Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, May 20, 2024 (part 7 of 9)

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

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

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

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1).

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

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

As our prior letter explained, the parcels that make up the Bridgepointe Shopping Center have existing uses, with long-term leases and likely rights to the parking lot, that preclude residential development during the period covered by the next Housing Element. While the City has now dropped the ice rink parcel, which had been unoccupied but is now back in operation as 1588 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 3 ends

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

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

Particularly given the existing uses, and the publicly known information about existing long-term leases with major national retailers that preclude building housing within the next eight years, the City cannot credibly claim that it is “likely” that these existing uses will 2 The parking lot is also larger than 10 acres, and so is subject to the additional analysis of Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) (“A site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site can be developed as lower income housing.”). No site of this size was developed for 147 units of lower (very low, low) income housing; the closest comparable size, Station Park Green, was a market rate project with only 60 units of lower income housing in a project of 599 units. 1589 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 4 ends

discontinue. While the City explains that it has had “a variety of discussions with the shopping center’s ownership representatives who expressed interest in mixed-use redevelopment,” (December 2022 draft at H-36), it fails to address when redevelopment might occur. The City asserts that the General Plan Update is exploring policies to “guide redevelopment of the shopping center,” and refers to a “draft land use plan designat[ing] Bridgepoint as Mixed-Use High, which could allow up to 200 units per acre.” Id. But given that City voters have twice approved a cap of 50 units per acre (Measure P, extended to 2030 by Measure Y), the City’s optimism provides no realistic assurance that affordable housing will be built here before Measure Y, and the 2023-2031 draft Housing Element, expire. Finally, the City’s broad reference at page H-C-14 to a “market trend” of developers that “bought out long term businesses to allow redevelopment into housing” refers only to “underutilized” properties; the Bridgepointe Center is not underutilized. The City’s argument does not meet the substantial evidence standard for the likelihood of development of this specific site, with its specific constraints and existing uses, during the relevant planning period.

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

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

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

With the owner just having spent $240+ million on the Hillsdale North project on 12.5 acres of APN 039-490-170, including a new food court on the portion spanning 31st Avenue to connect to the even larger portion of the mall that includes Macy’s and Nordstrom, the City Council cannot credibly make findings that all existing uses of that parcel will likely discontinue in the next eight years. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2). Similarly, the substantial improvements and 1590 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

The City does not include a plan to rezone the site to make residential use a permitted use, as required by Government Code sections 65583.2(a)(4) and 65583(c). The owner of the property has indicated an interest in building housing if the site is rezoned; nothing suggests that the owner has an interest in going through an expensive two year gauntlet to apply for discretionary 3 Parcel 039-490-170 is also subject to the same problem as the Bridgepointe parking lot site: the City lacks any evidence that a site this large can be developed for 485 units of affordable housing. Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(B). The City has never seen a development include that much affordable housing; none of its cited examples come anywhere close. Under the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, even if all 28.91 acres of the parcel were developed and resulted in 1,199 units, only 15% of them would be required to be affordable for lower income households: 179 units, not 485. Meanwhile, the City’s citation to projects that were predominantly market-rate, with only limited numbers of lower income units, fails to meet the statutory requirement.
1591 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

Preliminary conversations with the owner to convert to residential have occurred.”5 Nothing has 4 In 2008, the 24 Hour Fitness substantially modified the building it occupies when it moved into a space formerly occupied by Albertson’s. It added locker rooms, a swimming pool, basketball courts, showers, and other tenant improvements at a cost exceeding $2.2 million. BD2007-230493; BD-2007-230029; BD-2008-230692. 5 In order to rely on conversations purporting to express intent, the public needs to know much more. Who had the conversation cited by the City, and with whom did they have it? Has 1592 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 7 ends

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

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2).

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

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

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

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

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

Page 8 ends

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

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

7. Site AN (4100 and 4142 El Camino Real)
(APN 042-242-170 and -080)
On the draft Housing Element site inventory, consolidated Site AN consists of a Cityowned vacant site and a neighboring parcel. In a recent staff report for the November 7, 2022 meeting, the chart responding to HCD comments indicated that the City had two City-owned sites: the “Talbot’s” site (APN 034-179-050 and -060), and APN 042-242-170, which it referred five are willing or interested in a joint project, though it lists each of them as having expressed interest in a specific plan. Without evidence of what makes consolidation likely, the smaller sites are deemed insufficient to accommodate the need for lower income housing. See Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(A).
7 If Mollie Stone’s closed, and no grocery store was rebuilt in its place, it would create the unlikely situation where an affluent, urban community became a “food desert.” The United States Department of Agriculture has defined a “food desert” as an area where at least 500 people, or 33% of the tract population, reside more than one mile from a full-service supermarket. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45014/30940_err140.pdf. 1594 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 9 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site as follows:
(1) . . . If the city or county does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.
(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the realistic 1595 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 10 ends

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

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

1. Mixed Use/Non-Residential Zoning.

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

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

Unfortunately, the City does not consistently apply the results of this analysis. Instead of applying the mixed-use density number uniformly, it picks and chooses which sites the City “assume[s]” will be mixed-use, and then ignores the prospect that others may also have mixeduse or no residential use at all. The following sites are zoned for non-residential uses per the site inventory with a reported maximum density of 50, but the City nonetheless lists them at densities higher than what it claims is the “conservative” 30-35 du/ac:
8 Note that here the City counts projects, instead of evaluating by acreage. Larger sites are more likely to be developed for commercial or office uses. Table 5 shows that while 20 of 25 sites contained at least some residential component, only 19.99 of the 80.88 acres (75%) did. A realistic calculation of the likelihood of residential development should apply the proportion developed by acreage before multiplying it times the allowable units per acre, rather than using the percentage of sites with entirely non-residential uses. 1596 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 11 ends

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

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

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

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

E2 = Executive Offices
C1 = Neighborhood Commercial
C3 = Regional/Community Commercial
TOD = Transit Oriented Development (mixed use)
/R = Residential Overlay (residential as permitted, rather than special, use) 1597 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 12 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Site Zoning Capacity per
Inventory
Capacity at 80% of
maximum zoning
(before accounting
for site-specific
factors)
1885 S. Norfolk St.
(Fish Market)
C1-1
Neighborhood
Comm’l
105
[30 du/ac;
zoning max is 35]
98 AB: 210 S. San
Mateo
CBD “Central
Business Dist.”
35 [50.7 du/ac;
zoning max is 30]
17 AE: The Great
Entertainer
R3/C2-1
Regional
Comm’l/Medium
Density
44 [29.72 du/ac;
zoning max is 35]
41 1598 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 13 ends

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

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

Comm’l
230
[75.4 du/ac]
92-107
1495 El Camino E2-1/R4
Executive
Office/High
35 20-24
10 At 260 units on 3.5 acres (75 du/ac), the owner’s proposal would appear to exceed Measure Y, and so is indeed unrealistic, at least for purposes of calculating a site inventory capacity. This also assumes that all 3.5 acres is developable, despite Bay Conservation District jurisdiction over this shoreline parcel.
1599 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 14 ends

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

2. Residential Zoning.

For the limited number of sites on the inventory that are zoned residential without the potential for non-residential uses, the City’s analysis is also flawed. As discussed in the Housing Action Coalition’s prior comment letter, the draft “cherry-picks” data to argue that capacities should be calculated based on the maximum permitted under the City’s zoning laws. At pages H-30 through H-31, and in table 4, the City separates prior residential developments into two categories: “in-fill” and “outliers.” The so-called “outliers” represent over 20% of the units, and 46% of the residentially zoned land: it is unreasonable to disregard them when computing the 11 Note that this pre-application appears to have been submitted in 2017, suggesting that it might be a particularly poor basis for an estimate made in 2023. 12 Note: Only two of the six parcels described at page H-C-33 (narrative description of the “Bespoke” project) are listed on the site inventory.
1600 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 15 ends

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

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

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

3. Site-Specific Adjustments.

State housing law requires that site-specific conditions also be taken into account. In the narrative discussion of specific sites in draft Appendix C at pp. H-C-35 through H-C-49, the City identifies site-specific issues that should further reduce the realistic, demonstrated capacity. At the Fish Market and 1900 S. Norfolk sites, for example, there are required setbacks from Borel Creek and Seal Slough. 1900 S. Norfolk is also next to a freeway interchange, and so has restrictions on height relating to the height of the freeway railing; the site also has a long tail that winds around a PG&E substation, none of which could be developed and which should therefore be ignored in calculating realistic capacity. See December 2022 Draft Appendix C at p. H-C-39.

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

Similarly, given that the $240+ million construction of Hillsdale North Block precludes use of the 12.5 acres there, and that the pedestrian bridge shows an intention to continue use of significant portions of the main mall building, the City needs to analyze which portions of the 1601 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 16 ends

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

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

C. Additional Comments On Zoning Status.

As noted above, a number of sites included in the City’s inventory are zoned commercial or office without a residential overlay. We request that San Mateo rezone these sites to add a residential overlay, so that developers are assured that residential uses will be permitted, rather than hope the desired inclusion of residential uses will be permitted on a site-by-site basis as part of project-specific approvals. Uncertainty regarding the ultimate success of a rezoning effort discourages residential development in the City. December 2022 Draft at Appendix B, p. H-B26. The entire point of the housing inventory is to determine if there are sufficient sites that are either (1) vacant and zoned residential, (2) vacant and zoned for nonresidential use “that allows residential development,” (3) residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density, or (4) “sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element contains a program to rezone the site, as necessary, to permit residential use.” Government Code § 65583.2(a)(1)-(4). The sites zoned for commercial or office use, without a residential overlay, do not fall within section 65583.2(a)(3), because they are not zoned residential. They should therefore be included in a program to rezone to affirmatively permit residential use. Having the City retain discretion to refuse or condition residential development on these properties does not make them available as required by state housing law.13 This issue would appear to apply to the following sites14:
13 We note, for example, that the Waters Park Road project, zoned E1, sought a rezoning because it was not zoned residential, as part of its attempt to seek permission to redevelop the site. Sites listed on the inventory should not have to go through this step. 14 Under San Mateo Zoning Code section 27.44.020, permitted uses in the E1 district include “Residential units, only on parcels designated with a residential overlay district classification . . .” Id. § 27.44.020(g). For parcels “without a residential overlay district classification,” residential units are permitted only “subject to approval of a special use permit.” Id. § 27.44.030(g). The same rules apply to E2. See id. §§ 27.48.020(b) and 27.48.030. The same rules apply to the C1 and C2 districts, absent a residential overlay. Id. § 27.30.010(a) 1602 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 17 ends

Sites Where Residential Units Are Not A Permitted Use:

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

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

Section 65583.2(h) provides that at least 50% of the need for very-low and low-income housing must be accommodated on sites designated for residential use where non-residential uses are not permitted. San Mateo’s site inventory does not appear to satisfy this rule, because at least 50% of the need is proposed to be met using sites that allow exclusively commercial uses. (For (permitting “residential units only on parcels designated with a residential overlay” for C1 district); § 27.32.010(n) (same for C2); 27.30.020 (requiring special use permit for “residential units on parcels without a residential overlay district classification” in C1); § 27.32.020(g) (same for C2). It does not appear that residential uses are permitted in the C3 district at all; consistent with the intention “to create and maintain major commercial centers accommodating a broad range of office, retail, and service uses of community-wide or regional significance,” residential uses are not listed as a permitted use in § 27.34.010, though they arguably could be permitted as a special use because they are special uses permitted in C1 and C2. Id. § 27.34.020(a). 1603 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 18 ends

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

Meanwhile, the City has also overestimated the capacity of the sites listed on the inventory. Correctly calculating the realistic capacity – even by using the high end of the City’s range of 30-35 units for mixed zoning sites with a maximum of 50, and 80% of the zoned capacity for sites zoned for 30 or 35 units/acre – reduces the City’s claimed buffer for all categories, and leads to a shortfall for the “very low” and “moderate” categories, even if all sites satisfied section 65583.2(g)(2). Further site-specific analysis leads to an even greater gap. The City should address these shortfalls by planning to rezone more sites. The City should also rezone the inventory sites in districts where residential is not a permitted use without a special use permit; the City itself recognizes that this is a substantial constraint on housing production, and the current zoning prevents the sites from falling into any of the categories of section 65583.2(a)(1)-(4) without rezoning under section 65583(c). 1604 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 19 ends

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

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas B. Mayhew
Charles J. Higley
36615\15225917.1
1605 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 3:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter comment letter re: the San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element – Updated Draft
Attachments: Comments on Updated Draft San Mateo Housing Element January 9, 2023 .pdf

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221
From: Barbara Kelsey
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Gita Dev Gladwyn d'Souza Ken A red
James Eggers Jennifer Hetterly Mike Ferreira
Subject: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter comment letter re: the San Mateo 2023‐2031 Housing Element – Updated Draft
January 9, 2023
1606 of 2271
2 San Mateo City Council
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council and Planning Commission, The Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the Updated Draft San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element.

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

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

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

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

Barbara Kelsey
she/her/hers
Chapter Coordinator
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
Palo Alto, CA 94303
1607 of 2271
3 1608 of 2271

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
January 9, 2023
San Mateo City Council
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Via Email to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element – Updated Draft Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council and Planning Commission, The Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the Updated Draft San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element.

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

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

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

The HE rightly points out that the housing problem is a regional one and that each city needs to meet or exceed its goal if the housing crisis, particularly for affordable housing, is to be solved. The lack of affordable housing on the Peninsula is a significant contributor to environmental degradation as workers 1 Concar Passage is the largest housing project approved in recent years and required major time and effort for approval. Developing a project like this each year, will therefore require a major effort above the current processes.
2 The 2015-2022 RHNA was 3,164 units and with only one year left it has 2,573 units completed. This current RHNA number is less than half the new RHNA number; thus, demonstrating the steep challenge of meeting the new RHNA number of 7,015.
1609 of 2271
must commute long distances by car, emitting greenhouse gases (GHG) as well as other pollutants. It also leads to sprawl, as more development is done in areas that were open space or agricultural land.

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

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

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

The affordable housing should be more strongly focused on low, very low and extremely lowincome housing, as these are where the largest needs are and where the lack of inventory is the largest. The very poor jobs/housing fit3in the Peninsula can best be addressed with a focus on more affordable housing. As noted in the HE draft4, the lack of affordable housing was one of the major concerns expressed by the public.

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

Funding that can be used to support affordable housing is a fundamental need and more must be done to obtain funding. Affordable housing has to be subsidized and a lack of funding will limit the ability to build the needed affordable housing, particularly for low and very low-income units. This could include establishing or increasing: Vacancy Tax, Commercial Linkage Fees, and Transfer Tax. It is particularly important that funding focus on repairing the legacy of discrimination in housing. The following policies and programs should be strengthened to accomplish this goal:
a. H 1.2 - Utilize Public Funding for Low/Moderate Income Housing b. H 1.3 - Increase Affordable Housing Production
c. H 1.18 - Permitting and Development Fee Schedule Review (Increase where necessary) d. H 3.3 – Evaluate Housing Revenue Sources (Increase)
3 Jobs/Housing Fit: Jobs/housing fit means that the majority of homes within the city are affordable to the majority of employees who work in the city, and conversely, the jobs in the city pay enough to cover the cost of housing in the city. Without an adequate jobs/housing fit, businesses find it difficult to hire and retain lower-income employees.
4 Page H-53
1610 of 2271
e. H 5.1.1 - Adjust the City's Below Market Rate (inclusionary) program to provide larger density bonuses, and/or increased city support in exchange for affordable units that address the needs of residents with unusually high housing needs f. H 5.1.2 - Participate in a regional down payment assistance program with affirmative marketing to households with disproportionately high housing needs including persons with disabilities, single parents, and Hispanic households g. H 5.1.3 - Support the design of a regional forgivable loan program for homeowners to construct an ADU that is held affordable for extremely low-income households for 15 years

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

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

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

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

Even more priority should be placed on these efforts. The following policies and programs should be strengthened to accomplish this need:
a. H 1.4 - Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units Development with streamlined approvals, development subsidies, or low or zero interest loans for construction cost 5 15-minute neighborhoods are being created in many cities especially post-COVID. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/9/6/7-rules-for-creating-15-minute-neighborhoods 6 Embraced by Mayors around the world, Portland and several small US cities have embraced the concept to rebuild their economizes while crating healthier cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city 1611 of 2271
b. H1.11 Implement the Zoning Code to allow duplexes and lot splits on appropriate single- family sites consistent with SB 9.
c. H1.13- Encourage Development of Missing Middle Housing within a half mile of transit. d. Include overlay zoning, in the General Plan, for “15-minute Neighborhoods” allowing insertion of small new neighborhood retail nodes with Green Streets network 7to create walkable, bikeable neighborhoods, with the daily amenities, to reduce auto trips and create healthier walkable neighborhoods, convenient for all ages including kids and seniors.

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

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

James Eggers
Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Gladwyn d’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter 7 How to insert a Green Street network into an existing City. Sierra Club Loma Prieta https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce-authors/u4142/Green%20Streets%20Presentation%20-%201- 20-21%20DC.pdf
8 Ocean Protection Council- Sea Level Rise Guidance: The rate at which sea levels will rise can help inform the planning and implementation timelines of state and local adaptation efforts. Understanding the speed at which sea level is rising can provide context for planning decisions and establish thresholds for action… https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf 1612 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Melania Maldonado
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 9:30 PM
To: Housing
Subject: Housing element
City Council,
I strongly disagree with the housing approvals you are trying to pass. The city of San Mateo does not build any “affordable” housing for anyone, and nobody in our already over crowded neighborhoods want any more apartment buildings or multi unit housing in our single family neighborhoods. If we wanted to live like that, we would live in San Francisco or other big cities. We like our single family homes, and certainly CANNOT handle any more traffic on our already crowded streets. You keep coming up with all these stupid ideas for building more without any room for parking or play areas for our children. These new so called communities you are approving have inadequate parking space for these people which spill out to our neighborhoods, and then we have no parking. You keep destroying our communities, and have totally ruined our small downtown and our small businesses. So thank you city council, I hope the rest of you “older” council members get voted out next time!
Melania Penirian
Sent from my iPhone
1613 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 1:25 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element Update Comments
Hi Nicky,
Here is an email sent to the commissioners to add to your public comments.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

Laurie Watanuki
1614 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 2:47 PM
To: Housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element Comments
Last comment. Nicky I will add to the public comments.

Mary
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Francie Souza
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 2:27 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element Comments
I am a resident of Central San Mateo and am giving my feedback regarding the Housing Plan. 1) My first question is if we have a high number of housing units we need to develop to meet state mandates, why are most of the new projects in downtown primarily office space (other than Kiku Crossing)? 2) PLEASE do not take away the single family and duplex/quadplex homes along north side of 5th Avenue, and south side of 4th Avenue between Amphlett & Delaware. 5th Avenue is a beautiful tree‐lined street with pre‐war homes/duplexes/quads and is one of the prime reasons we moved into the area. They are also more affordable to those entering the housing market and are close to amenities of downtown. DO NOT raise the height limit beyond what Measure Y was voted on. There needs to be consideration of a transition between the large complexes, such as the one proposed for S Delaware/5th/Claremont/4th, and the less dense housing further down 5th and Delaware. 3) Please consider other areas to develop for housing which are currently a mix of industrial uses ‐ such as parts of Amphlett Blvd and El Camino
4) I am hopeful if new housing has to take over existing housing, such as along West side of Delaware between 5th & 9th and as mentioned above the north side of 5th Avenue, low density, owner occupied townhomes, not high‐rises and large complexes which destroy the nature of the neighborhood community. Alternative 3 or Residential Low is preferred if current housing does need displacement in those areas.

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

Frances Souza
1615 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Martin McTaggart; Patrice Olds; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir Subject: RE: Adopt Housing Element
Another comment passing on to Eloiza and Nicky.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:57 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Adopt Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michelle Byron
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 6:44 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Adopt Housing Element
Please adopt the Housing Element as presented.

Thank you,
Michelle Byron, San Mateo resident
1616 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Martin McTaggart; Christina Horrisberger; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir Subject: RE: Housing
Passing comments on to Eloiza and Nicky.

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:56 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Mary Way <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:07 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing
To: San Mateo City Council
I Support/Request the City Council to ACCEPT the current Housing Element as presented by City staff on January 24 ‐ we have done enough to meet the requirements and our city is stretching our infrastructure.

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

San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone
1617 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:34 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Janet Cook
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:30 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
I would like you to vote for the Housing Element before the Council. I would like an investigation into possible bribery with the Planning Commission who went behind our backs to side with developers who care nothing about the will of the voters. As a 45 year citizen of San Mateo, I do not want to loose our town to huge overpopulation.

Thank you,
Janet Cook
San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone
1618 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:46 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting on January 24th. The voters of San Mateo have repeatedly made it clear that they want managed growth, not urban sprawl.

This is evidenced by the failure of Measure R.

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

Ultimately allowing a "Builder's Remedy" to not only take away local land use control and put our neighborhoods at risk, resulting in increased traffic congestion and strain on already stretched water and sewer infrastructure in our city.
1619 of 2271
2 I urge you to approve the Housing Element as presented and protect our neighborhoods, infrastructure, and quality of life in San Mateo.

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

Sincerely,
Doug D’Anna
1620 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:56 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Manira Sandhir; Zachary Dahl; Christina Horrisberger Subject: FW: Housing element
Forwarding to Eloiza and Nicky.

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:49 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Housing element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Don Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:23 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing element
As a long time resident & homeowner I urge the City Council to Adopt the Housing element as it has been presented.

Don Robertson
1621 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Support for City Council APPROVAL of the current Housing Element From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:14 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Support for City Council APPROVAL of the current Housing Element Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Aimee WCrollerskate
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:12 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for City Council APPROVAL of the current Housing Element As a constituent of San Mateo, I am dismayed and concerned by the continued and inappropriate actions by members of the Planning Commission to undermine San Mateo voters and the approved Measure Y with backroom activities and thinly‐veiled attempts to hand the reins of our city over to profit‐minded developers.

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

But it cannot subvert the will of the voters.

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

I ask that the City Council uphold the will of the voters/Measure Y and ACCEPT the current Housing Element as presented by City staff on January 24th.
‐‐
Regards,
Aimee Stevland
Resident
1622 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023 Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Jeff Lowenstein
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:46 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023 Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff present it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

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

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

Thank You,
1623 of 2271
2 Jeff
Jeff Lowenstein
1624 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:02 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:02 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Jim Schwandt
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 3:14 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic download of this picture
from the Internet.

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

It meets the state's mandate and works within Measure Y which voters passed. How can the citizens of a
community vote for a plan then have those elected go against the citizens? Sounds like a lawsuit to me.

Is it legal for just a few to overturn the preference of the people? Please support the current and recently accepted Housing Element. 1625 of 2271
2 ‐‐
Jim Schwandt
San Mateo, CA
Since 1976
1626 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents - housing element approval From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents ‐ housing element approval Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 6:19 PM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Laurie Strange <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Drew Corbett <[email protected]>; City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Critical to SM Residents ‐ housing element approval Dear San Mateo City Council,
Re: Lisa Taner’s Submitted Letter (below)
I have been alerted and apprised by my Neighborhood Association on the potential issue of NOT acting to approve the General Plans which is very concerning and in my assessment would be a dereliction of duty ‐ I raise my voice in support or performing your function as our representatives and support for approval of the City of San Mateo’s general planning process. I along with many others in our community are concerned that some of our representatives may have conflicts of interest on this topic and are allowing their recusal to drive their end goal ‐ please consider this topic when voting and know that we seek sunlight across the entire decision making process.

Thank you for your attention in this matter and are confident that you will act in the best interest of the residents. 1627 of 2271
2 Kind regards,
Robert Sellers
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

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

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

Thank you,
Lisa Taner
1628 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Current Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Current Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Approve Current Housing Element
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January 31st. There is zero reason for that to happen. Since we've 1629 of 2271
2 forged a practical and operable Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the Council will accept this updated draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

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

Thank you,
Lisa Taner
1630 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: ACCEPT current Housing Element @ Jan 24 CC meeting From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: ACCEPT current Housing Element @ Jan 24 CC meeting Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Alicia Woodfall‐Jones
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: ACCEPT current Housing Element @ Jan 24 CC meeting Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th. 1631 of 2271
2 Thank you,
———————
Alicia Woodfall‐Jones
1632 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Tom Brady
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element
Dear Councilmembers,
It's been brought to my attention that January 24th will be a critical meeting for you to approve San Mateo's Housing Element so we do not suffer punishments from the state, including the Builder's Remedy.

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

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

Thanks ‐ Tom
Thomas E. Brady
Chairman& Principal
Thomas Brady& Associates
1633 of 2271
2 www.tbradyandassociates.com
1634 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:46 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Planning
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:42 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Planning
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: mark de paula
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:40 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Planning
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Thank you,
Mark De Paula
1636 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Angie Fuqua
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:55 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element
I would like to request the City Council accept the current housing element as presented by city staff at the January 24, 2023 Council Meeting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Angie and Mark Fuqua

1637 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:52 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Deborah Kohn
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:49 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Whereas the Planning Commission does not support the acceptance of these labors, the People do. Last summer, the first draft of the Housing Element draft was met with a long list of comments and requests for changes, which have now been addressed. Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January 31st. Since we've forged a practical and operable Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the Council will accept this updated draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.
1638 of 2271
2 Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th.

Thank you,
‐‐
Deborah Kohn
1639 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine - Vote to Approve Housing Element From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:03 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine ‐ Vote to Approve Housing Element Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:02 AM
To: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine ‐ Vote to Approve Housing Element Dear Councilmember Loraine,
You may not be aware, but Measure Y’s origins emanate from District 5 when Measure H was created by concerned residents in this southwest region of San Mateo. The measure that limits heights and densities and requires affordable housing ‐ before it became the thing to do ‐ runs in our veins and represents our historical and current values: protecting the character of our community and city. The Council will soon be receiving a letter from the membership of the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association, urging Council to vote to accept the Housing Element at the January 24th Council meeting.

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

Much compromise went into the pot as this Element was painstakingly crafted and recrafted, considering all the resident input, all the needs, and suggestions upon the first draft. It more than fulfils our requirement, and all was produced before the upcoming deadline.
1640 of 2271
2 I can only think that the Planning Commission, with their recommendation to reject the Housing Element, join with the unwavering YIMBY goal to remove all local power and provide yet another opening for developers to have their way with our city. I can only think that any councilmember voting to reject the current Housing Element and causing us to miss the crucial state deadline, regardless of how that decision would be explained, is choosing the same goal, and actively choosing to fail the residents of San Mateo.

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

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

Sincerely,
Lisa Taner
1641 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Zachary Dahl
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:51 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please Approve the Housing Element of the General Plan As Is at Next Council Meeting Public comment on the HE.

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:27 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Mary Way <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please Approve the Housing Element of the General Plan As Is at Next Council Meeting Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Connie Weiss
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:25 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Please Approve the Housing Element of the General Plan As Is at Next Council Meeting Hello Members of the San Mateo City Council,
I am hopeful with this new Council that the bad behaviors of the past will stay in the past. Because, all too often, San Mateo residents have been overrun by outside, paid and unpaid lobbyists and big developers, saying San Mateo must rezone and build aggressively to meet state demands. San Mateo voters passed Measure Y for a reason. San Mateo voters want measured growth and true affordable housing, not big‐block developments with office, luxury apartments, and offering only roughly 10% affordable housing. This is not what San Mateo needs and we need to stand firm on what is best for the City.

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

Further review should be conducted on what is really needed for San Mateo’s success in the future. It should not include any strong‐arming by large developers and/or aggressive outside interests looking to take away local land use control and undercut the will of San Mateo residents and voters. 1642 of 2271
2 It is also disconcerting that at least one member of the Planning Commission decided to take it upon themselves to disrespect the work of City staff and contact the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to say that our Housing Element is insufficient. It seems Council needs to course‐correct errant Planning Commissioner(s) and make changes as needed to ensure that everyone working within the San Mateo City government understands big developers and outside lobbying interests are not to be prioritized over the voters and residents of San Mateo.

Thank you,
Connie Weiss
1643 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:27 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Your support for Current Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:35 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Your support for Current Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: LOUISE BEKINS >
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 11:47 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Your support for Current Housing Element
Dear Councilmembers
I urge you to adopt the current housing element.

Thank you.

Louise Bekins
San Mateo
1644 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:29 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Mara Castillo
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:58 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Approve Housing Element
Dear Sirs,
I am requesting the Council approve the Housing Element (so we are not faced with the "Builder's Remedy" that eliminates the ability of the City to impose any conditions on a project). Do not destroy our lovely city with out of control building!
Thank you,
Mara Castillo
San Mateo
1645 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:26 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:30 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

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

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

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

Lastly, please get back to me on the status of removing Adam Nugent from the Planning Commission, due to his alleged illegal actions of removing political signs during this past November 2022 election. Commissioner Nugent’s further circumventing City Council on our Housing Element only adds to reasons for his removal. I understand that the previous City Council could not find its way forward to even agreeing to investigate Mr. Nugent’s actions. But I am extremely 1646 of 2271
2 hopeful that this new City Council will take appropriate actions to determine if removal of Planning Commissioner Nugent is appropriate.

Thank you,
Jean Dail –
1647 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221
From: brigid doherty
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
Hello,
My name is Brigid Doherty and I am a homeowner in the Sunnybrae neighborhood, along with my husband. We have been residents of San Mateo since 2007. We were renters before becoming homeowners. We have 2 daughters.

I have spoken at past City Council meetings, particularly regarding the Passages project and its impact on the 19th Ave Park, Fiesta Gardens, and Sunnybrae neighborhoods.
1648 of 2271
2 According to the Housing Element, it appears that the creation of affordable housing in San Mateo is of upmost importance. However, why is there such a small percentage of units at Passages that will be affordable/low income? This makes no sense to me.

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warmly,
Brigid Doherty
1649 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:25 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Adoption of San Mateo's Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:25 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Adoption of San Mateo's Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

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

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

The Housing Element was amended to address previous concerns and questions put forth by HCD when it was initially reviewed. City staff worked to correct those concerns and have shown that San Mateo can meet housing requirements and even have a buffer. This is what we have all been trying to achieve. Meeting housing needs and keeping San Mateo a livable place for all.
1650 of 2271
2 We want to see the council approve our current Housing Element Plan so that this city can move forward. People are not going to tolerate some roque individuals going around the public process. The council must now show it's support for the public's input and approve the plan.

Thank you,
Ronnie and Bruce Eaton
San Mateo
Get BlueMail for Desktop
1651 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:12 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221
From: Edward Evans
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
Dear City Council, Housing Manager and Staff,
As you are aware, almost every city and town in the county is going through the same process of drafting a general plan and a specific housing element. The lack of any kind of Labor Standards language in San Mateo's current Draft Housing Element is troubling to us. Through cooperation with Redwood City staff, the Carpenters Union was recently 1652 of 2271
2 successful in getting Labor Standards language into Redwood City's latest Draft Housing Element and we would like to strongly encourage San Mateo to do the same. For reference, here is the Redwood City language:

POLICY H‐5.7: Encourage developers and contractors to evaluate hiring local labor, hiring from or contributing to apprenticeship programs, increasing resources for labor compliance, and providing living wages. (Page 49: 00_RWC_HE‐1‐6‐23.pdf (welcomehomerwc.org))
We ask that you delay approval of the current Draft Housing Element until it contains some form of meaningful Labor Standards Language similar to that in Redwood City's draft. Thank you for your consideration.

All the best,

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

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

1653 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:26 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:29 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

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

But we know that couldn't be true don't we?
Rob Gibson
1654 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:29 AM
Cc: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: HOLLY HEWITT
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:43 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
Good Morning,
I want to add my name in support of the Housing Element.

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

Please accept the staff recommendation.

Regards,
Holly H. Hewitt
Sent from my iPad
1655 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: Fwd: Current Housing Element
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Current Housing Element

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

Sincerely, Beth & Chuck Kabala
Sent from my iPhone
1656 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

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

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

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

Voters objected to Measure R that would have allowed city council to approve height increases in designated areas; voters do not want discretionary decisions delegated to any authority including those under the Builder’s Remedy. It is your duty to defend the will of your constituents.
1657 of 2271
2 The only benefactors of the Builder’s Remedy are developers and builders whose sole purpose is profit. Under the Builder’s Remedy, the City would be at risk of uncontrolled growth, increased traffic and the overburdening of our infrastructure as well as any unforeseen consequences. It is simply irresponsible to expose the City to unidentified risks.

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

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

Thank you,
Lisa M. Maley
1658 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221
From: Genel Morgan
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 1:20 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
To whom it may concern,
I am a long time resident of San Mateo. I understand the need for more housing, but I want to see it done in a responsible way, free from influence of special interests (especially builders).

I want the City Council to approve the Housing Element as drafted. It meets the 7,015 housing units required by the state while honoring Measure Y, which was passed by the voters. 1659 of 2271
2 The Planning Commission overstepped its boundaries by appealing to the state. Their recommendation that the city Council decline to adopt the Housing Element draft is irresponsible and would lead to San Mateo losing local control of housing built in the city in the future. I do not see that the Planning Commission is advocating for the residents of the city.

Sincerely
Genel Morgan
San Mateo
1660 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:31 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: For January 24 meeting
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:31 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: For January 24 meeting
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Judith Paton
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 8:27 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: For January 24 meeting
Please adopt the Housing Element so that we are not forced into the Builders’ Remedy. The latter will not provide the affordable housing we need. With the layoffs now starting with our local dot‐coms we don’t need a new wave of market‐rate apartments.

Thank you
Judith Paton

Sent from my iPhone
1661 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221
From: sean schochet
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:30 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
Hello,
Can the housing committee please consider connecting campus drive and the new housing complexes there to San Mateo College via a walking/biking bridge over 92? PLEASE. Thanks. -Sean
1662 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:25 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Leadership & Membership of Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association Request City Council Accept Housing Element 1/24
Attachments: BHNA Membership Supports Acceptance of Housing Element .pdf From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:27 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Leadership & Membership of Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association Request City Council Accept Housing Element 1/24
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

Thank you,
Lisa Taner
Past President
BHNA
1663 of 2271
January 19, 2023

SAN MATEO CITY COUNCIL
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
Via Email
Re: BHNA Membership Urges Council Acceptance
of Current Housing Element at January 24th Meeting
Dear San Mateo City Council,
The Membership of the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association urges you to move forward to accept the Housing Element at your January 24th meeting.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
The Membership & Board of the
Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association
1664 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:30 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: General Plan/Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: General Plan/Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Kitty Van Beckum
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 2:53 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan/Housing Element
Dear San Mateo City Council,
Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th. The current draft meets the State housing units requirement without changing the existing zoning.

Sincerely,
Katherine Van Beckum
1665 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:30 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please approve the Housing Element at the next City Council Meeting From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please approve the Housing Element at the next City Council Meeting Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

Please vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings.

Thank you, Pete Bertrand
1666 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:30 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please Approve the Housing Element Plan
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:29 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please Approve the Housing Element Plan
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Trina Pierce
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 10:30 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: Please Approve the Housing Element Plan
>
> To The San Mateo City Council
>
> Please approve the Housing Element that has been presented in 2022. > What San Mateo residents need is more affordable housing, not just a 3% or 5% of the new development. > San Mateo is losing good teacher’s, professional’s, qualified nurses and business’s due to the high cost of housing.

Many families live in residential homes with several families. I have lived in San Mateo, (North Central) for over 60 years and have seen so many changes. This plan is for over a 10 year period, this can only be a positive for our city, not to mention how the Housing Element plan will be a positive for so many residents in San Mateo County. >
> Please approve the plan, so San Mateo can maintain a small area and not like San Francisco with a lot of high rises, which removes visibility for neighborhoods to enjoy the views when they originally moved to the San Mateo area. >
> Trina Pierce
> North Central
>
> Sent from my iPhone
1667 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:11 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221
From: William Williams
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 10:45 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
When the Bay Meadows Racetrack / Aquifer was developed into buildings and roads, nuisance flooding in San Mateo changed to damaging flooding.

The major hindrance to acceptance of the current San Mateo Housing Element is how many housing units will replace the Hillsdale Mall. Property owners analyze costs and seek profitability. Housing advocates look at the number of units created as a measure of success. Residents who argue for a livable community are not exclusionary racists. We believe "towers of toilets" in tall buildings will lead to sewage and drainage 1668 of 2271
2 problems. Electrifying Caltrain will not solve traffic and mobility issues. Underground parking has been approved for a large development on Concar Drive (Rite Aid). This parking will flood. Do we just build it and have new residents suffer because they were unaware of potential problems? The Housing Element should promote livable accommodations. It should not be based on profitability.

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

Sustainability gets a lot of lip service. How much energy demand, water and sewer service, and transportation infrastructure can the natural environment support here in San Mateo? x Bill Williams, San Mateo
Sent from Outlook
1669 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:19 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Letter enclosed requesting approval of Housing Element at 1/24/2023 meeting.

Attachments: CCHELetter.docx
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:06 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Letter enclosed requesting approval of Housing Element at 1/24/2023 meeting.

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

From: mary cravalho
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 5:25 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter enclosed requesting approval of Housing Element at 1/24/2023 meeting.

Dear City Council Members,
Please see the attached letter requesting the approval of the Housing Element as presented at the Council's 1/24/2023 meeting.

Sincerely,
Mary Cravalho
1670 of 2271
1/22/2023
San Mateo City Council
City Hall - City Council Chambers
330 W 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Please Approve the Housing Element as presented by staff on 1/24/2023 Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
City staff, facilitators and stakeholders spent months and extraordinary effort to provide input and formulate their Housing Element recommendations for the Council’s approval, which reportedly exceeds the mandatory housing unit goals required by the state.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Mary Cravalho
1671 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:49 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: writing in support of a democratic process & the approval of the housing element From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:49 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: writing in support of a democratic process & the approval of the housing element Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,
1672 of 2271
2 Evan
‐‐
Evan Powell
1673 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:31 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

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

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

Please approve the Housing Element.

Thank you.
1674 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:30 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: General Plan Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:25 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: General Plan Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

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

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

I hope you will do the right thing.

Daniel Shefer
1675 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: January 24 City Council Special Meeting Agenda item#2 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:07 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: January 24 City Council Special Meeting Agenda item#2 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Stephen Chen
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:26 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: January 24 City Council Special Meeting Agenda item#2 Dear Ms. Olds,
In lieu of attending the zoom meeting tomorrow, I’m submitting my comments as follows:
(1) now that we are the largest city in San Mateo county, we have an even more urgent need to build more AFFORDABLE HOUSING than before.
(2) regarding the city ڲڱڰگڮڭ measure Y of November 2020, the Yes votes won by only 43 out of a total of 46033 casted votes, that is just 0.09% or less than 0.1%.
(3) AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT THE SAME AS PUBLIC HOUSING. We do need affordable housing for our teachers, policemen, firemen, first responders as well as healthcare workers. It will also benefit our own younger generations in the future.
(4) with ever‐increasing costs for labor, materials , regulations and other factors, the increase in building height and density allowance would make the building project financially more attractive to the builders who might be interested in it. If you are so worried about the height‐density issue, take a leisure drive along the VETERANS BLVD and neighboring streets in our next city south, the RWC, it could give you a rather eye‐opening experience. Besides, if you and your neighbors keep your properties tidy and neat, there is no way somebody will build a high density unit next to you. (5) many recent studies have shown the very restrictive LOCAL ZONING MANDATES played a key role in our current acute housing shortage situation nationwide, which in turn also makes the HOMELESS problem worse.

Sincerely,
Stephen Chen
San Mateo
1676 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: R Colpitts
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:53 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
To the City Council,
My wife Dolores and I strongly support the Housing Element as presented to you by City staff, and we urge you to adopt it as presented, at your meeting on January 24,2023.

Thank you,
Robert F Colpitts

1677 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:18 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Accept the Current Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:52 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Accept the Current Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Dorothy Radyk
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:39 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Accept the Current Housing Element
As a long‐time resident of San Mateo, I request that you accept the current Housing Element. The future of San Mateo should be decided by San Mateo residents, not the developers.

Thank you,
Dorothy Radyk
1678 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:10 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element January 24 meeting
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element January 24 meeting
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Gary Germano
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element January 24 meeting
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
Please support and accept the current Housing Element being presented at your January 24th meeting that meets our requirements for housing numbers Without Changing the Existing Zoning.

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

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

Arbitrary project specific "spot" zoning and arbitrary General Plan change could destroy this City by not taking the overall "big picture" of what is being done into account. This would create a disaster in terms of overall infrastructure capacity, such as accessibility to services, retail outlets, traffic, and emergency evacuations.
1679 of 2271
2 Please responsibly build within our existing zoning guidelines and General Plan, and do what our residents and your constituents have consistently approved for the good and safety of all people living here.

Sincerely,
Gary and Janet Germano
San Mateo
1680 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:00 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:59 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Danny Guiney
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
Council,
Please remove the rental oversight from the housing element. These were not necessary or required. Then approve the Housing Element as previously suggested.

There is no reason we can not do as directed by the state in a timely manner. At some point out leaders have to stop being activists and do what is right for the greater good of our community.

Thank you all for your service.

Dan Guiney
San Mateo City Resident
1681 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:19 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: 1/24, Council mtg. Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:19 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: 1/24, Council mtg. Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Devra Harris
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:15 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Housing <[email protected]> Subject: 1/24, Council mtg. Housing Element
Re: San Mateo City Council Meeting 1/24/23 Agenda Item #2 Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing in regards to the General Plan Amendment to adopt the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element for 2023‐ 2031.

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

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

Kindly,
Devra Harris
San Mateo
1682 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Accept the Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:53 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Accept the Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Christine Heiss
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:51 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Accept the Housing Element
Dear San Mateo City Council,
As a San Mateo county homeowner since 2005, please consider the following when deciding to accept the Housing Element:

1. The revised Housing Element (HE) substantially complies with the requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE. The HE identifies 9,934 units or 142% of the City’s required housing allocation of 7,015 units.

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

3. Please remove the rental restrictions from the HE including the rental registry. The restrictions would invade privacy, reduce supply, punish good landlords, and remove property rights. The rental restrictions are not required and do not belong in the housing element.

4. The Planning Commissioners' conclusion that the Housing Element is not in compliance is incorrect.

They did not offer any suggested revisions.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
Christine Heiss
1683 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

Thank you,
Jennifer Pacholuk
1684 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Accept Current Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:05 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Accept Current Housing Element
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: John Radyk
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:04 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Accept Current Housing Element
City of San Mateo Council Members,
Please vote to accept the current Housing Element. The current Housing Element meets the number of mandated housing units while working within voter approved Measure Y. San Mateo should never be subjected to the Builder's Remedy. Remember that the citizens of San Mateo elected you to represent them, not developers.

Thank you,
John Radyk
1685 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:03 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Adopt the housing element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:01 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Adopt the housing element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

Thank You, Michael Manely (35 year resident)
1686 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:49 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023 From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: City Council‐approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023 Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Property Service Company
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:14 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council‐approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023 Members of the San Mateo City Council -

It is my understanding that the City is required to submit a City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023. If this is not submitted by the deadline we will be subject to automatic implementation of “the Builders Remedy,” which allows developers of residential projects to bypass our zoning code and general plan. I am writing to ask you to please approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. Please help to ensure that developers of residential projects will not be able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight.

Best Regards -

John & Christine O'Dea

1687 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:50 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: land development
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:50 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: land development
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

Thank you,
Jennifer Paiva
‐‐
Jen Paiva
1688 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:22 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please accept the revised Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:20 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please accept the revised Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

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

Thank you,
1689 of 2271
2 Martha Park
1690 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element approval vote for Parkside Neighborhood From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element approval vote for Parkside Neighborhood Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

Thank you,
Felicia M. Schipper
Resident on Clipper Street in Parkside
1691 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:48 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Roger Smale
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:43 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element Dear City Council Members,
I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Roger Smale
1692 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:21 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:03 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

Thank you,
Tony Pacholuk
1693 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:09 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Item #1 - General Plan Amendment to Adopt the City of San Mateo's Housing Element for 2023-2031
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Item #1 ‐ General Plan Amendment to Adopt the City of San Mateo's Housing Element for 2023‐2031 Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

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

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

3. Please remove the rent control and tenant protection restrictions in the Housing Element including the rental registry. There has been no debate or outreach to smaller mom and pop property owners who cannot afford these kinds of restrictions of property rights. I don’t think many property owners in San Mateo are even aware of the 5 rental restrictions in the Housing Element. This would be an invasion of privacy, reduce the supply of good affordable housing, punish the good landlords, remove our property rights, and create a huge bureaucracy in City Hall. 1694 of 2271
2 4. The Planning Commissioners’ conclusion that the Housing Element is not in compliance is not true. We can make our RHNA numbers without rezoning.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Laurie Watanuki
1695 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:06 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:04 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Robert Whitehair
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:18 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element
Dear San Mateo City Council
On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. I respectfully request the following actions:

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

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

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

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.
1696 of 2271
2 4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

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

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

Thank you
Robert Whitehair, on behalf of San Mateo Climate Action Team 1697 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:49 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element presented by staff tomorrow! From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:48 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element presented by staff tomorrow! Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Barbara Whiteside
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:34 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Approve Housing Element presented by staff tomorrow! 1/23/2023
San Mateo City Council
City Hall - City Council Chambers
330 W 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Please Approve the Housing Element as presented by staff on 1/24/2023 Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I have had my home in San Mateo for 35 years and raised our three children here. 1698 of 2271
2 Please approve the Housing Element recommendations created by stake‐holders, staff, and facilitators to meet the housing unit goals determined by the state. Please note that these recommendations actually exceed the mandatory unit goals required by the state.

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

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

Thank‐you,
Barbara Whiteside
1699 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Revised HE please!
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Revised HE please!
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Helen Young
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:43 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Revised HE please!
Dear Pstrice Olds,
Please please accept (1) the revised Housing Element ( HE ) because it complies with ALL the requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE.

The HE identifies 9,934 units or 142% of the City's required housing allocation of 7,015 units. (2) the Council should find the Housing Element is compliant with the HCD requirements and approve the Housing Element to avoid the builder's remedy that will further take away local control of our city. (3) Please remove the rental restrictions from the HE including the rental registry. The restrictions would invade privacy, reduce supply, punish good landlords, and remove property rights. The rental restrictions are not required and do not belong in the housing element. (4) the Planning Commissioners' conclusion that the Housing Element is not in compliance is incorrect. They did not offer any suggested revisions.

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

Regards,
Helen Young
1700 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:47 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element Plan
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:27 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element Plan
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: sue
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:17 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Plan
Dear San Mateo City Council
On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. We request the following actions:

By submission of the Housing element to HCD, the City is assumed to be compliant until someone (HCD or a judge) says otherwise. Because HCD must respond to San Mateo's submission within 60 days of submission (Approximately April 1), this strategy has two 1701 of 2271
2 benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request
Sincerely
Sue Blockstein
1702 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:38 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:35 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

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

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

Regarding legal fines and fees how much money has Redwood City, Alameda and Emeryville saved from being in compliance? What is our budget for not being in 1703 of 2271
2 compliance? What is the cost benefit analysis for being in and not being in compliance?
Sincerely yours,
Suzanne Bonilla

1704 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:02 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: William Cendak
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element
City Council members,
The residents of San Mateo provided comments and requested changes to the General Plan which the City staff implemented.

Tonight when the City staff presents the current Housing Element we implore you to accept it and move it forward.

Apparently the Planning Commission does not support the General Plan, is this a case of "the tail wagging the dog?"
I assumed the Planning Commission worked for the City Council and the residents of the city of San Mateo,
they appear out of touch with both.

The clock is ticking, as you drive past South San Francisco, Millbrae, and Burlingame and see the ugly new construction of housing is this what you foresee for San Mateo? Lord help me I hope not.

Thank you for attention to this urgent matter,
W. J. Cendak
1705 of 2271
2 San Mateo,CA
1706 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve updated draft of Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:31 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve updated draft of Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

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

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

In anticipation, many thanks,
Mareva Godfrey
Laguna Vista HOA Marina Lagoon Committee
District 4
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
1707 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:42 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: 1/24/2023 Council meeting - approve draft Housing Element From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:39 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: 1/24/2023 Council meeting ‐ approve draft Housing Element Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:15 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: 1/24/2023 Council meeting ‐ approve draft Housing Element Dear Council members,
Tonight you make a major decision on doing all in your power to keep local control of San Mateo's future or allow it to become a "builders remedy" free for all. I urge you to approve the draft Housing Element, as presented by staff, and forward it to the state for their acceptance.

As you know, City staff has worked hard to modify the original submission to respond to Sacramento's stated concerns.

And they have succeeded. The staff report documents that the revised draft Housing Element implements all changes requested by HCD. The draft is consistent with state law. It provides for 7104 new units, meeting San Mateo's RHNA requirements, and on top of that, allows for a buffer of 2830 more units to assure the ability to comply with San Mateo's housing allocation. The element also acknowledges the development controls adopted by the voters in 2020 as Measure Y.

I know many are urging you to reject this draft as inadequate. As my mother liked to say, "consider the source". Are those you are hearing from people who will benefit from the imposition of the builders remedy? Or are these people whose livelihood depends on presenting positions opposed to what this housing element represents? Are these people who believe in housing at any cost (ignoring the need to step up affordable housing production), leaving San Mateo to deal with the negative impacts of market rate and luxury building that outpaces our infrastructure and natural resources? A particular word about the recommendation from the Planning Commission to reject this draft. It is truly unfortunate that only 3 commissioners attended that meeting. We deserved the opinion of all five. The council ended up with a "unanimous" decision from three commissioners who represent approaches which are possibly the most out of sync with 1708 of 2271
2 most San Mateans. One has used every opportunity over the past 4-5 years to castigate large swaths of our residents as "racist". Another recently attacked speakers at a meeting as "racist" and then embarked on an extended rant based on personal history. The third is serving under the cloud of a District Attorney investigation into possible illegal activities during the recent Council campaign. Two of these commissioners have become so activist as to directly contact HDC, laying out their views against the draft Housing Element, while also making it clear that they are Planning Commissioners.

Does this seem like the actions of people who are appointed to advise the Council - not usurp the Council's decision making powers?
I served this city as a Planning Commissioner for 14 years. I served with many people representing a variety of viewpoints and approaches. But I assure, you none of them would have taken such egregious positions or actions to undermine our city and its residents and City Council. Again, I urge you to consider the source - and reject their "advice".

Please approve the draft Housing Element tonight and forward it to the state for acceptance.

Karen Herrel
San Mateo resident since 1963
1709 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: General Plan Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:30 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: General Plan Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:51 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Cc: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Housing Element
Dear Mayor Lee and Council Members:

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

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

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

The revised Housing Element (HE) substantially complies with the requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE. The HE includes identifies 9,934 units or 142% of the City’s required housing allocation of 7,015 units. The RHNA allocations can be met without overturning Measure Y. 1710 of 2271
2 Please remove the rental restrictions from the HE including the rental registry. The restrictions would invade privacy, reduce supply, punish good landlords, and remove property rights. The rental restrictions are not required and do not belong in the housing element. Please remove Policy H5.4.1 ‐ Establish tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB 1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases. It is not necessary for San Mateo to go beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
San Mateo
1711 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:18 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:11 AM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Michelle Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:09 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element
Dear San Mateo City Council,
On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. I respectfully request the following actions:

2. In the next 60 days, request proposals for a new Housing Consultant, specifically ones who worked on cities who have achieved compliance (for example, Alameda, Emeryville, Redwood City)
1712 of 2271
2 3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.

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

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

Thank you,
Michelle Hudson
Resident of San Mateo
1713 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: [email protected]
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:41 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: [email protected]
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:26 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: [email protected]
Dear City Council,
I strongly support the current City Staff Housing Element plan, but with the removal of rental property restrictions. This does not belong in the same conversation as housing development and will seriously negatively impact small ma and pa property owners (and many retired) the most. How this got in there I do not know. It’s definitely gross government overreach.

If we do not adhere to this by January 31, 2023, developers can bypass our zoning code and general plan and create projects good for them, but not for our city, and we will have a real urban mess on our hands. The Planning Commission, who are not elected, intentions are self interest motivated and do not represent the hard work of City Staff and all the residents who provided input to help shape the Plan.

Here are some principles I hope you adhere to:
1714 of 2271
2 -Keep voter approved Measure Y in tact
-Protect existing single family zoning
-Listen to people who actually live in San Mateo
-Support smart balanced growth independent of developer interference -Protect small ma and pa rental property owners who are the key engine for rental availability, from restrictions which will cripple them. -Conduct outreach and get public input from rental housing providers before any future rental restrictions (and registry which could be used for further restrictions) are even proposed.

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

Gary Isoardi
1715 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:00 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Sean Lacson
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:42 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am submitting this letter in the hope that the City Council will make some difficult, but incredibly important decisions regarding the housing affordability of our city for years to come. My own family's ability to purchase a home in this city is dependent on your vote.

As it stands, the Planning Commission has voted to reject the Housing Element as it underdelivers on new housing stock and it does not “affirmatively further housing” by creating more equity in land use (e.g. increasing density west of El Camino.

Should the Council vote to pass the Housing Element, I ask that the Council encourage the city staff the prepare by:

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

2. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.
1716 of 2271
2 3. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

Sincerely,
Sean Lacson
1717 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:40 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:39 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Ricki McGlashan
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:07 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element
Dear San Mateo City Council,
Tonight, Jan. 24, the City Council has an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo and I urge the following strategy.

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

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

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

4. Direct staff that if and when San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.
1718 of 2271
2 We also understand there is a high likelihood that San Mateo will be sued by the coalition pursuing Housing Element lawsuits (Californians for Homeownership, YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, Housing Action Coalition), either on Feb 1 or after the City hears back from HCD.

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

Ricki and Doug McGlashan
1719 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: We need better housing access in San Mateo From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:00 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: We need better housing access in San Mateo Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Rick Moody
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:01 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: We need better housing access in San Mateo
Jan. 24, 2023
To the San Mateo City Council:

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

Providing safe and comfortable housing for residents and workers in San Mateo is important. We need safe and comfortable homes for everyone, a step that would also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The fact is that San Mateo has not provided enough housing, especially for people with low incomes.

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

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

Please do what's needed to address this problem.

Harry R. Moody

1720 of 2271
2 San Mateo, CA 94403
1721 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element Vote Tonight
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:29 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element Vote Tonight
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From:

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

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

I would also like to request Mayor Lee recuse herself from voting on this and other General Plan votes for a period of at least one year (or longer, if council decides) for the recent GoFundMe campaign launched unilaterally by Mayor Lee. I 100% support the cause but feel that this should have been done by the Council as a whole and run through a non-profit organization such as Samaritan House or other agreed upon not-for-profit entity. This was appearing to have been done by Supervisor Corzo for her recent advocacy for the flood victims in Belmont. Reviewing the top donors, a significant portion has come from the developer community Bohannon and Windy Hill both contributed $10K and Lane Partners 1722 of 2271
2 contributed $5K. A week ago, half the donations were from these developers. This creates and cast doubt for me as it will for many others as it appears Mayor Lee now appears to have a conflict in relation to these donations. GoFundMe also appears to have a 15% surcharge which I would prefer go to the victims.

Thank you,

Thomas Morgan
San Mateo
1723 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:11 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element Vote
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:11 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element Vote
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Valerie Oblath
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:10 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Vote
To all City Council members,
I am writing to strongly encourage you at tonight’s meeting to vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by our City Staff, following two years of community meetings and discussion. If it is not approved, San Mateo will be subject to automatic implementation of the “Builders’ Remedy” which, it is my understanding, allows developers of residential projects to bypass the zoning code and General Plan. This must not happen!! Respectfully,
Valerie Oblath
District 4
Sent from my iPad
1724 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:40 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo's Housing Element requested actions From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:37 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo's Housing Element requested actions Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Elaine Salinger
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:13 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo's Housing Element requested actions
Dear San Mateo City Council
On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. We request the following actions:

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

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.
1725 of 2271
2 4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

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

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

Sincerely
Elaine Salinger, San Mateo Chapter Leader
1726 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element comments
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element comments
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Karen S
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element comments
Dear City Council,
I am writing to ask you to please adopt the Housing Element as presented since we are able to meet all current state requirements with the current Housing Element.

Please carry out the will of the voters and follow through on Measure Y.

We are counting on you to represent us well and with integrity.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Karen Sid
1727 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:01 PM
Cc: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element comment
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element comment
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Maxine Terner
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element comment
In case you didn't see or get my previous email sent last night to clerk@city...

Clerk ‐ Please ensure that the Council sees these comments prior to their meeting on January 24th.

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

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

Adopting the Housing Element also makes San Mateo eligible, or with higher priority, for numerous sources of funding, as enumerated in the staff report. Not adopting the Housing Element places the City at risk for significant fines imposed by the State. The pros clearly outweigh the cons.
1728 of 2271
2 Of more concern is that San Mateo may lose the right to exercise local land use control over housing projects. Under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision in the Housing Accountability Act if a jurisdiction has a noncompliant housing element, the city must approve any housing development project, regardless of the local General Plan and Zoning requirements.

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

I urge you to adopt the Housing Element tonight.

Sincerely,
Maxine Terner
1729 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:41 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element.

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Tech| Housing
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650‐522‐7239| [email protected]
From: Kristen Watts‐Penny
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:29 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element.

Please adopt San Mateo’s 2023-2031 Housing Element.
1730 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element 2023-2031
Attachments: San Mateo City Council 1.24.23.docx
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element 2023‐2031
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Dianne Whitaker
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; ldiaz‐[email protected]; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element 2023‐2031
Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz-Nash, Councilmembers Hedges, Lorraine and Newsom – I am submitting the attached document for tonight’s Special City Council Meeting regarding the City’s Housing Element.

Thank you for your service.
-Dianne
Dianne R. Whitaker, AIA
Dianne Whitaker Architect
1731 of 2271
Mayor Lee,
Deputy Major Diaz-Nash,
Council Members Hedges, Lorraine and Newsom
January 24, 2023
Housing Element Acceptance and Approval
California State Legislators are on a mission to remove more and more local control away from our cities regarding land use decisions.

Once size does not fit all.

Each Californian community is unique, with different existing conditions, challenges, and goals.

Please accept City staff’s recommendation by Approving the proposed Housing Element tonight, so that San Mateo is not found out of compliance by HCD, and therefore subject to the “builder’s remedy” contained within the 1990 Housing Accountability Act, allowing developers to bypass San Mateo’s Zoning Code and General Plan.

Thank You,
Dianne Whitaker
San Mateo

1732 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: The Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: The Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Teri Whitehair
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: The Housing Element
Dear San Mateo City Council
On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. I request the following actions:

1. Please submit to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Housing Element as presented by staff and written by the City's consultant. By doing so, San Mateo can avoid "Builders Remedy" and other penalties from being effective on February 1, 2023.

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request
Sincerely
1733 of 2271
2 Teri Whitehair
Elders Action Network
EAN National Gathering Coordinator
Elders for Social Justice Co‐coordinator
The great work now is to carry out the transition from a period of human devastation of the earth to a period when humans would be present to the planet in a mutually beneficial manner.

Thomas Berry
1734 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:43 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please submit to HCD the "Housing Element" for reasons and information stated below From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:28 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please submit to HCD the "Housing Element" for reasons and information stated below Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Valerie Fox Carlos
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Please submit to HCD the "Housing Element" for reasons and information stated below Dear San Mateo City Council
On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, this is an important night that may impact the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. We request the following actions:

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

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

3. Sit down with housing organizations to do a deep dive into the potential issues and possible solutions.
1735 of 2271
2 4. Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

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

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request
Respectfully,
Valerie Fox Carlos
1736 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:44 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element Agenda Item
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:28 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element Agenda Item
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Ted McKinnon
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:14 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Agenda Item
Dear San Mateo City Council,
To any informed observer, the Housing Element of San Mateo’s General Plan, as presented at the Planning Commission meeting of January 12th, will not pass muster with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), leaving the City in substantial non‐compliance with California state law.

My understanding is that the City Council intends on passing a resolution tonight (January 24th) recommending the City submit the Housing Element anyway. I’m personally unclear of the utility of doing this, whether it temporarily shields us from the Builder’s Remedy and so forth, so I won’t weigh in on that.

Whatever temporary measures are taken, for either substantial or for face‐saving purposes, it’s clear that the serious work of affirmatively furthering fair housing, as the state mandates, is still before us.

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

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

1737 of 2271
2  Direct staff that if San Mateo's Housing Element is rejected, staff should immediately bring the rejection letter to Council, and Council should immediately approve staff's selection of a new consultant.

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

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

Sincerely,

Ted McKinnon

1738 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: city council meeting
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:58 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]> Subject: FW: city council meeting
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Louise A Duncalf
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 5:27 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: city council meeting
PLEASE A[PPROVE HOUSING ELEMENT. LOUISE DUNCALF
1739 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Council Special Meeting
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:57 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Council Special Meeting
This was during the meeting so we will add to this packet. I'll send four more. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:13 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Council Special Meeting
Approve the plan ‐ as bad as it is, it avoids the builder remedy 1740 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Special Council
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:57 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Special Council
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:48 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Special Council
It seems that 7k housing is arbitrary number needs to be challenged ‐ potential remedies are just that, potential. Why do we find ourselves in a reactive mode rather than being proactive with a comprehensive plan that is built by our the will of the community… I love a statistically relevant study comment for more affordable housing, please explain what that means and please provide a link for this study if you are placing this out as your foundation of decision. 1741 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: City Council Special
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:58 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]> Subject: FW: City Council Special
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:29 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Special
What happened to city independence ‐ I thought we were incorporated as the City of San Mateo, we are getting railroaded by communities that have a labor and contractor focus — please show some leadership and represent the City of San Mateo!!
1742 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Special Council
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:58 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Special Council
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:22 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Special Council
Where do you get your growth numbers that support this unabated growth? Where do you have a quality of life provision? You relay on Bay Area metrics not San Mateo specific needs ‐ you do realize that the micro climates of commerce and want to dilute our quality of life and become another Richmond. This one size fits all does not work ‐ if your force it into this model it is destine to fail and yes we too will be another failed community. 1743 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:58 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element
Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Scott Stoeckle
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
As a San Mateo resident, at I am urging City Council to approve, the Housing Element, as prepared by city staff and two years of community meetings.

Thank you, Scott Stoeckle
Sent from Mail for Windows
1744 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:25 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Council Meeting 1/24/23 Housing Element Approval From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:21 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Council Meeting 1/24/23 Housing Element Approval Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:18 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Council Meeting 1/24/23 Housing Element Approval Dear Council ‐ Once again I find myself rather stunned that residents have to write in on something that should be ministerial after all of the staff, council, and community input, but here we are. Ignoring that entire process because Planning Commissioners Patel, Nugent and Ebneter once again feel they can legislate from their unelected positions would be the acme of irresponsibility, subjecting San Mateo to the "Builders Remedy", and perhaps more importantly, jeopardizing millions in funding due to a non‐compliant housing element. Even recommending this, much less going all the way to the HCD suggesting they reject our housing element, should be grounds for their immediate removal for conduct detrimental to the City of San Mateo and dereliction of duty. We had a special council meeting to address literally this very issue within the last year. Apparently they did not get the message. Unchecked bad behavior begets more such behavior. But, I digress.

You have a housing element that is substantially in compliance with HCD requirements, which is the product of a methodical process conducted by our competent and professional staff, consultants, and the community.

Your job tonight is simple ‐ approve the housing element.

Sincerely ‐ Michael Weinhauer
1745 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:02 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Reprieve from Builders Remedy and penalties From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:56 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Reprieve from Builders Remedy and penalties For the next time this comes to council as it was after the close of the meeting Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7042

From: Robert Whitehair
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:04 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Reprieve from Builders Remedy and penalties
Dear Mayor and Council
To summarize my comments tonight:

By approving the Housing Element, as loaded with problems as it is, the city has been given a temporary reprieve from Builders Remedy. Thank you for what you did tonight.

Please, please use the next 60 days or less wisely. Within that time, pull together representatives from Yes on Y, No on Y, HLC, One San Mateo, other housing advocates, all neighborhood association representatives and anyone else interested in making hard choices.

Rather than going through unresolved chaos over the next few months or years, work it out now by adopting a Housing element that reflects consensus, and avoids Builders Remedy altogether. Perhaps use a professional facilitator.

The world is out of time on so many levels, let's avoid wasted energy to build lasting consensus.

As difficult and aspirational as my proposal is, it is better than another vote on Measure Y in 2024, or all the chaos that would result if there is no Housing Element adopted. Measure Y was passed by only 46 votes out of 46,000 cast. The 1746 of 2271
2 tide is turning, things are changing, those in favor of Y might want to take advantage of what will could be fleeting power. But please listen to their concerns and the concerns of all the others! We have so many vital people on all sides of the issue willing to work this out.

Please do that
Robert Whitehair
1747 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 2:38 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Adopted Housing Element Comment Letter Attachments: San Mateo Follow-up Housing Element Comments_TransForm.pdf From: Zack Deutsch-Gross
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 2:37 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo Adopted Housing Element Comment Letter Dear San Mateo Planning Department and San Mateo City Council, Please find attached TransForm's comment letter on the Adopted Housing Element for San Mateo. While we appreciate the revised program to evaluate off-street parking requirements, Program 1.7 does not specify any specific policies to study and the timeline does not begin for 2 years. We believe San Mateo could take on far more ambitious parking reforms, and urge the city to do so. I hope you will consider our suggestions as you move forward in the planning and implementation of your Housing Element.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Zack Deutsch-Gross
--
Zack Deutsch-Gross (he/him)
Policy Director, TransForm
Sign up for our emails at www.TransFormCA.org.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin.
1748 of 2271
02/16/23
San Mateo Planning Department and City Council
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: San Mateo still lacks commitment to ambitious parking reform To the San Mateo Planning Department and City Councilmembers, TransForm is a regional non-profit focused on creating connected and healthy communities that can meet climate goals, reduce traffic, and include housing affordable to everyone.

We acknowledge the work to date on the 6th Cycle Housing Element, however we still see room for improvement in regards to San Mateo’s outdated parking standards. While we appreciate the revised program to evaluate off-street parking requirements, Program 1.7 does not specify any specific policies to study and the timeline does not begin for 2 years. We believe San Mateo could take on far more ambitious parking reforms, and urge the city to do so. As long as San Mateo still requires at least 1.5 parking spaces per unit for multi-family developments, and at most 2.2 spaces for 3+ bedrooms1, it will be hard to meet its housing and climate goals.

In our previous letter we offered a suite of smart parking policies we believe are best suited to San Mateo:

1. Funding a dedicated and specific study of parking reforms, particularly how smart parking policies could positively impact housing, transportation and other goals.

2. Requiring unbundled parking for certain transit oriented developments.This is easier for building managers to implement now with new parking tech tools like Parkade.

3. Implementing TDMs such as requiring developers to buy annual bus passes for residents at a discounted bulk rate.

We believe these policies must be considered as they would greatly benefit San Mateo and create safer and healthier communities.

As with other cities like San Jose and Alameda, parking reform packages can be passed even if not identified as a program in your Housing Element and we are committed to assisting cities in this endeavor.
1 Parking provision is reduced within the Hillsdale Station Area and the Central Parking Improvement District, but not by any substantial margin. | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG
1 1749 of 2271
To support San Mateo in their efforts to reform outdated parking standards, we believe the following resources could be useful:

1. MTC/ABAG Parking Playbook: This guide provides descriptions, real-world examples, and sample code for various smart parking policies. A true “one-stop shop” for parking reform in the Bay Area.

2. GreenTRIP Connect: Our Connect tool can be used on any parcel in the city. This tool is particularly useful to demonstrate exactly how policies like reduced parking provision can help meet citywide goals, as we demonstrated in this scenario (that was in our first letter).

We sincerely hope to see San Mateo take steps to implement smarter parking reforms and TDM measures in the near future. During the course of potential study and implementation our team is available to partner with you and answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Zack Deutsch-Gross
Policy Director
| WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG
2 1750 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2023 4:27 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Letter to HCD about San Mateo Housing Element (Housing Action Coalition), 1 of 2 Attachments: 2022-02-28 Letter to HCD about San Mateo Housing Element.docx; 2022-12-16 HAC Comments on San Mateo Draft Housing Element.docx; 2023-01-07 Housing Action Coalition - Second Round Comments on San Mateo Draft Housing Element.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221
From: Higley, CJ (25) x4942
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2023 4:23 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc:

Subject: Letter to HCD about San Mateo Housing Element (Housing Action Coalition), 1 of 2 1751 of 2271
2 Mr. McDougall and Mr. Finney –

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, please see the attached letter regarding HAC’s comments to the City of San Mateo’s adopted Housing Element. In addition to the letter, I’m also attaching copies of our comment letters to the Planning Commission and City Council. Note, by separate email, I will forward the appendix to our Planning Commission comment letter. Because the appendix file is quite large, please acknowledge receipt of my subsequent email (or let me know you did not receive it). Thanks, and we hope these comments will be helpful in your review of San Mateo’s Housing Element.

CJ Higley
Partner
He/Him
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.

For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 1752 of 2271

THOMAS B. MAYHEW
CHARLES J. HIGLEY
February 24, 2023
Via E-Mail
State of California
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento CA 95833
Re: City of San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element
Dear Mr. McDougall and Ms. Prasad:

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition,1 we write to request your consideration, in connection with your review of the City of San Mateo’s adopted Housing Element, of the comments our firm submitted to the San Mateo Planning Commission and City Council, respectively. For your reference, our comment letters to the City dated December 16, 2022, and January 7, 2023, are enclosed.

Our review and comment letters have focused principally on two issues. First, San Mateo has included a number of sites that do not have a realistic likelihood of becoming housing during the next eight years. The inventory includes a major shopping center and a regional mall and claims that these are housing sites that will redevelop in the next eight years, despite busy stores, new long-term leases, and even multimillion dollar improvements that demonstrate the current retail uses will continue. Second, San Mateo’s methodology for identifying how much of the regional need will be met by the sites on the inventory appears both unprincipled and inconsistently applied in ways that overstate the realistic development potential of many of the sites. In order to properly evaluate whether the site inventory will meet the needs of San Mateo’s anticipated population growth, San Mateo must formulate a proper methodology and then apply it consistently, and explain how it evaluates site-specific information, other potential uses of the property, and market evidence on what is likely to actually be built.

We refer you to the enclosed letters for our more detailed analyses, but below is a summary of the arguments in our enclosed letters.
1 The Housing Action Coalition is a nonprofit that advocates for building more homes at all levels of affordability to alleviate the Bay Area and California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis.
1753 of 2271
Department of Housing and Community Development
February 24, 2023

Page 2 ends

1. The City includes sites that are not “suitable and available” because they do not have a “realistic and demonstrated potential” for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the need for housing.

Where nonvacant sites are listed on the sites inventory, there must be a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment” during the next eight years. Government Code § 65583(a)(3). Where nonvacant sites are used to address over 50% of the need for affordable housing for those with lower incomes, the City must show the realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment by making formal findings that the existing use does not impede residential development “based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued” during the planning period. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2) (final sentence). The City must analyze the evidence: existing leases, market demand for the existing uses, and anything else that would indicate whether existing uses will continue. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1).

Our comment letters analyze several individual sites on the City’s site inventory, including some of the larger sites like Bridgepointe Shopping Center, Hillsdale Mall, and the Borel Shopping Center, among others. In most of the sites we analyzed, publicly available information indicates that recently signed longer-term leases would prohibit near-term development. In other cases, substantial capital investments indicate a commitment to continue existing uses, rather than provide any evidence that such uses would discontinue during the planning period. During the Housing Element approval hearings, City staff argued that, because leases could be terminated early, bought out by landlords/property developers, or somehow “broken,” the City’s inclusion on its inventory of sites with long-term leases was appropriate. In fact, the law requires more of the City. The theoretical possibility that long-term leases may somehow be disregarded by both landlord and tenant is insufficient. The law requires the City to find that the existing use on a site is likely to be discontinued early enough in the planning period not to impede residential development. We believe the City failed to provide substantial evidence to support the requisite findings required by Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2).

Indeed, this was one of the central points the Planning Commission noted in refusing to recommend the draft Housing Element for approval by the City Council.

2. The City’s analysis to support its methodology for calculating the realistic capacity of each site is inadequate.

The City’s draft Housing Element fails to demonstrate that the site inventory numbers reflect the realistic development capacity for each site. For sites with the potential for mixed or non-residential use, the Housing Element calculates a discounted probability of residential development, but fails to apply this discount to all of the sites that could develop as mixed use (and that may develop without any residential uses at all). Our letters analyze several specific sites where the City has overstated the realistic capacity by improperly failing to treat the sites as mixed-use. These methodological flaws significantly overstate the capacity on the inventory by 642-875 units.
1754 of 2271
Department of Housing and Community Development
February 24, 2023

Page 3 ends

For the limited number of sites on the inventory that are zoned residential without the potential for non-residential uses, the City’s analysis is also flawed. As discussed in the Housing Action Coalition’s prior comment letter, the draft “cherry-picks” data to argue that capacities should be calculated based on the maximum permitted under the City’s zoning laws. At pages H-30 through H-31, and in table 4, the City separates prior residential developments into two categories: “in-fill” and “outliers.” The so-called “outliers” represent over 20% of the units, and 46% of the residentially zoned land that was redeveloped: it was unreasonable to disregard them when computing the average. The average density for residential projects, combining both parts of table 4, is approximately 40 units/acre.

Meanwhile, the City does not apply the “outlier” density to sites that would appear to have far more in common with the prototype outlier sites on the list. Our analysis compares the characteristics of various sites on the inventory and their treatment as “infill” versus “outlier,” and concludes that these labels were not consistently applied, and that their mis-application exaggerates the capacity of residential sites.

The City also fails to take site specific constraints into account. At the Fish Market and 1900 S. Norfolk sites, for example, there are required setbacks from Borel Creek and Seal Slough. 1900 S. Norfolk is also next to a freeway interchange, and so has restrictions on height relating to the height of the freeway railing; the site also has a long tail that winds around a PG&E substation, none of which could be developed and which should therefore be ignored in calculating realistic capacity. The City also seems not to have considered the potential effect of San Mateo Zoning Code section 27.44.065 to this site (currently zoned E1): at least 35% of the parcel area must be open-space, preventing over 1/3 of the land from being developed for housing. Other sites also have odd shapes or watercourse adjacencies. The City’s treatment of this site underscores the lack of particularized analysis the City undertook in arriving at the capacity numbers on the inventory. Importantly, this lack of analysis exaggerates the realistic, demonstrated capacity of the City’s inventory.

3. The San Mateo Planning Commission Had It Right: This Element Does Not Comply With State Law.

We also suggest watching the comments of San Mateo’s Planning Commission hearing of January 12, 2023. The Planning Commissioners took their job seriously, and unanimously concluded that the Housing Element should not be adopted because it does not meet the requirements of state law. The full hearing is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBLEOCJhv0w. But to highlight a few key points, from the Commissioners’ comments during the final hour:
1755 of 2271
Department of Housing and Community Development
February 24, 2023

Page 4 ends

Commissioner Adam Nugent commented (at time stamps 2:46-2:56 of the video): “I doubt that HCD will find this housing element . . . in substantial compliance with state law.” “I don’t believe that the realistic capacity of the sites has been factored in accordance with HCD guidance.” “A large number of sites that do not have a realistic likelihood of becoming housing within the next eight years.” “It just doesn’t seem like we currently have that substantial evidence for all of the sites that would accommodate lower income.” As to policies, it is “clearcut that there are deficiencies.” With respect to AFFH, “The structural inertia toward greater segregation in the Bay Area is growing.” “We are failing, 100% as a nation, as a region, and as a city, when it comes to affirmatively furthering fair housing.” “[C]urrently our AFFH related actions, our means of evaluating their effectiveness, are too weak to make meaningful change in the direction of affirmatively furthering fair housing.” And later, “We feel that at this point the Housing Element is not yet ready, it’s not to the place we think it will be in substantial compliance with state law.”
Commissioner Seema Patel (at time stamps 3:17-3:20): “For the site inventory, we’re not providing substantial evidence of redevelopment as defined by HCD.” “We’re assuming 100% zoned density production for residential zoned parcels based on a calculation of as-built density that includes projects that have not yet started construction . . . We eliminated projects that didn’t include any housing from our calculation of as-built density in mixed-use and commercial zones, which significantly overestimates the realistic capacity of those sites.” “From the affirmatively furthering fair housing stanpoint, we are planning for no affordable housing in our highest areas of opportunity.” While the RHNA numbers require tripling housing production, San Mateo is trying to do so “without making any changes to zoning as part of this housing element. . . . Why do we think housing production will triple if we’re not changing . . .?” And Vice-Chair John Ebneter (beginning at time stamp 3:21): “My concerns have been consistent from day 1:” “Site inventory is somewhat inadequate.” “Methodology for realistic capacity is questionable.” “Zero sites in high opportunity locations.” “Locating sites [for lower income housing] in flood zones,” and areas of liquefaction. “The more I think about it, I feel that there were early decisions made, and a plan and a track put in place, and we’ve locked ourselves in.” “We had a once in an 8 year opportunity to make a meaningful change and address our housing crisis. We could have, we should have, tried to be a leader in the Bay Area, setting an example for what it looks like to take the housing crisis seriously.” “[I]t is unconscionable to conceive of losing another decade to business as usual.” “We aimed for a D-minus and that is what we have. Why, why didn’t we capitalize on the [political] will and the opportunity?” After these comments, the Planning Commission then unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council deny adoption of the Housing Element. The Planning Commission made an express finding to explain their reasons: “We find that the feasibility of future housing sites, fair housing policy, housing goals, policies and programs, and removing constraints to building housing have failed to meet the state’s statutory requirements.” (Time stamp 3:45-3:46). 1756 of 2271
Department of Housing and Community Development
February 24, 2023

Page 5 ends

* * *
The draft 2023-2031 Housing Element for San Mateo does not comply with state law.

The City Council does not have “substantial evidence” that the owners of Bridgepointe Shopping Center will buy out anchor tenants in order to make way for redevelopment, or that the owners of Hillsdale Mall will walk away from a $250MM of capital investments in the retail use to pivot to full residential development. While it may be reasonable to conceive of some amount of residential development on these sites, the City has not presented the requisite evidence to show when, or where on the site, or how such development may or may not be compatible with the existing uses that are not likely to discontinue. The City also declined to adjust its capacity methodology to account for what we demonstrated was, at best, the flawed application of likely development densities to sites on the inventory. The end result is a site inventory that significantly overstates the amount of housing, and the amount of affordable housing, the City can realistically expect to be developed during the next eight years.

A bad Housing Element in any one city hurts the entire Bay Area community and the entire state, by dodging the responsibility to plan for the city’s fair share of the state’s growth.

By including unrealistic sites on the inventory, or exaggerating the number of units that can be built on included sites, cities evade their obligation to make real plans about where real housing is likely to be built to meet the regional need. San Mateo’s decision to turn a blind eye to leases, market data, and physical and legal site constraints prevents the City from meeting its obligation to identify and make available enough sites throughout the City for housing, particularly for lower income residents. And you do not have to take our word for it: the issues raised in our comment letters were among the chief reasons the Planning Commission voted unanimously not to approve the flawed draft Housing Element, finding that it was not in compliance with state law. We believe the City Council’s adoption of the Housing Element over the recommendations of its Planning Commission should signal to HCD that this particular Housing Element needs close scrutiny.

1757 of 2271
Department of Housing and Community Development
February 24, 2023

Page 6 ends

As set forth in detail in the enclosed comment letters, and based on Government Code section 65583.2(g)(2), the City of San Mateo’s site inventory does not show a realistic, sufficient capacity on sites adequate to meet the need for lower income housing. The Department should conclude that the Housing Element adopted by San Mateo on January 26, 2023, does not substantially comply with state law.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas B. Mayhew
Charles J. Higley
36615\15308048.1
CC: Housing Manager, City of San Mateo; [email protected] Corey Smith, Housing Action Coalition;
Ali Sapirman, Housing Action Coalition;
1758 of 2271

THOMAS B. MAYHEW
[email protected]
D 415.954.4948
CHARLES J. HIGLEY
[email protected]
D 415.954.4942
December 16, 2022
Via E-Mail
Planning Manager
City of San Mateo
Planning Division
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
E-Mail: [email protected], and
[email protected]
Re: Draft Housing Element for City of San Mateo 2023-2031 Comments of Housing Action Coalition
Dear Planning Manager:

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition,1 we write to comment on the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element for the City of San Mateo. The draft Housing Element does not meet the City’s obligation to plan and provide for affordable housing. Absent substantial revisions, it may be found in violation of state law.

Below, we identify two significant issues to be addressed as San Mateo continues to work on formulating an acceptable Housing Element. First, San Mateo has included a number of sites that do not have a realistic likelihood of becoming housing during the next eight years, as required to meet the need for new housing. The inventory includes a major shopping center and a regional mall and claims that these are housing sites that will redevelop in the next eight years, despite busy stores, new long-term leases, and even multimillion dollar improvements that conclusively demonstrate that the current retail uses will continue. Second, San Mateo’s methodology for identifying how much of the regional need will be met by the sites on the inventory appears both unprincipled and inconsistently applied. In order to properly evaluate whether the site inventory will meet the needs of San Mateo’s anticipated population growth, San Mateo needs to formulate a proper methodology and then apply it consistently, and explain 1 The Housing Action Coalition is a nonprofit that advocates for building more homes at all levels of affordability to alleviate the Bay Area and California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis.
1759 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 2 ends

how it evaluates site-specific information, other potential uses of the property, and market evidence on what is likely to actually be built.

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1).

1. The Bridgepointe Shopping Center
(APN 035-466-010, -070, -080, -090, -100, -110)
The City’s sites inventory lists several parcels that together make up the Bridgepointe Shopping Center, a popular regional mall described by owner CBRE as “one of the premier power centers in the Bay Area.” Together, the parcels comprising Bridgepointe account for 1,188 total housing units in the site inventory. Of these, 241 units would be for Very Low income residents, and 180 would be Low income residents. 1760 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 3 ends

The bulk of the units the City identifies for the Bridgepointe property would be contained on parcel 035-466-100, which the City describes in Appendix C, Table A as a “large parking lot, larger than .5 acre, potential for structured parking.” As an initial matter, HCD’s guidance for conducting the sites analyses provides that “[a] parcel smaller than one half acre or over 10 acres is considered inadequate to accommodate housing affordable to lower income households, unless the housing element demonstrates development of housing affordable to lower income households on these sites is realistic or feasible.” At 12 acres, this parcel is presumed to be inadequate without more specific information demonstrating feasibility. Aside from a vague mention on page H-34 of “a variety of discussions” with the owner of the shopping center, we have not found any such information in the City’s draft Housing Element or in the public discourse that demonstrates the feasibility of re-developing the site for housing. Nor does the City show that there is a history of successful developments of this size by affordable housing developers. For this reason, parcel 035-466-100 should be excluded from the sites inventory.

A more general (and more significant) problem with the City’s identification of the Bridgepointe parcels, however, is that there is no reason to believe that any of them will be available for development within the planning period contemplated by the draft Housing Element. Bridgepointe is a bustling power center with numerous national retailers. The City has presented no information that would indicate the imminent demise of the shopping center. To the contrary, based on information available from CompStak (HAC Appendix Tab 1), a website that “gathers and quality checks lease and sales comps from the professionals making deals,” it appears that numerous leases run through and beyond the end of this decade.

Hobby Lobby, a national retailer of arts and crafts supplies, for instance, apparently has a lease at Bridgepointe that doesn’t expire until 2029. HAC Appendix Tab 2.

Similarly, national cosmetics retailer Ulta Beauty appears to hold a lease that was entered into in 2021, and doesn’t expire until 2032. HAC Appendix Tab 3. Both the recent commencement date of the lease, as well as its long-term nature suggest that neither Ulta Beauty nor Bridgepointe is going anywhere anytime soon.

The list goes on. Total Wine & More has a lease that runs until 2027. HAC Appendix Tab 4. California Fish Grill just entered into a lease that will run through 2031. HAC Appendix Tab 5. Armadillo Willy’s has a lease that will expire in 2030. HAC Appendix Tab 6. Absent some evidence that the information available on CompStak is inaccurate, there is simply nothing at all to suggest Bridgepointe will be available for redevelopment during the upcoming eight years.

One possible explanation for the City’s inclusion of the Bridgepointe parcels, despite clear evidence the existing retail uses on the site are likely to continue for the foreseeable future, is that the City’s analysis seems to rely heavily on the availability of the parking lots associated with the shopping center. Presumably the logic here is that, because they are surface parking lots that aren’t occupied by other existing structures, they could theoretically accommodate construction of housing, while the requisite parking to serve the retail uses could be 1761 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 4 ends

accommodated in one or more newly constructed parking garages. While this is theoretically true and makes sense as a matter of spatial arrangement, nothing in the City’s draft demonstrates that redevelopment of this nature is likely or would be legally feasible under the retailers’ leases.

We are not aware of the details regarding tenants’ rights to occupy or control the parking areas associated with the Bridgepointe Shopping Center. We note, however, that tenants in similar “power centers” typically possess non-exclusive rights to parking in the parking lots associated with the shopping center of which they are a part. Indeed, access to and availability of immediately adjacent parking is often viewed as crucial to a retail outlet’s success. While we have no affection for this land use pattern, the City has not demonstrated that the legal rights of tenants over the Bridgepointe parking lots would permit their redevelopment and reconfiguration.

2. Hillsdale Mall
(APN 042-121-040, -060, -080; 039-490-050, -170; 039-353-010, -020, -030, - 040)
The site of the Hillsdale Shopping Center, including surrounding parking lots and buildings (listed as Consolidated Site X on the draft Housing Element), is projected to provide 912 lower income units towards the RHNA. The assumption is that 100% of the acreage will redevelop at 100% of the maximum density for the site: 50 dwelling units per acre.

Unfortunately, there is not substantial evidence that the existing use on all of these parcels will discontinue during the next eight years.

As the comment by Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County has previously noted, the Hillsdale Mall recently rebuilt a significant portion of the retail mall at Hillsdale. The single largest parcel at the site (APN 039-490-170, comprising 39.91 acres) was significantly redeveloped for retail and entertainment uses. Known as the “Hillsdale North Block,” it was a massive project involving the demolition, redesigning, and reconstructing of existing buildings, and constructing two new ones, on 12.5 acres of the site.2 The construction loan for the project was $240 million.3

Opened in November 2019, Hillsdale North Block has new stores, restaurants, a new multiscreen movie theater, and even a new upscale bowling alley. The remodeled structure ties into existing retail structures on the same parcel, including a two-story parking garage used to provide parking for the new retail and entertainment spaces, and a food court built over 31st Avenue, extending over to the Nordstrom’s building on the other side of 31st (in the older portion 2 Details on this project are available on the City Planning Department’s website at:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/47652/Hillsdale_Shopping_Center_Nort h_Block_Initial-Study--Mitigated-Negative-Declaration?bidId 3 HAC Appendix Tab 7. This January 2022 article also quotes the new co-owner of Hillsdale Mall as stating: “We are confident that Hillsdale Shopping Center will continue its meaningful presence in the city for years to come.” See also HAC Appendix Tab 8. 1762 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 5 ends

of the mall, which includes Nordstrom’s and Macy’s as anchor tenants). The food court/pedestrian bridge, remodeled as part of the Hillsdale North Block improvements, shows that the retail uses to the south of 31st Street also continue to be part of the owner’s long-range plans.

The owner of Hillsdale Mall has publicly indicated an interest in some amount of housing, alongside its existing retail and entertainment uses. The problem for purposes of Housing Element analysis is that any residential plans have not yet been defined, and would at best comprise only a portion of the site. San Mateo has no evidence of what proportion of the site will involve continuation of existing uses, but cannot reasonably conclude that all existing uses will cease during the next eight years. The existing use of APN 039-490-170 precludes counting it towards 808 units of affordable housing; the recent and substantial improvements preclude any reasonable finding that the existing use will be discontinued.

Meanwhile, the main parcel separates the other parcels from one another, rendering unclear which, if any, might realistically be developed for residential housing in the next eight years. Thriving retail, restaurant, and banking uses (Trader Joe’s, Old Navy, a Wells Fargo bank branch, several restaurants, and associated parking) are located on the parcels south of Hillsdale Boulevard, an area known as “Hillsdale South,” with leases signed, and expensive tenant improvements done, as recently as 2021.4
A proper analysis under Government Code section 65583.2(g)(1) would preclude the City from making the required finding that this site is suitable, available, and realistic for affordable housing under 65583.2(g)(2), because existing uses are not likely to discontinue during the next eight years. A site of this size is also presumed to be insufficient to meet the needs for affordable housing, absent evidence of successful affordable housing developments of this size 4 These businesses are on APNs 039-490-050, and 042-121-040, -060, and -080, an area labeled as “Hillsdale South.” They are on the south side of West Hillsdale Boulevard from the main mall site on APN 039-490-170. Building permits indicate that $1.7 million in renovations was done in the 2009-2010 time frame when Trader Joe’s and other businesses were moving in; more recently, $150,000 of work was done on the interior in 2021, when Sleep Number opened a store there. BD-2021-279007; BD-2009-233895; BD-2009-34436; SG-2021-279679. Publicly available information shows that Sleep Number has a lease running into 2028. HAC Appendix Tab 10. Other building permits show substantial renovations and construction work done for the current tenants. When DSW (a shoe store) moved in, over $600,000 of improvements were done. BD-2011-240083, BD-2011-240152. When AT&T moved in next door to DSW, at 31 West Hillsdale Boulevard, over $1.8 million of construction was done; a Macaroni & Grill restaurant on the site was demolished and the AT&T building was constructed at the same location. BD-2016-260718, BD-2016-260255, BD-2017-263360. The AT&T construction was completed relatively recently: permits were signed-off and closed in 2018. It is not “likely” that these existing uses will discontinue in the next eight years. 1763 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 6 ends

or special reason to believe that one would be successful here. Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(B). San Mateo shows neither.

3. The Atrium: 1900 South Norfolk Street
(APN 035-391-090)
The executive office building located at 1900 South Norfolk Street is currently used by a large number of office tenants. The draft Housing Element does not perform any analysis of the current use, including whether existing leases would create obstacles to residential development of the site during the next eight years. Publicly available information indicates that a number of leases continue to be signed or renewed for this three story office building, with at least one lease publicly reported to extend until 2030. HAC Appendix Tab 9. The City should perform the required analysis under Government Code section 65583.2(g)(1), and evaluate whether it has substantial evidence to make the finding that existing uses are “likely to discontinue” during the next eight years, as required by section 65583.2(g)(2). If not, it should not be claimed to meet the need for 99 lower income affordable housing units, even if the owner has expressed a longterm interest in redevelopment.

4. Borel Shopping Center (71-77 Bovet; 1750 El Camino Real) (Consolidated Site AH: APN 039-011-450, -460, -470, -480, -500, -510) This site is a busy shopping center anchored by a CVS Pharmacy, a 24 Hour Fitness,5 a
branch of Patelco Credit Union, a UPS store, and a separate restaurant building for Jack’s Restaurant and Bar. There is publicly available information showing that the lease for Jack’s extends well into the planning period. HAC Appendix Tab 11 (indicating Jack’s lease extends from 2013-2029). The City should do the required section 65583.2(g)(1) analysis of the existing leases, and current market demand for the retail uses at the location. The City currently lacks substantial evidence that the site’s existing use is “likely to be discontinued” during the next eight years. It should not count towards 85 units of housing affordable to lower income households.

5. The Elks and The Shriners – 229 W. 20th Street and 150 W. 20th Street (APN 037-052-350 and APN 039-030-220)
The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Lodge 1112 (“San Mateo Elks Lodge”), has been located at 229 W. 20th Street since 1954. The San Mateo Elks Lodge has a membership of over 1,100 as of earlier this year. The Elks use their lodge to operate a popular swimming 5 In 2008, the 24 Hour Fitness substantially modified the building it occupies 2008 when it moved into a space formerly occupied by Albertson’s. It added locker rooms, a swimming pool, basketball courts, showers, and other tenant improvements at a cost exceeding $2.2 million. BD2007-230493; BD-2007-230029; BD-2008-230692. 1764 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 7 ends

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

Preliminary conversations with the owner to convert to residential have occurred.”6 Nothing has happened in the last eight years to suggest that “preliminary conversations” are substantial evidence on which to predict a likely discontinuation of the existing use, even if the more recent note is based on more recent preliminary conversations. This site should not be counted towards accommodating the need for 77 units of housing affordable to lower income households.

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2).

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

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

The same analysis applies to other sites. See, e.g., 1500 Fashion Island Blvd. (APN 035- 550-040) (“Developer interest in redevelopment.”); Consolidated Site B (APN 032-312-250, - 270, -150, -100, -070) (“General interest in redevelopment”); 480 North Bayshore Blvd. (APN 033-081-280) (nonvacant use as motel; re-used from 2015 Housing Element: “General interest to redevelop, motel conversion.”). Vague expressions of interest do not constitute substantial evidence that the existing use will likely cease during the next eight years. Section 65583.2(g)(1) and (g)(2) require more analysis, more evidence, and more likelihood.

6 In order to rely on conversations purporting to express intent, the public needs to know much more. Who had the conversation cited by the City, and with whom did they have it? Has the Lodge taken any affirmative steps toward redevelopment beyond this conversation? Without more, the vague reference to “preliminary conversations” between unidentified speakers on an unidentified date does not constitute “substantial evidence.” 1765 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 8 ends

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

APN 042-242-050, -060, -070, -160, -180;
042-243-020, 042-244-040, -050;
042-245-040, -050, -060, -070, -080, -090, -100, -110, -120, -130; 042-263-010, 042-264-010)
This site, consisting of twenty parcels, is claimed to accommodate 161 units of housing affordable to those with lower incomes. The only basis for including it appears to be the claim that there is “ownership interest in specific plan redevelopment,” which does not indicate that all of the parcels would be redeveloped as housing at the maximum density, or indicate who said what to whom, and when.7
Meanwhile, and as discussed further in section B below, the draft Housing Element does not adequately analyze or demonstrate the realistic capacity of the site. Under section 65583.2(g)(1), for a nonvacant site like this, the city must “specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period.” The required analysis is currently missing. A realistic assessment of the current uses and market conditions would preclude listing the entire site at maximum density. Mollie Stone’s is the only full service grocery store in the surrounding area. For households in the southwestern portion of town (for example, everyone near Laurel Elementary School and south to the Belmont border), closing Mollie Stone’s would more than double their travel times to the nearest grocery, and extend them well beyond the one-mile used to define a “food desert” – a condition no one expects to develop in this well-resourced city.8

Currently San Mateo’s land use pattern follows the predictable pattern: few, if any, households are more than one mile from a grocery. There is no reason to believe that the market need for grocery stores will make the need for Mollie Stone’s, or another grocery store, superfluous in this part of town. Particularly as San Mateo’s population grows, the need for grocery stores will increase, not diminish.
7 Here too, the concern about specificity is not idle. There are five separate owners.

Carstens Realty owns most of the parcels, but CLC Investments, Sadigh Sassan, Shamco E LLC, and San Mateo Investment Co. each own one. The City does not discuss or address whether the five are willing or interested in a joint project, though it lists each of them as having expressed interest in a specific plan. Without evidence of what makes consolidation likely, the smaller sites are deemed insufficient to accommodate the need for lower income housing. See Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(A).
8 If Mollie Stone’s closed, and no grocery store was rebuilt in its place, it would create the unlikely situation where an affluent, urban community became a “food desert.” The United States Department of Agriculture has defined a “food desert” as an area where at least 500 people, or 33 percent of the tract population, reside more than one mile from a full service supermarket. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45014/30940_err140.pdf. 1766 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 9 ends

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

B. The Analysis Supporting The Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(1) and (c)(2) Calculation Is Insufficient.

The draft Housing Element states that the site inventory “generally” calculates the realistic capacity of each site based on the maximum density, unless the site is smaller than 0.5 acres or has “characteristics similar to the outlier projects,” in which case a density of 18.2 units/acre is used. Draft Housing Element at H-30 to H-31. The HCD comment letter noted that the assumed densities are not sufficiently supported, and we understand that staff is working on a re-draft to take this comment into account. We offer the following comments about the existing draft to aid in this process.
1767 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 10 ends

Under section 65583.2(c)(1) and (c)(2), a City that lacks a required minimum residential density for a site, like San Mateo, must “demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site will be accommodated.” Under (c)(2), “the number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted, as necessary, based on the land use controls . . ., the realistic development capacity for the site, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on [availability of utilities].” Section 65583.2(g)(1) layers on additional requirements to analyze nonvacant sites: the city is required to “provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential,” and to consider a number of statutory factors.

HCD provided further guidance about the “capacity analysis” in its site inventory guidebook, at page 19-22. It explained that where a city uses sites that are zoned for nonresidential uses, the city must evaluate the capacity analysis by taking into account that some or all of the site may be developed – as city law allows – for such nonresidential uses, such as commercial or office uses. The City is required to take into account any city laws that constrain development, including setbacks, to calculate the “buildable” area, rather than the total size of the site. The City is also required to take into account typical densities, by looking at other projects that have been built or approved.

Unfortunately, the City’s initial draft does not adequately or accurately analyze the required information, and does not present a reasonable methodology based on the data. To the extent it does identify a methodology, it does not apply it consistently. As currently presented, the claimed capacities on the site inventory are unreasonable and arbitrary.

First, the City’s calculation does not take into account the statute or HCD guidance for adjusting site capacity where nonresidential uses are possible. Most of the sites on the inventory, and by far most of the acres, are not zoned exclusively for residential uses. Some are zoned commercial or office with a residential overlay; others are zoned commercial or office with a requirement that any residential use seek a special use permit; the vast majority permit nonresidential uses. Thus, even if the existing use is likely to cease in the next eight years, the current zoning would allow someone else to begin a new nonresidential use.

San Mateo itself has experience with new developments proposed for sites that are not zoned exclusively residential, which then develop for entirely nonresidential uses. In table 5, listing twenty development approvals during the 2017-2021 time frame, the City itself identifies that five of the twenty sites, and 26.7% of the acreage, were developed for nonresidential uses.

Meanwhile, of those sites that did include some residential development, the development was not always 100% residential. Eight of the fifteen projects in table 15 were less than 100% residential. Combined with the five entirely nonresidential projects, 13 of 20 projects listed were not 100% residential. Under the HCD guidance and statutory mandate to consider typical experience with development, the City should apply a significant adjustment downward from maximum density to account for the very real probability that some of the sites may develop for 1768 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 11 ends

San Mateo City CouncilMay 20, 2024

San Mateo City Council
May 20, 2024