of the Gateway are not changing and will remain as they are mapped in the 2009 Downtown Area Plan (see map below - "Gateway" area).

The overall growth the the region, the City, and the downtown area in general has created challenges. Regarding parking, the ODS does not change the exisng parking generaon standards nor create any new parking standards. However, the City has heard similar concerns raised from other residents regarding parking and safety in the downtown area. We are currently working on a Complete Streets program that seeks to ease parking pressure and beer integrate all modes of travel within the City. Recent documents and updates to the City Council can be found on the Complete Street webpage. If you have ideas on how to improve parking/transportaon in the City or quesons about the Complete Streets program I encourage you to reach out to Sue-Ellen Atkinson, Principal Transportaon Planner at [email protected]. She is managing the Complete Streets program and will have a greater depth of knowledge of the City's parking and transportaon iniaves.

11/8/23, 2:52 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJRpuSh5Fe… 2/3 Once again, thank you for taking the me to comment If you have further comments please reach out Thank you,
Laura Richstone
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7205 | [email protected]

From: Maurine Killough
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 1:05 PM
To: Laura Richstone <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject:

Objecve Design Standards - downtown area San Mateo

Dear Planning Commissioner Richstone,
Thank you for including these consideraons in the ODS. I live on 4th Avenue between Fremont and Grant in an 1890’s Crasman home built by the Wisnom hardware family We moved in to our home in

10/24/23, 3:51 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJR… 1/2 Re: Comments on Objective Design Standards
Laura Richstone <[email protected]>
Tue 10/24/2023 3:51 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Ashley Snodgrass <[email protected]>
Hi Michael,
Your comments have been received and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing tonight. If you would like, informaon on how to aend tonight’s meeng (virtually or in person) can be found here
Thank you,
Laura Richstone
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7205 | [email protected]

From: Michael Nash
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 1:17 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian akhojikian@cityofsanmateo org
Subject:

Comments on Objecve Design Standards

Dear Planning Commissioners and City Councilmember:

I have been copied on several letters to you about the Objective Design Standards that are consistent with my thoughts, so I will only add what I did not see in other's documents To be clear, Ms Laurie Hietter’s letter is consistent with my point of view.

In addition, I would ask:

1 Please clarify whether a duplex is considered a multi family unit or not as it applies to these ODS.

2. Please add information on what design standards, if any, are included with the discretionary design process.
3 Bikes & scooters do not belong on sidewalks and paseos Can we devise standards that require impediments to these types of vehicles, while allowing pedestrians, strollers &

10/24/23, 5:28 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJRpuSh… 1/1 RE: Objective Design Stds
Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Tue 10/24/2023 4:32 PM
To: Maxine Terner
Cc: Laura Richstone <[email protected]>
Received, thank you.

Manira Sandhir, AICP
Planning Manager and Zoning Administrator
650 522 7203 (o) | 650 242 6126 (c)
[email protected]

From: Maxine Terner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 2:50 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject:

Objecve Design Stds

Hello Manira - Please make aachment available for PC prior to meeng.

And please understand that these guidelines need much ﬂeshing out and are inadequate as presented. Please connue the meeng so more feedback can be provided.

Thank you,
Maxine

Comments to Planning Commission
10/24/23

There is not enough time for the public to give you adequate feedback on these final guidelines.

What’s the hurry? Please continue this meeting so that initial feedback can be made available for the press and interested neighborhood groups.

A. Setbacks - EL CAMINO REAL MASTER PLAN AREA
What are setbacks based on. From the curb, from property line (where is it). What is minimum width for sidewalk to include adequate tree planting?

1. All buildings shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet along El Camino Real to satisfy and provide for the “effective sidewalk” standard, as defined in Section 8. Why isn’t this the same as Transit Center Area El Camino which is 20’?

2. Buildings taller than two (2) stories shall be set back ten (10) feet from the property line along El Camino Real.

A. Setbacks – Transit Center Area

1. Buildings shall be set back from the back of curb along El Camino Real to create at least twenty (20) feet of combined effective sidewalk.

7.1 DOWNTOWN PLAN AREA

7.1.2 Building Design and Architecture
Do not require all buildings to be Spanish Colonial Revival. Focus on compatibility and context of nearby buildings. Require deep reveal openings for windows. Require rooftop service facilities to be incorporated into building design or set back and covered. The Landscape section is pathetic and needs attention…especially for street trees.

Buildings shall implement a Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style, as outlined and illustrated below: A. Required Architectural Elements. T o implement the architectural style, a structure shall include all of the following elements:

1. Building facing of light -colored stucco within a light reflectance value (LRV) range between 36 and 80; use of weathered brick (no brick veneer), Ɵ le, stone, stone casing, or wood as accent materials is acceptable

2. Low-pitched (below and including a 3:12 pitch) gabled or hipped roofs, sloped parapets, or flat surface with an eave overhang of not more than six (6) inches

3. Red tile roofs and tiles parapets; simulated materials are acceptable

7.1.3 Landscaping, Open Space, and Exterior Lighting
Publicly accessible outdoor areas shall not be concealed from public frontages by fence/gates, insets, recesses, or setbacks.

October 24, 2023
Re: Item #3 - Draft Objective Design Standards
Dear Chair Ebneter and Members of the Planning Commission, In reviewing the Draft Objective Design Standards these are 5 important points::

1. This ODS presumes that Measure Y will be gone and will not exist. The voters made it very clear they wanted moderate growth, and this ODS shows the Maximum Growth Alternative with three building ranges. The building types include: Low-rise (1-3 stories) Mid-rise (4-7 stories not more than 90’) , and High-rise (8 or more stories or more than 90’ . Why didn’t they use Measure Y parameters in these illustrations?

2. The Spanish Colonial Revival style has been selected for the Downtown and the Gateway which does have its beneﬁts since it is more traditional and blends in with the Historic Downtown. But there are other types of traditional architecture such as Art Deco, and Neoclassic which could be considered for the Downtown to make it more eclectic. We do not know what the areas outside of the Downtown will look like. We need to encourage new inﬁll building design to respect the existing community character. Or else you will end up with glass buildings.

3. The building transition illustrations are very abrupt and go from single story to three story structures in the ODS. There are other illustrations of single family to multi-story buildings. The illustrations do not include a roof with dormer windows and look massive and boxy. There are no gradual transitions. These illustrations show the direction that the City is moving towards and its not moderate growth. The south side of 4th Avenue and the neighborhood streets from S Delaware to S Amphlett should be excluded from the ODS. These are smaller pre-war single family homes and should be preserved. The parking on the south side of 4th Avenue should remain in front of the homes and residents should be able to back out of their driveways. Instead it looks like the City is preparing these homes on the south side of 4th Avenue and the neighborhood streets for future demolition. New projects should respect the existing community character. The City has also reclassiﬁed both 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue to Arterials without discussion with our neighborhood.

4. This ODS looks like it is on the fasttrack. What are the next steps? Will type of architectural styles be in the areas outside of the Downtown? Redwood City has created a template of architectural styles to choose from. Will Planning ﬁne tune the transition from single family to multi- family with better illustrations so it is not as abrupt, but more gradual? Each neighborhood has its own visual and physical characteristics and deserves respect. Each neighborhood could be considered a zone. We need to encourage new developments to be compatible and harmonious with the building types and architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo.

5. There is confusion on how this ODS will be used. How do you handle 5 units of housing included in a 150,000 sf mixed-use project? How do you handle SB-9 projects, a triplex, or a four- plex project? We do not have design guidelines for these types of projects. Are you going to use the current Duplex Design Guidelines? We hope they are not tossed out to promote new three story duplex designs. Projects need to blend in and not stand out from all the others on the street. This document is not ready for prime time. Developers will be using waivers and concessions can get around the ODS.

Thank you.

Lisa Vande Voorde Laurie Watanuki Dianne Whitaker
1 10/24/23, 9:18 AM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/options/mail/automaticReplies?nativeVersion=1.2023.920.900 1/1 FW: objective Design Standards meeting ( ODS)
Planning
Mon 10/23/2023 2:31 PM
To:Laura Richstone <[email protected]>;Manira Sandhir <[email protected]> Cc:Linda Ly <[email protected]>
Hello Laura,

I understand I should forward this to you. This is from the general planning in-box.

Thanks,
-Michelle

From:

Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 1:33 PM
To: Rob Newsom rnewsom@cityofsanmateo org ; Planning planning@cityofsanmateo org Subject: objecve Design Standards meeng ( ODS)

to the planning commission and City Council

This is at least my 40th letter to your groups in the past 13 years I am not tired or impatient and will not go away Bottom line there are many of us who live here and vote here ,,,So many times we have voted for HEIGHT LIMITS and so many times these devious deceitful builders and project planners want to get rid of the 55 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITS Yes the GOV in Sacto has allowed some waivers and he will be gone and yes we will vote against anyone who wants to include WAIVERS or GIFTS to developers They cannot grease my palms

Again I plead for you to realize that we voted in these height limits for several reasons Your planning commissions have ruined the landscape of San Mateo East of El Camino,, I will not complain about a few feet higher for the TALBOTS development but will speak in GENERAL as it is obvious several of previous and current members of the planning commission and City Council have been given gifts for their support DOG AND PONY shows go a long way but bottom line is that the voters have spoken about a 55 foot limit,,,Do some of you need to use my hearing aid???

Some kind of investigations need to be done on the current planning Commissioner who needs to resign I am also in favor of a city wide election of the city planner as it is obvious that FRAUD in this position is RAMPANT,,,,Ebetner should resign and go hide as eventually fraud will be discovered

Again I plead you not to remove or erase this 55 foot height limit are some of you deaf or what ???????????????????

Rick KARR

10/24/23, 5:29 PM Mail - Laura Richstone - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdjOTQ3YTBmLTY0MjEtNDdkZS1hNWJlLTdmOWZiYzcyMjFlMQBGAAAAAABk62AgaWmJRpuSh… 1/1 FW: Measure Y
Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Tue 10/24/2023 4:28 PM
To: Ashley Snodgrass <[email protected]>
Cc: Laura Richstone <[email protected]>; Somer Smith <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]>; Carey Stone <[email protected]>; Joanna Jansen <[email protected]>; Angelica Garcia <[email protected]> The comment below may be for ODS or for GPU. So sending to both teams. Thanks, - Manira Manira Sandhir, AICP
Planning Manager and Zoning Administrator
650-522-7203 (o) | 650-242-6126 (c)
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Smith
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Measure Y
Dear Commissioners,
As a 40 year plus resident I am saddened by the direction we are heading for San Mateo. I understand growth is necessary but please make it responsible. Your citizens have repeatedly voted to limit height requirement yet at every turn the Commission leans toward exceptions. Please do not be blinded by greed and look at quality of life and character of our City before you vote.

Thank you,
Diane Smith

Laurie Hieter
San Mateo, CA

October 24, 2023 VIA EMAIL

Planning Commission
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Street
San Mateo, CA 94403
Dear Planning Commission Members:

The Objective Design Standards (ODS) for multi-family and mixed-use projects are not complete. ODS should require consideration of the neighborhood architecture, which was a repeated theme in comments on the initial draft ODS. The intent of the ODS should be clearly expressed as promoting new inﬁll building design that respects existing community character; uses established building types found in San Mateo; aﬃrms and compliments the wealth of varied architectural styles; and encourages new development to be compatible and harmonious with the building types and architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo.

Speciﬁc Comments on the Document
p. 2: 2.2 APPLICABILITY
A. The ODS set forth in this document apply to new mul�-family development, residen�al mixed- use any provision of state law which references objec�ve design standards, including but not limited to Government Code Sec�on 65589.5 (Housing Accountability Act) and Sec�on 65913.4, as may be amended from �me to �me.

A single-family home with an ADU seems to qualify as a multi-family development. Please clarify whether these standards would apply to a single-family home with an ADU. If not, they should be speciﬁcally excluded in this paragraph and in the deﬁnitions section. p. 4: C. High-rise shall mean buildings eight (8) or more stories or more than ninety (90) feet in height.

Measure Y limits heights to 55 ft. in most locations. The voters were clear that they do not want height and density in the City. The ODS should not address buildings that exceed Measure Y with a density bonus. The ODS ignore the will of the people who voted to limit heights and density in San Mateo. Change the ODS if necessary in the future if Measure Y is not in eﬀect.

2.3 TYPES OF BUILDINGS REGULATED
These standards establish regula�ons for three general building types: low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise buildings, deﬁned below:

Planning Commission
October 24, 2023

Page 2 ends

A. Low-rise shall mean buildings up to three (3) stories but no more than thirty-ﬁve (35) feet in height.

Clarify that these standards will apply to demolition and construction of a single-family home with an ADU (if that is the case).
p. 12: B. Surface parking areas, including driveways, shall not occupy more than twenty-ﬁve (25) percent or sixty (60) feet of the project frontage, whichever is greater. In single-family neighborhoods they shall not occupy more than 25% of the project frontage.

As written, this standard would allow a residence with an ADU to have a 60-foot project frontage. That is unacceptable in a single-family residential neighborhood. Please add the second sentence.
p. 5: Low-Rise Buildings
Clarify whether low-rise buildings include a single-family home with an ADU. p. 16: 4 BUILDING DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE
Chapter 4 Building Design and architecture does not discuss or emphasize the need to match the existing architectural context. Comments on the Draft ODS consistently and repeatedly emphasized the neighborhoods’ desire to respect the existing architecture. Please add a discussion of architectural styles in the City, and create a standard to blend in and be compatible with the existing architectural context. At a minimum, the reader should be referred to the discussion of architectural styles in Chapter 7.

A. A combina�on of at least three (3) diﬀerent colors and/or materials shall be used on each building façade, exclusive of trim and roof. For example, the combina�on could be two (2) diﬀerent colors and one (1) diﬀerent material. No more than six (6) colors and/or materials may be u�lized on each building façade.

Six colors/materials sounds chaotic. Should this be allowed on a minimum-size structure? Summary

1. Measure Y is the law in the City. The ODS should reﬂect current law.

2. More emphasis should be placed on the existing types of architecture and encouraging new inﬁll building design to respect the existing community character.

3. The building transitions should be gradual and should be shown in illustrations.

4. The south side of 4th Avenue and the neighborhood streets from S Delaware to S Amphlett should be excluded from the ODS. These are smaller pre-war single-family homes and should be preserved.

Planning Commission
October 24, 2023

Page 3 ends

5. The parking on the south side of 4th Avenue should remain in front of the homes and residents should be able to back out of their driveways. New projects should respect the existing community character.

6. Each neighborhood has its own visual and physical characteristics and deserves respect. Each neighborhood could be considered a zone. We need to encourage new developments to be compatible and harmonious with building types and architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo.

7. The ODS should discuss how the City will apply the ODS if there are ﬁve units of housing proposed in a 150,000 sf mixed-use project, which is common downtown.

8. Clarify whether these ODS will apply to a single-family home with an ADU or a new duplex.

9. ODS should be explicitly excluded from developer waiver and concession requests.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Laurie Hietter

cc: City Council
San Mateo Heritage Alliance

Aug 8, 2023
CityofSanMateo330W20thAveSanMateo,CA94403
ByEmail:[email protected]
CC:CityAttorneysOf[email protected],[email protected] Re:DraftObjectiveDesignStandardsforMulti-FamilyandMixed-UseResidentialDevelopments DearPlanningCommission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind theCommissionofitsobligationtoabidebyallrelevantstatelawswhenreviewingtheproposedObjectiveDesignStandardsforMulti-FamilyandMixed-UseResidentialDevelopments(the“proposedstandards”),calendaredasastudysession,agendaitem2attomorrownight’smeeting.Speciically,theCitymustcomplywiththeHousingCrisisActof2019(SB330),SenateBill9(“SB9”),andotherstatehousinglaws.Theproposedstandardsascurrentlydrafteddonotadheretotheselaws:manyofthemfailtoarticulateobjectivestandards.

SB330barscitiesfrom“[i]mposingorenforcingdesignstandards[...]thatarenotobjective.”(Gov. Code§66300, subd. (b)(1)(C).) SB9allowscitiestoimpose“objectivezoning[...]subdivision[...]and[...]design”standards(butnotsubjectivestandards)onSB9projects.Inaddition, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) renders non-objective standardsunenforceableinmostcircumstances.(SeeCaliforniaRentersLegalAdvocacyandEducationFund v. City of San Mateo(2021)68Cal.App.5th820,839-44(overturningcity’sdenialofhousingprojectbasedondesignguidelinesrequiring“atransitionorstepinheight”whereabuildingismorethanonestorytallerthanitsneighborsonthegroundsthatitwasnotobjective).)SB330,SB9,andtheHAAdeine“objective”as“beinguniformlyveriiablebyreferencetoanexternalanduniformbenchmarkorcriterionavailableandknowablebyboththedevelopmentapplicantorproponentandthepublicoficial.”(Gov.Code§65589.5,subd.(h)(8);Gov.Code§66300,subd.(a)(7);seealsoGov.Code§65852.21,subd.(i)(2)[similarlanguage];Gov.Code§66411.7,subd.(m)(1)[similarlanguage].) 360GrandAve#323,[email protected]

Unfortunately,severalprovisionsintheproposedOrdinancefallshortofthisrequirement.CalHDFurgestheCommissiontocarefullyreviewalltheproposedstandardsforobjectivityandspeciicallypointsoutafewofthemostegregiousexamples:
● Section4.6.2“Allwindowsshallincludedetailingusingatleasttwo(2)ofthefollowingapproachesconsistentwiththeselectedarchitecturalstyle.”Thephrase“consistentwiththeselectedarchitecturalstyle”isnotobjective.Overallstylesarenotcleanlydeined,andwhatcountsas“consistent”orinconsistentwiththebuilding’sstyleisintheeyeofthebeholder.Anapplicantcannotknowexanteandwithcertaintywhethertheir proposed design will satisfy the ordinance, and thus the ordinance isunenforceableonthispoint.● Section4.7.1(A)“Colors:Neoncolorsshallbeprohibited.Colorsofthesamecolorpaletteshallbedierentiatedbyatleastthreeshades.”Itisnotclearwhatcountsas“thesamecolorpalette”or“threeshades.”TheCitymustdraftmorespeciiclanguagebeforeitcanimposesuchrulesonapplicants.● Section4.8(A)“Additionstoexistingstructuresshall:Beofthesamearchitecturalstyleastheexistingbuilding(s)”Compatibilitywithinastyleisnotanobjectivestandard,asitcannotbeapplieduniformly.Architecturalstyles,andtheirmaterialsanddesigndetails,aresubjectivelydeinedandthereforecannotbeenforcedbytheCity.● Section7.2.3“Thevisibleportionshallbearchitecturallytreatedbeginningatthebuildingcornerofthefaçadewiththecontinuationofthesamecolorsandmaterials,includingamatchingwidthanddepthofstructuralbaysusedonthebuildingfacade.”Thedeinitionof“architecturallytreated”isunclearandambiguous,thusunenforceablewithoutclariicationastothatdeinition.

CalHDF appreciates San Mateo’s eort to review and establish objective residentialstandards.WeremindtheCity,however,thatitmusttakecaretofollowthelawindoingso.The current proposal needs at least a fewrevisions before it can be inalized andimplementedinaccordancewithstatelaw.

CalHDFisa501(c)3non-proitcorporationwhosemissionincludesadvocatingforincreasedaccesstohousingforCaliforniansatallincomelevels,includinglow-incomehouseholds.YoumaylearnmoreaboutCalHDFatwww.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
DylanCaseyCalHDFExecutiveDirector
2of3

CourtneyWelchCalHDFDirectorofInvestigationsandEnforcement 3of3

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 1 of 2

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
August 4, 2023
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

Attn: Laura Richstone
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
[email protected]

Re: Draft Objective Design Standards
Ms Richstone,
We have reviewed the draft objective Design Standards and are disappointed by Section 3- Site Planning and Section 5 - Landscaping. On March 6, 2023, we sent the Planning Commission a letter outlining our concern that the approach to ODS in most Peninsula cities, including San Mateo, seems to be heavy on how "attractive" and "articulated" the buildings are and how much they will contribute to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals, but short on strong requirements for green open spaces. We asked that the letter be forwarded to the planning staff members working on the ODS requirements so you should have received a copy. We apologize if you did not.

We have attached a copy of our March 6, 2023 letter.

While we recognize that there are conflicting needs for open space versus space for housing, quality of life for residents, as well as the City, are critical in designing these Standards. Urban trees and greenery have been shown to be important for mental health for all ages as well as for biodiversity. Where space is tight, trees provide welcome relief and high density areas should not be shortchanged on urban canopy.

Our concerns are listed here:

Section 3 - Site Planning
• Para. 3.1.1,A,A & A,B. the minimum size of the public "plazas" in the draft are much too small. A 10'X10' space is not a plaza. We recommended in our letter that there be a minimum of 15% of the total gross development as common open space and that 50% of that be accessible to the public, and the minimum dimension of a plaza or courtyard be 30' with 50% of the area to be green landscaping. We also recommend trees in as many locations as feasible because they add so much beauty, shade, and environmental benefits to an outdoor space.
• Para. A,D. The draft states that if building is < 150', no plaza is required. If a plaza is not required, we would like to see at least a landscaped 10' deep building front setback to include greenery to soften the look of the building from the street and provide relief for the sidewalk and possibly space for public

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 2 of 2 seating in a landscaped area (except in the downtown core where retail faces the sidewalk, the new facade should align with adjacent facades).

Section 5 - Landscaping, Open Space, and Exterior Lighting • Para. 5.1.1,A,A-E. It's not clear that any mix of the three alternatives would still require 50% minimum green landscaping. For example: Alternative B, D, and E could all be met with just hardscaping. Please clarify to ensure that green space is included.
• Para. 5.1.1,C, Common Open Space. The character of the open space is not defined (except for dog runs).

How much should be green? How much hardscape? Please refer to our letter, Para. 1. • 5.2.1. Lighting in the City has become a source of increased concern as biodiversity plummets as a result of light at night. The lighting requirements are good as far as they go, but please refer to Para. 1,9) in our letter where we also include further criteria that would be helpful to include.

The details that you are putting into these Objective Design Standards are of seminal importance and will shape the City and its quality of life for many decades. We look forward to your considering our suggestions as you finalize these very important guidelines.

Respectfully yours,

Gita Dev, FAIA, Co-Chair Sustainable Land Use Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc: San Mateo Planning Commission
James Eggers, Chapter Director
Gladwyn d’Souza, Chapter Conservation Chair
Ken Abreu, Sustainable Land Use Committee

Attachment: Sierra Club letter on Objective Design Standards, dated March 6, 2023 -----Original Message-----
From: Francie Souza
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 3:37 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: ODS comments

Planning Commission -

I am a resident of San Mateo and have the following comments to make regarding the draft of the Objective Design Standards:

-Take cues from existing buildings in our downtown historic district, and adjacent neighborhoods - Demolition permits should not be issued before building permits -There should be a transition zone between single family residences to higher-density housing. Townhomes can provide a good transition.

Having 5-7 story buildings next to single family homes presents many problems. -Please preserve and protect our smaller homes and duplexes between 4th & 5th street, many of which are craftsman and pre-war era. These provide great options for medium and lower income families - Include visual samples of architectural styles in the ODS -Please preserve historic homes and trees as much as possible - they can’t be replaced!

Overall, I’m asking for our city planners to respect and support the existing community character of San Mateo.

Sincerely,

Frances Souza

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
CC: Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
Zachary Dahl, Deputy Community Development Director
Laura Richstone, Associate Planner
Christina Horrisberger, Interim City Manager
Alex Khojikian, City Manager

FROM: San Mateo Heritage Alliance
SUBJECT: Objective Design Standards - Comments
Dear Planning Commissioners,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Objective Design Standards (ODS). Our comments speciﬁcally address what is omitted from the Draft ODS, rather than what is included.

There are many cities in California in the process of completing their objective design standards, some of which may be good models for San Mateo. We have found the City of Santa Barbara has a particularly good Draft ODS published for public review on June 23, 2023. We encourage the Planning Commission and City Planning staﬀ to review Santa Barbara’s Draft ODS (https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/ priorities-policies/housing-initiatives/design-standards). Scroll down to the green dot on the left for a link to the actual document.

San Mateo Heritage Alliance believes Santa Barbara’s recently published ODS can be an appropriate model for San Mateo because it appears to be thoughtful in its intent, comprehensive in its breadth, and detailed and speciﬁc in its content. It appears to us that they created the ODS with the intention of enhancing their community, its livability, and its sense of place while making it clear and predictable for developers. We can do the same.

This letter highlights four key components - intent, zones, building types and architectural design - which are not currently included in San Mateo’s Draft ODS, but which we believe are necessary for a successful Objective Design Standard. SMHeritage urges the City of San Mateo to incorporate these four components in a revised Draft ODS, using the comprehensive approach taken by Santa Barbara.

Intent. Santa Barbara is clear on the intent of their ODS. Every chapter in the Santa Barbara ODS has a statement about intent. Intention statements emphasize compatibility with the physical character of individual neighborhoods, diversity of housing types, pedestrian scale and walkable neighborhoods. www.smheritage.org Page of 18

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
One section of the Architectural Design chapter states its intent as: “Santa Barbara's architecture reﬂects traditional design principles that contribute to a pleasant, human-scale environment. These include a clear representation of each building's relationship to the ground and sky, as well as how openings such as doors and windows establish an interface between the inside, the outside, and the building structure itself.”
Zones. San Mateo is a diverse and distinct community with diverse and distinct neighborhoods and activity zones that warrant diﬀerent design considerations. Section 7 of the San Mateo ODS (Speciﬁc Plan and Area Standards) begins to address the idea of zones, but seemingly as an afterthought, and only applicable to the areas identiﬁed for the highest intensity development. Residential and transitional zones are not identiﬁed, despite the fact that the ODS appears to apply city-wide.

Building Types. The San Mateo Draft ODS doesn’t appear to consider the many existing examples of 2-24 unit ‘middle housing’ that can be found in a variety of San Mateo neighborhoods where they provide a gradual transition between single family residential and higher density areas. Instead - and without acknowledging these building types - it lumps the various conﬁgurations of duplex and courtyard housing into a single Mid-rise category, limiting the diversity and compatibility of new inﬁll.

Architectural Design. The San Mateo Draft ODS is oddly silent on architectural styles, discussing only massing, articulation, roof form, windows, doors, materials and color. A case can be made that architectural style is perhaps the most important component of an objective design standard.

San Mateo is very fortunate to have such a vast collection of architectural styles in both residential and commercial settings. The 1989 Historic Survey Report devoted 28 pages to a discussion of architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo, information which can be used in a revised draft ODS. SMHeritage Alliance believes it is critically important to acknowledge and respect the many diverse historical styles and to also welcome well designed contemporary styles. Without the inclusion in the ODS of our diverse legacy of architectural styles which deﬁne the character and substance of San Mateo, the document becomes a bland recipe for generic building design. San Mateo can do better.

A more complete discussion of three of these items, contrasting the diﬀerence between the San Mateo and Santa Barbara Draft ODS follows in Appendix A. Again, we encourage you to please take the time to review the June 23, 2023 Draft Santa Barbara Objective Design Standards and consider using it as a model for San Mateo’s ODS. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
Keith Weber, Aragon
Dianne Whitaker, North Central
Laurie Watanuki, Central
Attachments
Appendix A: Key Components Suggested for Inclusion in San Mateo’s Draft Objective Design Standards www.smheritage.org Page of 28

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
Appendix A
Key Components Suggested for Inclusion
In San Mateo’s Draft Objective Design Standards
Zones
Like most cities, San Mateo has distinctly diﬀerent land use zones with distinctly diﬀerent visual and architectural character. Downtown is diﬀerent from its surrounding neighborhoods of older, historic homes, which are diﬀerent from neighborhood commercial areas. Successful development standards reﬂect these character diﬀerences and the transitions between them.

The purpose of establishing diﬀerent zones is to generate and support the variety and physical characteristics of existing and new pedestrian oriented, walkable neighborhoods. Santa Barbara has established ﬁve distinct zones: Neighborhood Medium, Neighborhood Large, Mixed-Use Corridor, Downtown Edge, and Downtown Core.

Within each zone, there are speciﬁc requirements about intent, building types, building form, building placement, parking, frontage, and open yards.

www.smheritage.org Page of 38

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
Building Type
The purpose of building types is to provide standards for development of individual building types while maintaining the existing and intended physical character of each zone. Building types are used to articulate size, scale and intensity according to the intent of each zone.

San Mateo identiﬁes three building types: Low-Rise, Mid-Rise & High-Rise. By lumping San Mateo’s many distinct and diverse building types into one Low-rise category, and then lumping them together with Mid-rise and High-Rise in the Building Design and Architecture section, we are unnecessarily limiting the types of inﬁll that can be built. Architectural variety is lost and harmonious design discouraged.

Santa Barbara has identiﬁed ten speciﬁc allowable building types, which are also applicable to San Mateo. House-scale building types include: Duplex Side-bySide, Duplex Stacked, Cottage Court, Medium Multiplex, Duplex Court, Side Court, Medium Courtyard.

Block-scale building types include: Large Multiplex, Large Courtyard, Downtown Building. Each building type contains a description and speciﬁc requirements for number of units, building site and massing, pedestrian access, vehicle access and parking, and open yard. www.smheritage.org Page of 48
Neighborhood Medium and Downtown Edge Zones

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
San Mateo has a very diverse collection of building types that include all ten named above. But San Mateo has not acknowledged or identiﬁed the vast array of existing examples of ‘middle housing’ that can serve as appropriate models and can help guide new development of 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 unit inﬁll.

Excellent examples of courtyard housing compatible with their surroundings can be found in North Central, Central, Baywood and Aragon neighborhoods. Below are two visually delightful examples that ﬁt in with their single family neighbors respectfully and seamlessly. We should take advantage of the best of our existing housing stock and structure our ODS around their best qualities. www.smheritage.org Page of 58
San Mateo examples of Duplex-Stacked (3 units) and Medium Courtyard building types (24 units), Spanish Revival Style

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
Architectural Design
What is style? “Style is more than the presence of a red tile roof or a row of classical columns,” notes San Mateo’s 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, “It includes the building’s proportions, how its volumes are put together, the treatment of its wall surfaces—the totality of how the building is assembled—plus the details of its structure and ornamentation. Underlying this is a consistent system of proportions…Speciﬁc ornamental details may assist in identifying a style, but the way they are used and how they are combined with other elements distinguishes one style from another. Classical columns appear on Italianate, Colonial Revival, and Neoclassical buildings, but in each case how they are used and the context in which they appear is completely diﬀerent.” Architectural design standards further reﬁne intended building form and physical character. Santa Barbara is often thought of as having only one style - Spanish Colonial Revival - but the city has more architectural diversity than it would appear They have identiﬁed six architectural styles that are harmonious with their distinctive built environment and represent the most prevalent existing architectural styles in Santa Barbara. There are three primary style categories - Craftsman, Mediterranean and Contemporary - each with two sub-styles. www.smheritage.org Page of 68

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023
San Mateo has a much wider diversity of existing architectural styles. The 1989 Historic Building Survey Report devotes 28 pages to a discussion of San Mateo’s many architectural styles. The report identiﬁes the following styles prevalent in San Mateo in both residential and commercial settings.

Queen Anne Victorian / Gothic Revival
Colonial Revival / Monterey Colonial
Classical Revival
Craftsman / Cottage
Spanish Colonial Revival / Mission Revival
Tudor Revival / French Provincial
Art Deco / Streamline Moderne
Contemporary / Industrial

In the Santa Barbara ODS, each one of the styles identiﬁed is followed by a description of the style, typical characteristics, dimensions and illustrations for walls, roofs, eaves, parapets, windows, dormers, entry doors, porches, balconies, storefronts, canopies, trellises, and materials. www.smheritage.org Page of 78

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
August 3, 2023

Conclusion
San Mateo deserves the best Objective Design Standards possible. The City has a rich history and wide diversity of building types and architectural styles which can be drawn upon for inspiration and which should be reﬂected and expressed in the City’s ODS. San Mateo also has many distinct neighborhood zones with their own individual visual and physical character that deserve to be respected.

The intent of the ODS should be clearly expressed as promoting new inﬁll building design that respects existing community character; uses established building types found in San Mateo; aﬃrms and compliments the wealth of varied architectural styles; and encourages new development to be compatible and harmonious with the building types and architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo.

San Mateo Heritage Alliance strongly encourages the City of San Mateo to incorporate the above mentioned components in a revised draft ODS and seriously consider using the City of Santa Barbara’s ODS as a model for San Mateo.
www.smheritage.org Page of 88
San Mateo example of Large Courtyard Building Type, Craftsman From: Dashiell Leeds
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 12:04 PM
To: Laura Richstone <[email protected]>
Cc: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; James Eggers ; Barbara Kelsey ; Gita Dev Mike Ferreira
; Gladwyn D'Souza
Subject: SCLP letter Re: Objective Design Standards

Ms Richstone,

We have reviewed the draft objective Design Standards and are disappointed by Section 3- Site Planning and Section 5 - Landscaping. On March 6, 2023, we sent the Planning Commission a letter outlining our concern that the approach to ODS in most Peninsula cities, including San Mateo, seems to be heavy on how "attractive" and "articulated" the buildings are and how much they will contribute to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals, but short on strong requirements for green open spaces. We asked that the letter be forwarded to the planning staff members working on the ODS requirements so you should have received a copy. We apologize if you did not. Our March 6th letter is attached to this email.

Please read the attached August 4th, 2023 letter for our full comments.

Sincerely,

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

email sent from account of
Dashiell Leeds
Conservation Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 1 of 6

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
March 6, 2023
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

Planning Commission Chair and Members
Via: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
(Please forward the attached Sierra Club letter to the Planning Staff Members working on Objective Designs Standards)

Subject: Residential Objective Design Standards for Public and Common Open Spaces and Landscaping The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.

The current RHNA numbers are pushing most cities to greatly increase the housing densities in their cities. We have reviewed several draft Housing Elements to date and are concerned that under pressure to increase density, cities are minimizing the importance of well designed public and common open spaces as an essential ingredient in the livability of higher density residential developments. Many European cities are quite dense, but also include many large and small green parks, public gathering places, and well landscaped roads and promenades. These green spaces not only offer open air relief from tightly stacked units, they also provide access to open social space and nature, mitigate noise, provide natural site drainage, and absorb air pollutants.

It seems that most Housing Elements are not addressing this issue, so we are asking all cities to include very specific green open space design requirements in their Objective Design Standards or possibly in their Zoning Codes to compliment their Housing Element.

To that end, we have developed a checklist1 of items which we would like to see all cities adopt as they finalize their Objective Design Standards for 2022/23. Please review the checklist to see how your city compares and whether there are items in the list that should be incorporated into your standards.

1This checklist is limited only to promoting the inclusion of green landscaping into the design of dense residential developments, sidewalks, and parking. It does not address Objective Design Standards for more fine-grain building design and articulation such as decks, windows, material, colors, etc. Those features should be decided on a city by city basis with emphasis on the design of ground floors, which have a significant inf luence on the pedestrian environment and the overall public realm.

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 2 of 6

1. Common Open Space
1) Exterior courtyards, roof terraces, and other common areas shall be provided within all residential developments of ten2 or more units in order to provide needed amenities that improve livability and public health.
2) At least 15% of the total gross development area shall be common open space. 3) At least 50% of ground level common open space shall be open and visible to the public as a public amenity.
4) Common open spaces, such as courtyards and gardens, shall have a minimum dimension of 30 feet from back of sidewalk and from building face to building face in each direction. 5) Common open spaces must be at ground level and include a minimum 50% of landscaped area planted in turf, trees, or plants that are water-wise and preferably native species. Private green roofs and deck areas are acceptable if they do not exceed 50% of the required common open space, meet the standards for vegetation and irrigation, and if 50% of the remaining common open space is provided at ground level.
6) A minimum of 15% of shrub size plants should be 15 gallon or larger to provide a more mature appearance and provide a more effective carbon sink upon completion of planting. 7) Provide greenscape with vegetation (not hardscape) on 30% minimum of outdoor space sufficient to mitigate noise, heat, wind, and feel park-like. 8) Preserve all mature existing trees (10" diameter trunk at 3' above grade or larger) on site3. 9) If provided, exterior lighting at all common open spaces with lighting focused downward, no more than 2500 Kelvin, with bi-level lighting with motion sensor.4 10) A minimum of three of the following activating features shall be incorporated into common open spaces:
a. Fixed or movable seating
b. Picnic style tables
c. Shade trees or shaded canopy
d. Outdoor kitchen equipment
e. Children’s play equipment
f. Public art or interactive art, such as life-size chess game g. Water feature
h. Other unique people-centered features
11) Provide 30' minimum setback from freeway right of ways in order to provide a vegetative barrier that preserves existing trees and shrubbery and adds a minimum of 24" box trees at 30 foot minimum spacing and large 15 gallon shrubs, preferably native plants. The goal is to reduce highway pollution and noise in order to reduce adverse health impacts on the neighborhood.

2Exact number to be determined by each city
3Mature trees are more effective carbon sinks, provide shade, reduce the heat island effect, and provide more health and ecological benefits than smaller, newly planted trees.
4Bi-level lighting maintains lighting at a low level unless motion activated. This is beneficial for energy conservation, biological diversity, and dark sky at night.

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 3 of 6 12) Where a property abuts a creek or shoreline, the minimum setback from the historic high water level should be 25 feet2, larger is preferred. Landscaped swales shall be placed to retain runoff and no drainage shall be directed into the waterway.

2. Sidewalks
1) Minimum sidewalk width shall be 10 feet along building frontages. 2) Plant street trees in tree wells5 at least 3 feet in diameter, with pedestrian gratings to protect roots.
3) Sidewalks shall include street furniture, artwork, and other amenities to activate the pedestrian realm.

3. Building and Block Size

1) Block sizes establish the scale and character of the community and can help break the visual impact of long building walls, create connected pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, and contribute to urban greening.
2) Blocks greater than 400 feet in length shall be broken midblock with a landscaped publicly accessible deep courtyard, pocket park, street, arcade, or paseo. 3) The minimum width of a midblock break shall be 20 feet and shall include landscaping and lighting, and activating features (as described above) where appropriate. 4) No individual building shall be greater than 200 feet in length. 5) Lot coverage for higher density buildings (40 units per acre or larger) shall not exceed 75%, with the remainder allotted to open space.
6) Building facades facing streets or public open spaces shall have landscaped entrances to residential units or street-facing retail to enliven the streetscape. No blank walls shall be allowed at ground level.
7) Building facades for residential buildings shall be setback a minimum 10' from property line or back of sidewalk, whichever is closest to the building facade, to allow adequate space to plant trees and landscaping to visually buffer the building facade and reduce noise impacts from the street.

4. Parking
1) A minimum of 15% of all surface parking lots shall be landscaped. 2) Parking stalls shall include shade elements such as trees, vine-covered trellises or overhead solar panels.

5Soil at tree wells needs to be loosened where subgrade has been compacted so tree roots have good amended soil to grow.

They also need to have a watering tube that goes down about 3 feet to provide water lower down to encourage deep root growth. Include a condition of approval requiring monitoring of trees for 5 years, and rehab of the site with a replacement tree for those that are not thriving after 5 years.

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 4 of 6 3) Parking lots shall be located to the rear or interior of the block and shall not be located between the sidewalk and the building frontage facing the street. 4) Access to parking lots or structures shall be located along side streets or alleys. 5) Parking lots should be made of permeable pavement where subsoil conditions permit.

Respectfully yours,

Gita Dev, FAIA, Co-Chair Sustainable Land Use Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc: James Eggers, Chapter Director
Gladwyn d’Souza, Chapter Conservation Chair

EXAMPLE: LANDSCAPED

PEDESTRIAN STREET

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 5 of 6 EXAMPLE: LANDSCAPED PASEO

EXAMPLE: LANDSCAPED

SIDEWALK SETBACK

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 6 of 6 EXAMPLE: LANDSCAPED

COURTYARD

EXAMPLE: BUILDING SETBACK FROM SIDEWALK WITH LANDSCAPED MID-BLOCK COURTYARD

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
TO: Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
CC: Christina Horrisberger, Community Development Director Zachary Dahl, Deputy Community Development Director
Laura Richstone, Associate Planner
Drew Corbett, City Manager
Kathy Kleinbaum, Assistant City Manager
Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney
Planning Commission
FROM: San Mateo Heritage Alliance
SUBJECT: Objective Design Strategies - New development projects in and around Downtown Dear Ms. Sandhir,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance understands Planning staﬀ will begin working on revising historic preservation related documents, ordinances and design standards in 2024. It is a process that may take several years to complete. In the meantime, there are a large number of planning applications in the entitlement process that will be approved without beneﬁt of those revised documents.

It is this interim period before the historic preservation and inﬁll guiding documents are completed that is of much concern to us. As we stated in our letter to you of June 6, 2023, we are concerned that if the current review process continues without intervention the result, according to the City’s’ GP Alternative Analysis, “could aﬀect the integrity of the buildings and historic district, and result in development incompatible with the existing historic fabric.”
It is for this reason that the San Mateo Heritage Alliance is suggesting incorporating timeless design principles as objective design standards for project review. The timeless design principles outlined on the following pages are objective in that they are measurable, veriﬁable and knowable to all parties. We believe these timeless design principles are consistent with the City’s existing General Plan, Zoning Code, Downtown Design Guidelines and the new Multifamily/Mixed-use Objective Design Standards.

We also believe that if implemented immediately they will result in inﬁll projects of higher quality design.

As always, San Mateo Heritage Alliance stands ready to work with the City of San Mateo to make our Downtown and our City a better place in which to live and work. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
Keith Weber, Aragon
Dianne Whitaker, North Central
Laurie Watanuki, Central
Attachments:

Appendix A: Objective Design Principles
Appendix B: Urban Design Considerations
Appendix C: Searching for Visual Delight

www.smheritage.org Page of 110

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Appendix A
Suggested Objective Downtown Design Principles
Timeless Design Principles
Timeless design principles have been around for over 4,000 years, since the time of Roman architect Vitruvius. One of the great things about timeless design principles is that they are ﬂexible and scaleable.

The basic way of composing a building facade is applied as successfully on a one story building as it is on a 12 story building. It is an organizational composition ﬂexible enough to accommodate any architectural style.

Timeless design principles have four simple elements of composition:
• Simple, Tripartite Facade
• Base/Middle/Top
• Vertically Aligned Openings
• Window Height and Width
www.smheritage.org Page of 210

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Rule of Thirds
The rule of thirds in building composition can be traced as far back as Vitruvius. The idea is that the best way to insert breaks in form and plane is to divide the building into three primary masses. Each element on a facade should be about a third of the size of the bigger element it’s nested in. Here are three ways to break a horizontal mass into three segments:

Vertical composition also has three elements - a base, a middle and a top. Much like a column has a base, a shaft and a capital. In this way it is anthropomorphic and composed like the human body. The three elements can be distinguished using bands, cornices, or with changes in materials and/or colors. www.smheritage.org Page of 310

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Windows
Traditionally, windows are inset somewhat from the surface of the wall, allowing us to see the depth of the wall. The more thickness we can see, the sturdier the wall looks. Many contemporary buildings look like they’re only an inch or two thick. A window reveal of at least 4” is recommended.

The aspect ratio of the windows is important. Windows should be taller than they are wide. Structurally, it’s easier to span a short distance than a long one. Humans are taller than we are wide, so there’s an anthropomorphic element as well. A 6 foot high by 3 foot wide window gives us a sense of scale: when we look at a wall and see a pattern of objects that roughly scale to ourselves, we can easily understand the proportion of the building.

Lastly, the windows should be aligned vertically, acknowledging the natural force of gravity and allowing the load of a building to transfer on to the ﬂoor or wall below. www.smheritage.org Page of 410

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Putting it all Together
Here’s what you get when you put all these elements together: 1) building mass divided into thirds, both vertically and horizontally, and 2) windows that are taller than wide and stacked vertically. Simple and elegant. Appendix C includes some examples of recently completed buildings in San Mateo and other communities that demonstrate how these principles work when applied to real buildings.

Overall Best Practices:

1.Timeless forms that avoid ‘fast fashion’ trendy design themes.

2.Quiet background buildings that don’t scream for attention.

3.Simple massing that doesn’t try to replicate a city skyline in a single structure.

4.Uniform application of quality cladding material such as brick. www.smheritage.org Page of 510

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Appendix B
Urban Design Considerations
Downtown San Mateo
Building Setbacks, Daylight Planes and Street Walls
Upper ﬂoor setbacks determined by daylight planes can be very useful if used properly and judiciously.

In San Mateo, as elsewhere, the idea is to maintain the prevailing street wall height in the historic district.

This is a worthwhile and appealing goal. But in San Mateo, it limits the street wall to 35 - 40 feet in most of downtown. We also have a maximum building height allowance of 55 feet in most of downtown that can grow to 75 feet with state density bonuses. Accommodating a street wall height of 35 feet and a building height of 55 -75 feet in the same building envelope inevitably results in an awkward and clumsy architectural composition.

SMHeritage suggests that Planning reexamine the current daylight plane policy in terms of its applicability and ﬂexibility, speciﬁcally with regard to inﬁll development (see Redwood City’s 2011 Downtown Plan as one example). We believe there are more than a few instances where a full height street wall would result in more elegant architecture and better urban design.

There are other ways to address higher building heights in and around the Downtown. One might be to allow the street wall of inﬁll buildings to be 1/1/2 - 2 times the average street wall height of nearby buildings. Another might be to step-down building height towards lower height buildings, rather than setting back upper ﬂoors away from the street. The bottom line is that the current daylight plane policy should be reevaluated and revised to better serve our urban design and historic preservation goals.

Special Corner Treatments - Plazas and Towers
Plazas, if done right, can be magical places. They can be quiet and digniﬁed or grand and dazzling. But not every building corner needs one. “Busy or calm, functional or symbolic, there is one thing a plaza should never be: an urban non-event,” urban planner Richard Hedman warns. “Yet, all too many of the so-called plazas built are just that. Instead of contributing to the enrichment of the city, unsuccessful plazas add to its fragmentation and dilution and rather than enlarging the opportunities for public enjoyment they merely consume space.” You may notice that the two newest corner plazas in San Mateo (at 5th & Claremont and 4th & Railroad) are always empty. No one sits there, no one gathers, they are functionally dead spaces.

Now that two full blocks of B Street are closed to traﬃc, San Mateo has created a large public plaza and gathering place. Sacriﬁcing more building corners for tiny plazas that are likely to go unused seems unnecessary. www.smheritage.org Page of 610

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
SMHeritage believes a much better urban design solution are corner towers, a traditional corner treatment that has been used for centuries. Corner towers signal important corners, call attention to important buildings, and direct our eyes upward to the ornamentation and architectural detailing of the upper building ﬂoors. The corner towers on the Merkel Building and the Wursthall restaurant building are visual delights to be appreciated and admired by all who pass by. Let’s start looking up and use corner towers as an important urban design element.

Other Considerations
Project Design Review
During this interim phase it is more critical than ever to engage the services of a qualiﬁed historic preservation architectural ﬁrm to review all proposed Downtown development projects for compatibility, visual continuity, and the application of timeless design principles.

Demolition Permits
The premature demolition of Block 21 and the project applicant’s request for a 2-year extension of project approval highlights a critical ﬂaw in San Mateo’s permitting process. Although procedural and not directly associated with urban design, demolition without assurance of project completion has a very negative eﬀect on our urban environment.

Destruction without construction damages the fabric of our community.

If demolition permits were issued at the same time as building permits, it would avoid unsightly weed ﬁlled vacant lots. In these uncertain times, there is no assurance that even with an extension, that the project will ever move forward. Block 21 could be vacant for many years, much like the vacant parcel and former gas station at Third and El Camino. It would beneﬁt the community if demolition permits were tied to building permits. www.smheritage.org Page of 710

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Appendix C
Searching for Visual Delight
Vitruvius identiﬁed three elements necessary for a well designed building: ﬁrmness, commodity and delight. Firmness or physical strength secured the building's structural integrity. Commodity or utility provided an eﬃcient arrangement of spaces and mechanical systems to meet the functional needs of its occupants. And delight, the aesthetic quality associated with the goddess Venus, imparted style, proportion, and visual beauty.

Which of the following 18 recently constructed or proposed buildings do you think embody all three elements? Which impart a feeling of delight or visual beauty? What design qualities do you ﬁnd most and least attractive? Can you identify which buildings use timeless design principles? Which buildings do you think might have the most compatibility and visual continuity with Downtown San Mateo? Which buildings seem to demonstrate a cohesive architectural composition and quality design? And lastly, how do you think we can ensure these qualities of ﬁrmness, commodity and delight are part of every new building proposed for San Mateo?
Column A Column B
San Mateo, built San Mateo, approved
San Mateo, proposed San Mateo, proposed
www.smheritage.org Page of 810

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Charleston, NC, built San Mateo, approved
Redwood City, built San Mateo, proposed
Redwood City, built San Mateo, proposed
Portland, OR, built San Mateo, under construction
Column A Column B
www.smheritage.org Page of 910

SAN MATEO

HERITAGE ALLIANCE
July 13, 2023
Mountain View, built San Mateo, built
Los Angeles, built San Mateo, proposed
Portland, OR, built San Mateo, proposed
Column A Column B
www.smheritage.org Page of 1010

San Mateo City CouncilNovember 20, 2023

San Mateo City Council
November 20, 2023