Name: Sharon DiPierro
Email:
Message: there shouldn’t be any zoning that is commercial only (restricts residential) unl
ess some hazard exists, like industrial use/waste
while I like the additions of speed bumps on the 28th ave bike corridor, I hate the city signs that point to local attractions. It detracts from the quaint neighborhood feel, instead looking more like a busy urban downtown area.
reducing speed limits to 20mph won’t work unless you actually narrow the streets
convert rolled sidewalks into regular ones, so people don’t park on the sidewalks. this would slow down traffic in neighborhoods.
I think you should eliminate parking meters/paid parking in the downtown area. time limits are good, but free parking changes my behavior as to where I shop and eat and play, creating a draw for businesses. consider a business fee to replace lost income.
It’s a bit insulting that San Mateo would have consultation with native tribes in the general plan, but with no other cultural communities. There is no need to specifically bow to indigenous peoples who no longer are in charge of this land, as there was no one tribe with rights to this land; multiple tribes constantly warred over it. Eventually American settlors won control, and nobody who lives here now was a part of that. Eventually San Mateo has become an immigrant haven. This land belongs to Americans, Californians, San Mateans - all of us, native or immigrant; no one has more right to it than the others based on the year that their ancestors arrived.
I absolutely love "Action COS 8.14 School Facility Access. Partner with local school districts to explore ways to expand public
access to school facilities, including gymnasiums and swimming pools." I have been trying to work with our neighborhood school for years to help the community have access to the schoolyard.
---
Date: February 21, 2024
Time: 6:32 pm
Page URL: https://strivesanmateo.org/participate-online/ User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.3 Safari/605.1.15
Remote IP: 135.180.184.48
Powered by: Elementor
From: Doris Nishimoto
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 6:50 PM
To:
Lisa Diaz Nash ; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Noel Nish ; City Mgr <[email protected]>
Cc: David Canepa ;
Subject: A Posting from social media on building height in City of San Mateo
Hi City Council and City Manager,
If you want to hear what your constituents think but are afraid to tell you, join a social media platform.
Your City of San Mateo Police Department is on one of these social media platforms.
Here is a copy and paste (without author) regarding the building heights proposed for City of San Mateo:
"A few months ago, I was sent a survey from the City of San Mateo regarding the housing shortage. I was asked multiple questions phrased differently about a preference for clusters of tall buildings closer to downtown with shopping. public transportation, etc, or buildings within neighborhoods built to house around four to six families. These would go on existing home lots.
There were renderings of what each would look like. I was not fond of the pictures. They showed a muti-story building filling a lot in a neighborhood of mainly one-story homes . Can you imagine having people nearby looking in your yard? What about the shadow it would cause, not to mention noise and parking? Would there be a motivation for people to sell their homes to accept an offer from a developer creating a negative impact on the neighborhood? If you drive south on Norfolk St. across from Bayside Building, there is a small development of two-story houses and apartment buildings. The unfortunate people on Norfolk St have this exact scenario. Their neighbors look down into their yards. Take a look next time you drive by. One way or another, the handwriting is on the wall. The City is pushing the building of these structures to comply with the ruling. I just wonder where they are going to find occupants."
This posting shares the CANDID sentiments of many people who ordinarily do not show up at your meetings because they most likely think what they say won't change the City's agenda.
Doris Nishimoto, D.D.S.
From: Shirley Melnicoe
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 3:59 PM
To:
City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Comments
Dear Mayor Nash & City Council Members:
As a long-time San Mateo resident, I am concerned that the term contributors to historic districts was removed by staff. This is a policy decision, not a staff decision. Please reinstate this important term and add contributors to historic resources to the definition of historic resources in the General Plan Policy CD 5.3.
To plan for the future, I think we need to look at the current resources of our community and we need to ensure their protection so that they continue to exist and remain as a resource in our future. I moved to San Mateo because of its historic downtown and the lovely neighborhoods with classic and historic homes and gardens. Such resources need to be preserved as they contribute to San Mateo’s identity, character, and value. Please add language to acknowledge and strive to protect historical properties and contributors with distinct architectural traits for current and future generations.
Thank you.
Shirley Melnicoe
San Mateo Resident
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4109
415.434.9100 main
415.434.3947 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com
Jennifer E. Renk
415.774.3143 direct
[email protected]
March 1, 2024
File Number: 68FL-298947
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash
and Members of the City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Bayshore Corporate Commons - 1720 South Amphlett Boulevard
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash, Deputy Mayor Newsom and Members of the City Council:
We are writing on behalf of B9 Sequoia Bayshore Owner LP (“Owner”), the owner of the property located at 1720 South Amphlett Boulevard in San Mateo, CA (“City”), known as Bayshore Corporate Commons (“Site”). The Owner appreciates the countless hours and hard work that has gone into this important General Plan Update effort over the past few years. We continue to be supportive of the City’s process and have actively participated since 2022. In anticipation of the City Council’s meeting on March 4, 2024, we submit the following letter requesting that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission’s unanimous January 30, 2024 recommendation for the Mixed-Use Medium I designation for the Site.
As a reminder, below is a chart outlining the major General Plan Update milestones regarding the Site:
Date Action Outcome
February
2022
Requested Mixed-Use Medium from
General Plan Subcommittee
Mixed-Use Medium
recommended to Planning
Commission
March
2022
Requested Mixed-Use Medium from
Planning Commission
Mixed-Use High recommended to
City Council
April 2022 Owner supported CEQA analysis of Mixed-
Use High
City Council approved CEQA
analysis of Mixed-Use High
2022 to
2023
GPU CEQA Evaluation GPU approvals in early 2024
January
2024
Reiterated original request of Mixed-Use
Medium I from Planning Commission
Mixed-Use Medium I
recommended to City Council
Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash
March 1, 2024
Based on our evaluation of current and projected economic and market conditions, a final designation of Mixed-Use Medium I will allow for the following anticipated outcomes:
• Provide the flexibility and certainty needed to accelerate the redevelopment of the Site with housing and community benefits that enhance the community around it.
• Allow for both lower density housing and opportunities for more dense housing, including Site planning sensitivity to existing single family homes to the west and north.
• Improve the site’s potential to support the City’s current Housing Element goals, including the possibility of ownership housing.
Ownership is fully committed to working with the City to develop housing at the Site as quickly as possible following the final adoption of the 2040 General Plan Update. Consequently, we respectfully request that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation to designate the Site Mixed-Use Medium I.
The Owner looks forward to continuing this dialogue with the City. In the meantime, please feel free to reach out should you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer E. Renk
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
SMRH:4892-3689-3610.1
cc: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
Zachary Dahl, Interim Director of Community Development
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
March 1, 2024
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Subject: Comments on San Mateo General Plan 2040
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and Members of the San Mateo City Council, The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the January 2024 San Mateo General Plan 2040 (GP), which is being considered for adoption in March 2024.
The GP has many very good features and, if fully implemented, would be a significant step forward to meeting the needs of San Mateo through 2040. Never the less, some final considerations and adjustments would further strengthen this important GP and fully meet the challenges through 2040.
SLU has two concerns that the GP could address further. They have been described in detail in the prior SLU letters (November 16, 2023, September 7, 2023, et al) but they are summarized once more, as you are now considering the final adoption of this GP.
The lack of housing, particularly affordable housing, is a continuing crisis and should be more strongly addressed , as well as the need for more urban greening and open space in the City for climate change and livability.
One important key to addressing the housing shortage is increasing housing density and supporting affordable housing, particularly near transit.
Greening of the City improves the quality of life for residents and has major environmental benefits as well. The greening of a City includes more open space, more park space, wider sidewalks to encourage safe pedestrian travel and more street trees, a safe slow network of Green Corridor/Green Streets1 for pedestrians and wider and safer bike lanes to encourage bike travel, among other benefits.
The Land Use Designations such as “High II” were developed to provide for higher density for more housing, including affordable housing, near transit, but it is no longer in the GP.
Allowing “High II”, along with limiting lot coverage, has the real potential to create more open space, parks, bike paths, pedestrian walkways and green streets in cunjunction with more housing. We believe
1 Master Planning for a Green Street Network, City of San Mateo, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Sustainable Land Use Committee
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
that, linked with zoning mechanisms limiting lot coverage, it would be advantageous to include the “High II” designation in order to free land for urban greening and open space in the heart of the City. 4 We ask that you consider this issue as you finalize the General Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Gita Dev
Chair, Sustainable Land Use Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc James Eggers, Chapter Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
4 A good example of this was demonstrated in the scenarios put forward as part of the “Re -imagine Hillsdale” presentation of March 8, 2023. The scenario that stayed with the current 5 -story limit produced a design with very little open space and with the area facing the neighborhood on Edison Street being high and dense. However, the scenario that allowed heights as much as 10 to 12 stories for buildings near the railroad and along El Camino Real (ECR) produced a design with a large amount of open space, par ks, and a much more compatible neighborhood design along Edison Street. The higher height allowed, adjacent to the railroad and ECR, made it possible to lower heights near the existing neighborhood on Edison Street and to provide much more park and open sp ace for the entire community to enjoy in a central location.
From: Keith Weber <
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 4:46 PM
To:
Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Jon Mays <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan 2040/March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting
Mayor Diaz-Nash and Members of the City Council:
The San Mateo Draft General Plan 2040 appears untethered to both current and future reality. So why are we fast-tracking its approval? The plan proposes up-zoning to accommodate a 50% population increase when the CA Department of Finance forecasts the state’s population will remain flat for the next 40 years. GP2040’s bright idea is to add 55,000 new residents to San Mateo, equal to the combined populations — and traffic — of both Burlingame and San Carlos.
Office vacancies are at record highs throughout the Bay Area and San Francisco’s office vacancy rate is over 30%. Yet, in GP2040’s world, San Mateo would add 3.2 million more square feet of office space, the equivalent of 2.2 new Salesforce towers.
In a “soft” real estate market where landlords routinely give prospective tenants several month’s free rent, GP2040’s notion is to ‘reimagine’ 22,000 new apartments, the equivalent of 220 additional 11-12 story high-rises.
San Mateo residents have been reliably consistent in their community vision and desire for reasonable, responsible growth. The recent passage of Measure Y was a definitive repudiation of the extreme growth envisioned in GP2040. Nevertheless, GP2040, rife with arrogance and vastly out of tune with the electorate, ignores common sense and forges ahead, tone-deaf to reality and those it is obligated to serve.
Insatiable in its overreach, GP2040 is out of step in every respect -- send it back, it’s way out of whack.
Keith Weber
San Mateo
4 March 2024
Mayor Lisa Diaz-Nash [email protected]
Deputy Mayor Rob Newsom [email protected]
Council Member Rich Hedges [email protected]
Council Member Amourence Lee [email protected]
Council Member Adam Loraine <[email protected] City Council <[email protected]
San Mateo City Hall
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: General Plan 2040 & Climate Plan Update EIR
Lack of Impacts Analysis on Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District
Dear Mayor Diaz-Nash, Deputy Mayor Newsom, Council Member Hedges, Council Member Lee, and Council Member Loraine:
The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District at 1007 East 5 th Avenue was listed on
the National Register of Historic Places on 26 December 2023 (National Register Reference No. 100009653). The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance under Criteria A and B in the areas of Ethnic Heritage: Asian (Japanese) and Social History: Women’s History for its association with Yoshiko Yamanouchi, a member of the pioneer Issei generation who was a leader in the San Mateo Japanese American community. Additionally, it meets the Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850-1970 National Register Multiple Property Submission Registration Requirements for Property Types Associated with Prominent Persons in Asian American History and for Property Types Associated with Community Serving Organizations.
The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District includes nine contributing resources:
the House, the Entrance Gateway and Fence, a Storage Room and Pumphouse, the Patio and Swimming Pool, the West Side Garden, a Japanese Style Hill-And-Pond Garden, the Katsura Building, the Katsura Walkway, and the Katsura Garden. Each of these resources contribute to the historical significance and integrity of the property. Please see the attached Sketch Plan from the National Register Nomination that identifies the location of each of these nine contributing resources.
Denise Bradley
Denise Bradley Cultural Landscapes
1388 Haight Street $ No. 79 $ San Francisco, CA $ 94117 (415) 751-2604 (phone) $ [email protected] (email) $ www.denisebradley.us Mayor Diaz-Nash, Deputy Mayor Newsom, Council Member Hedges, Council Member Lee, and Council Member Loraine
4 March 2024
The National Register Nomination noted that Yoshiko Yamanouchi would recognize the property as largely unchanged from the years she lived there, and the feeling within the property continues to be one of a private residence with features that express the Japanese heritage of the owner. The property is enclosed by a combination of privacy fencing and a sound wall. This enclosure enhances the feelings of calmness and serenity associated with the property’s Japanese style designed landscape and architecture and helps to mitigate visual and sound intrusions into the property.
The analysis for the General Plan 2040 & Climate Plan Update EIR did not evaluate direct and indirect impacts from the proposed increased development in the surrounding area on the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District. For example, the impacts from proposed increased traffic, the closer proximity of traffic along S. Humboldt Street, and the related truck vibrations and disposition of particulates were not evaluated.
Additionally, the proposed change in traffic along S. Humboldt Street has the potential to increase noise within the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District. As the primary author of the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District National Register Nomination, I am concerned that all of these factors have the potential for direct and indirect impacts on the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District. These should be evaluated as part of the EIR process.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Denise Bradley
Attachment: Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Sketch Plan
cc: Alex Khojikian, City Manager [email protected]
Christina Horrisberger, Assistant City Manager [email protected] Zachary Dahl, Interim Director of Community Development [email protected] Patrice Olds, City Clerk [email protected]
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB Control No. 1024-0018
Yamanouchi, Yoshiko, House San Mateo, California
Name of Property County and State
Sections 9-end page 62
Sketch Map
Google Earth 2020 map annotated by Denise Bradley
A
E. 4thAvenue
S. HumboldtStreet
E. 5thAvenue
B
F
C
G
D
I
H
E
130ft
KeytoSiteFeatures
A-House
B-Entrance Gateway and Fence
C-Storage Room and Pumphouse
D-Swimming Pool and Patio
E-West Side Garden
F-Japanese Style Hill-and-Pond Garden
G-Katsura Building
H-KatsuraWalkway
I-Katsura Garden
Perimeter Fences
SoundWall
Buildings and Structures
From: Nancy Cussary
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 4:09 PM
To:
City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Health and Safety
The Safety Element of the General Plan of the city of San Mateo “sets forth the City’s goals and policies which are intended to minimize risk to people and property associated with natural and man-made hazards” (City of San Mateo General Plan). The small cell towers installed throughout the city are a hazard and in direct opposition to the intended goals and policies. Radiation emissions from cell towers are continuous and accumulated exposure over time can be serious, including cancer, headaches, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular problems (David O.
Carpenter, https://www.recorder.com/my-turn-Carpenter-Ashfield-MUST-TUESDAY- 39137782)
It is unfathomable to me that two hundred towers have been installed next to homes without consideration of the health and safety of the people in the homes and of the people who walk and play by these towers daily. It clearly shows that there is a blatant disregard for the people and the General plan to minimize risk associated with this man- made hazard. Why?! To what avail?
Assuming that you care about the health and well-being of the people in San Mateo, I implore you to do the right thing and protect us and not the interest of Crown Castle.
Sincerely,
Nancy Cussary
Shoreview resident
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:27 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Cc: Keith Weber Shirley Melnicoe < ; Lisa Vande
Voorde <
Subject: Comments on General Plan and EIR
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and Council Members:
Please see my attached letter regarding:
• Including contributors to historic districts in the definition of historic resources in the General Plan, and
• Deficiencies in the EIR.
The protection of historic resources is in your hands tonight. Please follow through on your commitment to make historic preservation a priority in San Mateo before it is too late.
Once they are gone, it will change our city forever.
Thank you for your serious consideration.
Sincerely,
Laurie
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
March 4, 2024
City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and City Council Members:
The City is at risk of challenges to the EIR and subsequent litigation. There are at least four key flaws in the General Plan EIR:
1. Inadequate mitigation. The General Plan policies and CEQA are not adequate to mitigate the loss of histo
ric resources because both allow for the demolition of historic resources. Additional mitigation must be defined or it must be identified as a significant unavoidable effect and requires findings.
2. Analysis of removing contributors. Removing contributors to historic districts from the definition of historic resources in the 2040 General Plan was a policy decision made by staff, not explained to the City Council, and reduces the protection of historic resources. This impact was not analyzed in the EIR.
3. Analysis of effects to new historic district. The EIR impact analysis did not evaluate the direct and indirect effects on the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Hist oric District from increased traffic and deposition of particulates.
4. Inadequate cumulative impact analysis. The cumulative impact analysis is not adequate because it did not address the effects on historic resources described above.
General Plan
“Contributors to historic districts” was removed from the General Plan Policy CD 5.3 Historic Resources Definition in the 2040 General Plan. Please return contributors to historic districts to the definition of historic resources in the General Plan Policy CD 5.3 and revise the EIR. The General Plan is like the constitution; important definitions need to be defined in the policies, not in a glossary, which is not enforceable.
I reviewed historic preservation ordinances for Peninsula cities from San Francisco to San Jose. Two cities do not have ordinances and one is being updated. Every city with a historic preservation ordinance included contributors to historic distri cts as historic resources.
The 2030 General Plan Policy C/OS 8.1 includes contributors:
d. Historic building shall mean buildings which are on or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Downtown Historic District contributor buildings as designated in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, or as determined to be eligible through documentation contained in a historic resources report.
City Council
March 4, 2024
2 Please add contributors (added language underlined) to General Plan Policy CD 5.3:
Policy CD 5.3: Historic Resources Definition. Define historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts (including contributors to historic districts) that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible through documentation in a historic resources report.
Similarly, adding contributors to Action CD 5.12: Historic Resources Design Standards is not adequate to ensure protection of contributors to historic districts, as is in the current General Plan.
Action CD 5.12: Historic Resources Design Standards. Create objective design standards for alterations to historic resources and contributors to a designated historic district, and new development adjacent to historic resources within historic districts. Use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as the basis for these objective design standards to ensu
re projects have a contextual relationship with land uses and patterns; spatial organization; visual relationships; cultural and historic values; and the height, massing, design, and materials of historic resources.
2030 General Plan Policy C/OS 8.2 defines historic districts as concentrations of buildings. The 204 0 General Plan changes the definition to “concentrations of historic resources.” This seemingly minor change actually raises the bar for defining a district to include “historic resources,” which by definition are individually eligible for listing on the State or National Register. The Registers do not require buildings to be individ
ually eligible for listing to qualify as a historic district. 2030 C/OS 8.2: Historic Districts. Consider the protection of concentrations of buildings which convey the flavor of local historical periods or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, after additional study.
2040 Policy CD 5.12: Historic Preservation. Actively identify and preserve historic resources and concentrations of historic resources buildings which convey the flavor of local historical periods, are culturally significant, or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, as feasible, when they meet national, State, or local criteria. Historic resources, includeing individual properties, districts, and sites to that maintain San Mateo’s sense of place and special identity, and to enrich our understanding of the city’s history and continuity with the past.
San Mateo Growth
The majority of voters have made it clear in multiple elections that we don’t want intense urbanization with high rises in San Mateo. San Mateo can meet its RNHA requirements through 2031, without repealing Measure Y, and especially in light of the decling population. Measure Y passed only 3 years ago and sunsets in 2030. It is not clear why the City needs to spend the money on consultants and a ballot initiative in 2024.
Please make these changes to implement your commitment to making historic preservation a priority.
Thank you.
City Council
March 4, 2024
3 Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
President
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
From: Maxine Terner
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:27 PM
To:
Lisa Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Jon Mays <[email protected]>
Subject: 2040 General Plan
March 3, 2024
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
San Mateans for Responsive Government (SMRG), as the proponents of Measure Y, the resident-led height and density standards measure, cannot support the proposed 2040 San Mateo General Plan as presented. SMRG respectfully requests that you do not approve it at this time. It overrides Measure Y and will displace many small businesses and service providers. We will actively work to oppose it if it goes on the 2024 ballot because it ignores the will of San Mateo voters.
No valid, public reason has been given for rushing a vote to overturn Measure Y in 2024, instead of keeping it in the General Plan until its legal expiration date of 2030.
1. There is no legal rush for higher heights and densities to meet state housing requirements. Development under Measure Y can meet the City’s cycle 6 Housing Element and state RHNA requirements, valid until 2031. The next housing cycle is likely to have reduced requirements since the State Department of Finance has released new population projections showing CA growth is flat through 2060.
2. There is no economic rush for higher heights and densities. Many already approved projects have asked for extensions and are not being constructed. There are high rates of office and retail vacancies throughout the Peninsula and Bay Area.
3. Measure Y expires in 2030 and is currently part of the existing 2030 General Plan. In 2031 a majority of the City Council can revise the 2040 General Plan height and density limits without a vote to comply with the next Housing Element cycle. This is how General Plan changes were always made prior to the Measures H, P and Y voter initiatives.
4. Measure Y’s zoning limits (55 foot height and 50 units per acre density) are but a small percentage of construction costs. Buildings exceeding 5-7 stories (50’-70’) are substantially more expensive to construct. The increased cost of land (directly related to increasing heights and densities) and the high cost of construction (labor, materials, financing, insurance) make construction of new buildings unaffordable, not Measure Y. Construction of new housing costs almost $1M per unit - increased zoning and taxpayer subsidies cannot build enough affordable housing to make a significant difference with these extreme development costs.
5. The General Plan study areas do not protect key community serving land uses that residents rely on, such as grocery stores, car repair, independent restaurants, small businesses and service providers. Most existing small businesses along El Camino Real and surrounding
Downtown will be displaced by allowing maximum development. The cost of new construction significantly raises rents.
6. The Council and the residents need to review a fiscal analysis PRIOR to General Plan adoption. The DEIR makes clear that the large increase in population and structures will require additional funding for services. There is no data about how much revenue will be lost or gained by the Project land use changes. How much sales tax revenue will be lost by upzoning downtown and El Camino Real small businesses for housing or office?
7. The DEIR does not provide the public nor decision-makers with the data they need to approve the Project. There is no information about how water will be provided, traffic impacts reduced, the jobs/housing balance maintained, and displacement of affordable housing and small businesses avoided. Voters and the Council deserve to know the truth BEFORE approving the General Plan.
The majority of San Mateans have consistently supported the construction of more housing, particularly affordable housing, continued job growth and economic development. But they don’t believe it is necessary, nor are they willing, to sacrifice their homes, neighborhoods, quality of life, or character of their historic downtown in the process.
Thank you,
Michael Weinhauer, Spokesperson
San Mateans for Responsive Government
From: Lisa Vande Voorde
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:54 PM
To:
City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment Regarding General Plan 2040 for 3/4/24 Meeting
Honorable Mayor Diaz-Nash and City Council Members,
I'm writing to provide my feedback about the General Plan 2040 under consideration tonight.
I'm very concerned about the Historic Resources Element, specifically about the deletion of the word "contributors" to Policy CD 5.3: Historic Resources Definition.
This important word was removed by City Staff from the
draft General Plan without approval of the City
Council. This has been pointed out to City Staff on
numerous occasions, and the answer is always "it's in the glossary". Being in the glossary is not enough! The
General Plan is like the Constitution, and City ordinances and guidelines are the implementation. And if the word is not in a provision of the Constitution, it doesn't exist! Not having the word "contributors" could have an adverse
impact on historic properties that comprise an historic district, including our Downtown Historic District, because historic districts are made up of listed, determined to be eligible, AND contributors.
Please update Policy CD 5.3 to include the underlined
words below:
Policy CD 5.3: Historic Resources Definition. Define
historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts (including contributors to historic districts) that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California
Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible
through documentation in a historic resources report.
Other cities include the word "contributors" in their historic resources definition, and San Mateo did as well in the
current General Plan. It's time that staff rectify this oversight and put that word BACK into the General Plan
BEFORE it is approved by the City Council.
Words have meaning. Words have impact. Our historic
resources ARE valuable. And one word can make a
difference to keeping them for generations to come. Thank you.
Lisa Vande Voorde
San Mateo Resident
March 4, 2024
Dear Mayor Diaz and Members of the City Council,
These are our comments on Final EIR 2040 General Plan.
1. Street classifications in the Circulation Element - In the Circulation Element a classification for Minor Collector is not included by appears to be lumped in with Major Collector. Both a Minor Collector and Major Collector have the same number of trips, 1100 to 2600 per day. However, a Major Collector has trips over a distance greater than 3/4 of a mile, while a Minor Collector has trips of a distance less than 3/4 of a mile. There are streets that fit this Minor Collector classification in San Mateo. The NTMP needs to add Minor and Major Collectors, Minor Arterials and Emergency Routes for traffic calming. We do not want Truck Routes in the Central Neighborhood that will bring more pollution impacts for residents.
2. Air quality and construction impacts - There will be a significant number of construction trucks passing through 3rd, 4th, and 5th Avenues because of inadequate signage and the current ‘NO TRUCK’ sign at 5th and Delaware is hidden from view.
These are residential streets and the many trucks that haul toxic soils to waste sites need to be directed away from our homes. There could be up to 100 trucks a day passing through. We need more mitigation measures to reduce the traffic and air pollution impacts for our residents due to cut-through trucks and construction parking. a. A San Mateo City contact person should be identified who will monitor air pollution, noise and construction impacts. Today residents need to call a Project Manager for each project in order to discuss these construction impacts such as with the new Kiku Crossing Garage and Housing Project. Will the construction businesses cover window washing for residents with all the construction dust impacts? Our residents are unable to control the large speeding trucks from construction sites and their dust impacts. The EIR is deficient in the analysis of more construction protections for the surrounding residents is needed.
b. Construction workers continue to park on residential streets along South Delaware and 7th Avenue. The on-site parking for construction workers is insufficient and workers park their personal vehicles along residential streets. This is a significant impact on the neighborhood and construction worker parking is underestimated in the Conditions of Approval when projects get approved at the Planning Commission. c. New Construction Projects on the west side of the railroad should be required to utilize state highways, El Camino Real, Interstate 92 to Interstate 101 in order to reduce the pollution impacts to Priority Equity Neighborhoods. The mitigation measures in the project’s Conditions of Approvals further impact the Equity Priority Neighborhoods.
1 3. Policy LU3.10 - Service Commercial/ Light Manufacturing - The EIR fails to recognize the current and future diesel truck traffic impacts from Service Commercial and Light Manufacturing zoning on South Amphlett from 5th Avenue to Folkstone to residential streets. This Service Commercial / Light Manufacturing land-use is incompatible with Central and Sunnybrae. The 2040 General Plan EIR does not analyze these environmental impacts associated this land-use change and the difficulty of access from 101. These truck impacts have been experienced by residents over the last 50 years and this land-use change in 2040 General Plan will increase these adverse impacts. The EIR does not provide any alternatives to Service Commercial to reduce the significant impacts to the neighborhood, but instead adds Light Manufacturing which will bring more adverse impacts to our neighborhood that have not been addressed. The EIR went as far as discouraging uses that are allowed elsewhere in the city from locating in Service Commercial and Light Industrial areas.
Amphlett and the surrounding neighborhoods cannot improve with the addition of Service Commercial and Light Industrial zoning.
a. The health risks and quality of life impacts from more diesel trucks servicing these businesses have not been measured. What mitigation will be provided to reduce the air pollution and cancer risks associated with new industrial businesses and more diesel trucks with Light Manufacturing added to Service Commercial? How will noise and vibration issues be mitigated from trucks with trailers carrying landscaping and heavy construction equipment?
b. The on-site parking requirements is inadequate for these car and boat repair businesses, construction and food preparation businesses in the Service Commercial zoning. In addition, the EIR does not recognize employee parking overflow issues impacting South Idaho Street residents. The South Amphlett area is beyond the 1/2 mile distance from the Transit Center so workers on South Amphlett will continue to drive to work and park in the residential neighborhood. These increased commercial parking impacts that will increase with increased Light Manufacturing should be identified in the EIR and mitigation measures should be defined in the EIR so the neighborhood is not impacted.
c. Service Commercial land-use generates Code Enforcement issues such as on-going dumping and bad seafood odors from food processing businesses. The EIR does not identify these existing issues, the likely increase of these impacts, and does not adequately address how to mitigate these impacts associated along South Amphlett with this zoning classification.
e. The trucks servicing Service Commercial businesses strike our street trees breaking tree branches on 5th Avenue, South Humboldt Street, 4th Avenue, and South Idaho Street. These trucks have damaged side mirrors on vehicles and generate 2 heavy diesel soot on properties. Our residential streets are not designed for large trucks over 5 tons. These significant impacts will increase and require mitigation f. This EIR did not provide mitigation for a taller sound wall along South Amphlett businesses with plantings and street trees to absorb the freeway carbons to make the environment healthier and less toxic for residents. New housing will be built at the former Fish Market, the Concar Passages, and at 1650 - 1730 South Amphlett along 101 and 92. New housing developments can be built with specialized windows for noise reduction and air filtration systems for health protections. Why is South Amphlett from 5th Avenue to Folkstone excluded from R2 housing options with the same specialized building options? Adaptive re-use of warehouse businesses to non- industrial businesses will help transition this area to reduce the adverse impacts of toxic diesel trucks fumes with 5 ton load limits to reduce noise impacts. South Amphlett needs further analysis and mitigation to identify and reduce the significant environmental impacts in the 2040 General Plan EIR.
4. Historic Resources - The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House is listed as a state and federal historic district on the National Register of Historic Places. It is also listed on the Asian American and Pan Pacific site. The 2040 General Plan EIR does not analyze the increased traffic and truck traffic impacts from all new construction proposed combined with the impacts from the trucks from the Service Commercial businesses along South Amphlett. Recently, seven residential parking were removed on the west side of South Humboldt, and more parking was removed next to the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House to accommodate more vehicular traffic in the right turn lane to 101 South and to install the new Humboldt Street Bike Lane between 4th and 5th Avenue.
Over the years, the interior bamboo Katsura fences along Humboldt Street have been significantly damaged by truck vibrations and diesel soot. These interior Katsura fences along South Humboldt Street were rebuilt to match the original fence design from Japan. Increased traffic and pollutant deposition caused by the General Plan changes will result in additional significant effects on this historic resource. Street classifications on 5th Avenue, S. Humboldt Street, and 9th Avenue are now Minor Arterials in the 2040 General Plan and need to be reclassified to non-arterials to reduce traffic and truck impacts. Mitigation with traffic calming should be provided to reduce these effects. The sound wall currently on South Humboldt Street should be extended with more plantings to allow protection of the 9 contributing resources comprising the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House which includes 3 buildings, 3 sites and 3 structures.
Best,
Francie Souza David Light Michael Weinhauer
Maurine Killough Laurie Watanuki
3