Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, May 20, 2024 (part 8 of 9)

nonresidential uses. The City’s application of maximum density to non-residentially zoned sites improperly ignores its experience of recent years.

Second, the City uses incomplete or misleading data to claim development at maximum density. The City’s primary argument for claiming 100% of maximum density for 100% of the acreage is in table 4 of the draft Housing Element. Table 4 distorts the City’s typical experience.

Table 4 carves the data into two categories, referred to as “in-fill” and “outlier.” The categories appear arbitrary,9, suggesting a principled distinction that the City does not rationally apply. Whether intentional or not, the distinction made between “in-fill” and “outlier” excludes from analysis three large, recent developments where a residential project did not develop at maximum density from consideration of the typical experience in San Mateo. Indeed, we were unable to identify a single site where the City applied the “outlier” density of 18.2 units per acre.

Instead of being used to analyze sites, the “outlier” category only serves to exclude from the three sites comprising 20% of all units produced since 2017 – and two of the largest three projects by acreage – from the average density built. Cherry-picking the data is not a proper methodology.

Meanwhile, the table also appears to omit recent information. While table 4 includes high density approvals like the unbuilt project at 666 Concar, it deliberately excludes from the average other lower density approvals like the projects at 21 Lodato, 2089 Pacific, or the mixed use projects at 405 E. 4th and 406 E. 3d, which would show that not every residential or mixed use project, even ones that would fairly be called “in-fill,” develops at or above maximum density as claimed. Also missing entirely, though it will presumably be added to the next draft, is the City’s recent approval of the Draeger’s project at 222 E. 4th/400 So. B Street, where the City approved 17,658 square feet of grocery, 104,554 square feet of office space, and just under 9,000 square feet of residential on a 1.14 acre site, for a residential density in this mixed use site of less than 9 units per acre in the downtown area. Similarly, we note that the recent MU2/MU3 approval will not be built at maximum residential density, given the open space and office uses.

Even projects fairly categorized as “in-fill” do not always develop at maximum (35 or 50) units per acre, contrary to the site inventory calculation. The City should adjust the calculation downward based on the full data set.

Third, the method is either highly subjective, or arbitrarily applied. To reiterate, we were unable to identify any site that the City applied the “outlier” density calculation to, with the exception of the three outlier sites themselves. Instead, even sites that were materially 9 There is little reason, for example, to distinguish 1919 O’Farrell (more than a mile from transit, hemmed in against a freeway in a residential neighborhood) from 220 North Bayshore (more than a mile from transit, hemmed in against a freeway in a residential neighborhood), other than that one developed at higher density than the other, and so is preferred as support for the city’s argument.
1769 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 12 ends

indistinguishable from the “outliers” were nevertheless listed as accommodating the RHNA need at 100% of the maximum zoning capacity. For example:
 The “outlier” project at 1, 2, and 3 Waters Park Road is located less than 100 feet away – just on the other side of Borel Creek, as it empties into Seal Slough – from the Atrium Office Building at 1900 S. Norfolk (discussed above in section A.3). 1900 S. Norfolk is in the same flood zone and just as far from transit as Waters Park Road.10 Why was the 1, 2, and 3 Waters Park Road project an “outlier” that developed at a density of 17 units/acre, but 1900 S. Norfolk is listed as accommodating 50 units/acre? The answer isn’t in the zoning code, either: 1900 S. Norfolk is currently zoned as an office park (E1-0.5), and will need to run the gauntlet of seeking approval for a special use permit, just as the Waters Park Road project did. See San Mateo Zoning Code, § 27.44.030(g). 1900 South Norfolk is not fairly lumped in with “in-fill” sites like the Bay Meadows project, where block after block is filled with four and five story apartment buildings and high density on vacant land zoned using a specific plan. Until San Mateo proves through experience that developers will build high density projects on sites like 1900 S. Norfolk, San Mateo cannot assume that they will incur the expense to build 50 units per acre.
 The sites on the continuation of Norfolk on the opposite side of Highway 92 – still along Seal Slough, and still far from transit – are subject to the same conditions as the lower density “outlier” Waters Park Road project. Without a more convincing analysis, the City should thus apply the 18.2 unit/acre average to the sites at Consolidated Site AC (1826 & 1850 South Norfolk; “Parkside Plaza”).

Yet even while listing a maximum density of 30 du/ac, the City projects 332 units to be built at Parkside Plaza: a full 50 units per acre on the 6.65 acre site.  Are there sites like the “outlier” at 220 North Bayshore, developed in a residential neighborhood, on the eastern side of the 101 freeway? We would suggest that 10 These aren’t the only examples, just the clearest ones. Similarly, 1500 Fashion Island (APN 035-550-040) and the Bridgepointe Shopping Center are also down on the flood plain near Seal Slough, and far from transit stations, but not calculated based on the “outlier” density. We focus on the “flood zone” and “far from transit” rationales, because the third “outlier” distinction – whether the project is built for owner-occupied or rental housing – is inherently unknown about all of the sites in the inventory that have not yet applied for development, and so cannot serve as a rational factor to predict future density. Meanwhile, if the city has in mind other factors that explain the difference between “in-fill” and “outlier,” it hasn’t explained or “demonstrated” site capacities as the statute requires. See Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1) (“and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential . . .”); § 65583.2(c)(1) (“shall demonstrate how the number of units pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.”).
1770 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 13 ends

480 North Bayshore, a quarter-mile away, is subject to the same market conditions. Yet the City assumed 480 North Bayshore would develop at a density of 50 units/acre: 47 units. If the City wants to apply its “outlier” principle in an intellectually consistent manner, it should list 480 North Bayshore for just 16 units.

Meanwhile, other calculation rules are also either inconsistently or arbitrarily applied:
 Consolidated Site A (two small medical offices, zoned for office but in a neighborhood of lower rent, older two-story apartment structures) appears to be treated as having a 25 unit/acre RHNA credit: 50 units per acre for high density, then cutting it in half because each of the sites separately was less than 0.5 acres.

The two medical offices might better be considered more like the outliers on Campus and Bayshore: far from transit, far from the places where new, high density apartment buildings are actually being built. But regardless, cutting the density in half because the pre-consolidated parcels weren’t 0.5 acres doesn’t seem to be a consistently applied rule, either. See, e.g., Consolidated Site AD (containing parcels smaller than 0.5 acres, but assuming development at 50 units/acre).

Fifth, the analysis doesn’t discuss how the city’s development rules reduce the acreage available for residential development. HCD’s guidance shows that where the city’s rules – for example, for setbacks or required first floor retail – constrain the site, the numbers should be adjusted downward. As others have commented, Measure Y in particular may represent a significant constraint. But other provisions of the zoning code could impact the ability to build to maximum density, or use the entire acreage as “net buildable” space. 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).

Sixth, the calculation fails to engage in site-specific adjustments, including regarding the current use or other constraints, as required by 65583.2(c)(2) and (g)(1). The Mollie Stone’s and Hillsdale North Block examples, discussed above, both illustrate this problem. The likelihood that the existing use will continue precludes listing these sites for lower income RHNA credit under section 65583.2(g)(2), but under (c)(2) and (g)(1), the City would still need to separately evaluate whether the existing uses provide a constraint on the ability to develop the entire site in order to correctly calculate the accommodation of moderate and above-moderate income households. The likelihood that the current owner of the Mollie Stone’s site will want to consider the grocery store use, based on market conditions and location, as part of their interest in a “specific plan,” means that the City should consider whether a 100% residential development is a fair calculation of site capacity. The City is required to address whether it foresees a significant retail presence there: a development more like the Draeger’s approval, where an existing grocery store was incorporated into the site plans and the site was developed at 1771 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 14 ends

less than 20% of the maximum residential density. Similarly, given that the $200+ million construction of Hillsdale North Block precludes use of the 12.5 acres there, and the pedestrian bridge shows an intention to continue the use of the Nordstrom building at a minimum, the City needs to analyze which portions of the 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.11
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. The current analysis and approach is insufficient, and the problems with it won’t be remedied merely by providing additional discussion. The “in-fill”/“outlier” methodology does not make sense: it appears subjective, overly-rudimentary, and arbitrary, and even if better explained may not legally “demonstrate how the number of units determined for [each] site . . . will be accommodated.” Unfortunately, the analysis so far appears to lack principles that can rationalize the densities used. Along with HCD, we look forward to improvements in the next draft.

C. Additional Comments On Zoning Status.

More recently, the owner has come back with a new plan; this time for 321 units (over 91 units/acre) in sixty foot tall buildings. How much is fair to estimate? More analysis is required, including consideration of Measure Y, and whether neighbors and the City will want some open space along the shoreline. (There is also the potential site constraint of BCDC jurisdiction, which might affect the ability to obtain an approval so close to the shoreline).

Regardless, the City’s current estimate of 30 units per acre lacks reasoning or principle under either the “in-fill” or “outlier” rationales. The 45 units per acre applied to 1500 Fashion Island (273 units/6.08 acres) likewise seems disconnected from the city’s explanation of the math. Even if these numbers were chosen deliberately based on site-specific conditions, an explanation is required to meet the statutory requirement. 1772 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 15 ends

of project-specific approvals. Uncertainty regarding the ultimate success of a rezoning effort discourages residential development in the City. 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 65583.2(a)(3), because they are not zoned residential. They must 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.12
The City should also consider the impact of Government Code section 65583.2(h).

Section 65583.2(h) provides that at least fifty percent 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. This would not appear to apply to San Mateo’s site inventory, because at least fifty percent of the need is proposed to be met using mixed use sites that allow commercial uses. (For example, the Bridgepointe and Hillsdale shopping centers, zoned for commercial uses, see, e.g., City of San Mateo Zoning Code chapter 27.34). Meanwhile, the 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 of the City’s 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/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 65583.2(g)(1) and (g)(2) must be done for each site separately in order to have a valid Housing 12 We note, for example, that the Waters Park Road project, zoned E-1, sought a rezoning because it was not zoned residential, as part of its attempt to seek permission to redevelop the site. Sites on the inventory should not have to go through this step. 1773 of 2271
Housing Element
December 16, 2022

Page 16 ends

Element. The estimates of how many units will be accommodated in each category also need considerable work before the reasoning will stand up to HCD or court analysis under 65583.2(c)(1) and (2), and (g)(1).

Given the substantial need for suitable, available, and realistic housing sites zoned to meet San Mateo’s share of the regional need, we suggest that 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 arguments above.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas B. Mayhew
Charles J. Higley
36615\15308048.1
1774 of 2271

THOMAS B. MAYHEW
[email protected]
D 415.954.4948
CHARLES J. HIGLEY
[email protected]
D 415.954.4942
January 7, 2023
Via E-Mail
Housing Manager
City of San Mateo
Planning Division
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Draft Housing Element for City of San Mateo 2023-2031 Comments of Housing Action Coalition
Dear Housing Manager, Planning Commission, and City Council:

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition,1 we write to further comment on the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element for the City of San Mateo, including changes in the December 2022 draft. The draft Housing Element still 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 how it evaluates site-specific information, other potential uses of the property, and market evidence on what is likely to actually be built.
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.
1775 of 2271
Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 2 ends

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 1776 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. 1777 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 1778 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.
1779 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.

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

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

Preliminary conversations with the owner to convert to residential have occurred.”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 1780 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.

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.6
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.” 6 Here too, the concern about specificity is not idle. There are five separate owners.

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. 1782 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:

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. 1784 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) 1785 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 1786 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.
1787 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.
1788 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 1789 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) 1790 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). 1791 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).

1792 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
1793 of 2271
1794 of 2271
1795 of 2271
1796 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 2:29 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: June 5 housing AND flood focus? Insufficient time for public discourse -----Original Message-----
From: Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 1:58 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]> Subject: June 5 housing AND flood focus? Insufficient Ɵme for public discourse City Council & Housing Officials,
Quick note to be on record that cramming two huge issues of public interest into one council meeƟng is preposterous, given there is insufficient Ɵme to offer public discourse and outreach.

Flooding impacted our enƟre city and many of us are sƟll navigaƟng repairs due to same and eager to have a robust conversaƟon on June 5 to ensure this NEVER happens again. We have many desiring to aƩend June 5 with specific quesƟons addressing same.

Also, our communiƟes are being devastated by fast implementaƟon of poorly thought out development plans leaving huge gaping holes of destrucƟon that are not just an eyesore but a miƟgaƟon issue that many of us would like addressed given planning has pushed through office buildings and market rate housing under the guise of 'affordable housing' w/only a smidge of same...We, as a public deserve to be heard with soluƟons, beƩer alternaƟves, inquiries and miƟgaƟon quesƟons regarding same.

Finally, holding meeƟngs for hours on end into late night sessions and reducing public discourse to 60 second soundbites from ciƟzenry who would like to have serious conversaƟons about conscienƟous follow through is damaging the reputaƟon of a council that has been posiƟoned as desiring to 'rebuild trust' within the community.

I urge you to separate out these two very important topics which the public has an extremely vested interest in seeing handled properly WITH public input.

Anything less is giving lipservice to the concept of an informaƟve "public hearing" with community discourse...Thank you for your consideraƟon.

AppreciaƟvely,
Amy Jussel Bedard
District 4
MGA#1 Board
1797 of 2271
2 1798 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 8:51 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: HOUSING in SAN MATEO
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 4:31 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: HOUSING in SAN MATEO
The city of San Mateo really does not have enough space or land to accomodate 7,000 or 8000 new homes . This is an unrealistic amount The City Council and powers to be need to tell SACTO and others that this kind of number is truly impossible. I do not want to see our precious tax revenues spent to purchase land to accommodate builders and other cronies ,,,,
To begin with no entity is going to remove the R/R tracks or HWY 101 or 92 or similar ,,,Some roads are really too narrow to force in more buildings We have a 55 foot height limit now in effect and many in your group just want to ignore it and allow buldings to go higher by getting waivers,,,The voters voted in this height limit for many reasons and those of you who seem to try and elude this 55 foot limit should understand that those of us who voted for this and similar past motions are not going away,,We will continue to fight any height structures over 55 feet. I have no objection to developers who build garages or keep it under 55 feet and go wide . We will fight these developers in many meetings and those of you who are in our path , will be defeated in any public elections should you dream about being on the city council or similar.

So that being said I implore all of you to listen to people like me who do not want monstrous.high edifices that seem to go to the stars. Huge intense densities and buildings that accumulate many people really put pressure on the existing infrastructures we have,,,
I truly want a special tax to go on developers who will do new structures that will pay for all sewage and electricity lines pipes and similar to be underground and also with sewage to go all the way to the sewage plant,,,the existing lines are oversubscribed so adding new pipes from new buildings will just call for new pipes to be installed every five years NO ONE CARES Your planning commission has historically been DEAF to those of us who are concerned about too much growth here in San Mateo and you all seem to be swayed by tea and cookie ( DOG AND PONY ) exhibits but these professional pro growth entities.that are plaging our sensibilities....We need to suggest that they go to other locations like MERCED or FRESNO that would love development but many of us here in SM are sick and tired or the charades being presented by the planning commission...It has gone on for too long and the gravy train these developers provide to you all needs to STOP
I no longer like to attend your meeting and YES I have gone to many and spoken, I prefer now to again send you my thought and hope someone there will listen,,,OR DO YOU JUST DELETE and trash comments from people like me???DUNNO I know you will never answer my letter and have accepted your past actions very reluctantly.

I have lived at for 40 years ,,,I was born in Mills Hospital and not someone who just showed up. I am NOT a member of some political party or some political HACK...

Rick Karr
1799 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Your June 5th Meeting / Housing Element Facts From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 9:16 AM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Your June 5th Meeting / Housing Element Facts 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, May 31, 2023 2:20 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Your June 5th Meeting / Housing Element Facts
Dear City Councilmembers,
As your June 5th meeting approaches and there is further discussion on the Housing Element, I point to critical details for those who would say San Mateo needs to identify yet more places for housing units to satisfy the HCD. I shared these with Prasana, Drew and Zachary last week:

The organization 'Our Neighborhood Voices' recently presented to SMUHA. I learned some things about the HCD I found very disturbing, and feel that you should at the very least be aware as you continue to strive for the HCD to certify San Mateo's submission. San Mateo might consider joining forces with other cities on a class action lawsuit against the HCD. (This, at a cost of about $20k, seems very little in order to wrench control away from this rogue state department.)

WE'RE GETTING SET UP TO FAIL
The HCD essentially has no timeframe to approve a city’s submission. More precisely, they may indiscriminately 'bounce' a submitted element for an unlimited number of times - opening the door for the Builder's Remedy. Some of the HCD requirements are quite subjective. The speaker from Our Neighborhood Voices noted that a consultant who had successfully worked with some Southern California cities to obtain 1800 of 2271
2 HCD approval for their housing plans began bumping into walls because the HCD then began requiring new information which completely stalled approvals. This is not a one-off. A city may experience a different requirement each time its submission is kicked back, again and again. There is no deadline by which submissions have to be approved because there is no limit to the number of times the HCD can deny them. There is only the original deadline by which plans were supposed to be approved - placing cities in untenable situations as denials roll in.

It very much feels like cities are being set up to fail. The very long list of those waiting for approval is astounding – and gives special interests a megaphone to cry out that cities are not complying with the state. As you know, even San Mateo (whose staff has strongly defended their submission) has been placed on pause – allowing developer-friendly folks to suggest 'solutions' for this 'problem.' Not surprisingly, they include rezoning single-family neighborhoods, allowing up to 12 story buildings, and allowing for more rezoning by expanding definitions of 'transit' areas from a 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile, which throws doors open to more development.

In final review, the HCD, on a very flimsy methodology (per the State Auditor), devises the thousands of housing units every city must build, then can sit on the plans each city submits so that they are punished with the Builder’s Remedy, etc. Do not allow San Mateo to fall victim to the antics of the HCD when we have already done our job.

Sincerely,
Lisa Taner
1801 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 9:36 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element - Draft GPU Density Question From: Justin Kim
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 9:26 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element - Draft GPU Density Question
Hello,
We are a development company located in San Jose, CA. While reviewing the recent Housing Element site inventory, I came across a quesƟon regarding the density.

In the table provided below, there is a column indicaƟng the current Maximum Density Allowed, based on the GP designaƟon. However, there is also a column for DraŌ GPU Density, which I assume represents the proposed density for the upcoming General Plan update scheduled for early next year. I would appreciate if you could confirm this for me.

AddiƟonally, I noƟced that the DraŌ GPU Density column shows two different density ranges (e.g., 9 to 39; 40 to 99).

Could you kindly explain why there are two density opƟons? Thank you in advance!
Justin Kim
Valley Oak Partners, LLC
www.valleyoakpartners.com
This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges. 1802 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 9:20 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From:

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 9:18 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
Hi,
Thanks for making this updated version available.

On page H-cC-61 the discussion of Parkside Plaza is confusing in that you seem to include the Fish Market site in the map. Does the Parkside Plaza as discussed here include the Fish Market site? This sentence: “For the purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, staff esƟmates a realisƟc capacity of 332 units of housing, the maximum allowed given the base zoning and proximity to other mulƟ-family developments, such as 1885 S Norfolk St (Fish Market),” seems to indicate the Fish Market is considered a separate site.

Also, will the numbers here: “Should the developer/property owner choose to uƟlize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 498 residenƟal units. AdopƟon of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of these sites to between 332-658 units,” refer to both the Fish Market and Parkside Plaza locaƟons for just the Parkside Plaza locaƟon?
Can you clarify these points in the report?
Thank you,
Dennis Keane
1803 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 10:24 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element
From:

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 9:23 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
From:

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 9:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Housing Element
Hi,
Regarding the Parkside Plaza site indicated on page H-C-61, you indicate this site is proximal to Hayward Park StaƟon (“Proximity to Transit: Located 1.2 miles away from Hayward Park Caltrain StaƟon and 1.6 miles from South El Camino Real.”)
Can you clarify for me the parking availability at Hayward Park? Last I heard, parking for the public at that staƟon was drasƟcally reduced. Does this report assume people would walk/ride bikes/ drive/take public transportaƟon (that doesn’t exist) to travel that 1.2 miles?
Thank you,
Dennis Keane
1804 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 9:51 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: Fwd: Electronic version of Table 2 (site inventory) for July 2023 version of Housing Element? Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
650-522-7239
From: Mayhew, Tom
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 5:42:36 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Electronic version of Table 2 (site inventory) for July 2023 version of Housing Element?

Hi, could you email me an electronic version of the site inventory (table 2 of the Housing Element, at H-C-22 through HC-29)? Some of the math in the chart isn’t adding up, and I’d be better able to help identify the issues, and cross-check capacity estimate methodology, if I had an electronic copy. [for example, note that the total of LI + M + AM at the bottom of the chart is off: 2,970 + 1,181 + 5,704 does not equal 9,948].

Also, if you have the chart that was used to generate the percentages in table 4 on page H-C-68, I’d appreciate it (I separately filed a PRA about this, but you may have it accessible).

Thanks!

Tom Mayhew
Partner
Pronouns: His/Him

T h lp prot ct you pri ac , icr sof Of ice re en ed ut ma c dow lo d o thi pi tur fr m e nte ne .

San Francisco, CA 94104
www.fbm.com

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.

For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 1805 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 12:13 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: Fwd: Housing Element Parking Policy Follow-up
Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
650-522-7239
From: Torey Tibbetts
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 11:44:28 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: Grecia Mannah-Ayon
Subject: Re: Housing Element Parking Policy Follow-up

Hi there,
Just bumping this up and adding Grecia from our office who is taking over Housing Elements work, thanks! Best,
Torey Tibbetts
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 12:30 Torey Tibbetts wrote:

To Whom it May Concern,
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 tracked and responded to San Mateo’s housing element, focused on smart parking reforms, and are glad to see Policy H1.7 included in the adoption draft. If implemented, these policies will help make San Mateo a safer, greener city and we are committed to assisting in that goal.

Given the city promises to implement these changes by 2025-2026, we are checking-in to see if the city has begun this process, or when you plan to start?
Best,
Torey Tibbetts
--
Torey Tibbetts, Housing Policy Intern
(They/Them/Theirs)
TransForm
1806 of 2271
2 Sign up for our emails at www.TransFormCA.org. Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Linkedin, too. --
Torey Tibbetts, Housing Policy Intern
(They/Them/Theirs)
TransForm
Sign up for our emails at www.TransFormCA.org. Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Linkedin, too. 1807 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Wesley Greason
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 2:18 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: RE: Housing Element Questions
Hi Nicky,
So sorry for the typo, got my “San” city’s mixed up. Has the city of San Mateo added any new sites to their housing element/will there be any updates moving forward. I’m putting together a list of all the cities our builder desires to be in.

Thank you for your time & sorry for the typo!
Wesley Greason
Bella Vista Land Advisors
Real Estate Brokerage & Development
DRE #02109329
From: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 11:00 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia <[email protected]>; Wesley Greason Subject: RE: Housing Element Questions
Hi Wesley,
Unfortunately, the City of San Mateo only manages the housing inventory list for our own City. For info about the City of San Carlos I would reach out to their Planning Division.

Best
Nicky
From: Housing <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 4:03 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element Questions
From: Wesley Greason
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 10:30 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Questions
1808 of 2271
2 Greetings, San Mateo Housing.

My name is Wesley, I’m a broker here at Bella Vista. Has San Carlos added any new sites to its housing element inventory list in the last 90 days? We represent a builder who would like to build in the area.

Thank you for your time,
Wesley Greason
Bella Vista Land Advisors
Real Estate Brokerage & Development
DRE #02109329
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.
1809 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:37 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: SCLP comments on July 26, 2023 update, San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element Attachments: Aug 9 2023 SCLP letter to San Mateo.pdf
From: Dashiell Leeds
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Gita Dev ; James Eggers ; Gladwyn D'Souza
; Mike Ferreira
Subject: SCLP comments on July 26, 2023 update, San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council, Planning Commission, and City Staff, The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the July 26, 2023 Updated Draft San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element (HE).

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 see the attached letter for our full comments.

Sincerely,
Gita Dev
Co-Chair, Sustainable Land Use Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
email sent from account of:

Dashiell Leeds
Conservation Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
1810 of 2271
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
August 9, 2023
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
email to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element – comments on July 26, 2023 update Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council, Planning Commission, and City Staff, The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the July 26, 2023 Updated Draft San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element (HE).

City staff need to communicate very closely with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to assure a high likely hood that this HE version will be approved.

This is the third review of a proposed HE to HCD and time is running out to get the HE certified. Not having the HE certified in a timely manner has major negative consequences for San Mateo. This includes losing control of development (e.g., Builders Remedy), losing access to government funding, and undermining all the other important aspects of the proposed 2040 General Plan including the planned vote in November 2024 to consider changes to Measure Y.

City staff should be in very close communication with HCD staff to assure that this HE version is very likely to be certified.

The City must take strong new actions to assure that the RHNA goals are met Obtaining a HCD certified HE is just an interim step toward the real goal of having the RHNA goals met, particularly for affordable housing units. The HE Housing Plan (p. H-70 to H-97) needs to demonstrate a significant change to current policies and programs in order to realistically be able to reach the goal. The lack of affordable housing on the Peninsula is a significant contributor to environmental degradation as workers must commute long distances by car, emitting greenhouse gases (GHG) as well as other 1811 of 2271
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~
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.

The “buffer” for meeting the goals for affordable units (low and very low) is only 9% as shown on page H-7. This is a lower number than in the earlier versions of the HE. This makes it less likely that enough affordable units will be built. The buffer number for affordable units should be higher.

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:

H1.7 -Update Zoning Codes to Support Housing Production, H 1.8 - Adopt Objective Design Standards,
H 1.9 – Establish Minimum Densities for Mixed-Use Projects, and H 1.12 - Encourage Development of Missing Middle Housing within half mile of the transit corridor.

Funding that can be used to support affordable housing is a fundamental need and more must be done to obtain funding. 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 New Affordable Housing, b. H 1.3 - Increase Affordable Housing Production,
c. H 1.17 - Permitting and Development Fee Schedule Review, d. H 3.3 – Evaluate Housing Revenue Sources,
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 in high resource areas. f. H 5.1.2 - Support the design of a regional forgivable loan program for homeowners to construct an ADU that is held affordable for extremely low-income households. However, the units should be dedicated for at least 30 years, with affirmative marketing to households with disproportionately high housing needs including persons with disabilities, single parents, and minority households, and
1812 of 2271
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~
g. H 5.1.3 - Explore the potential to implement a loan program for ADU construction If a Cityfunded ADU loan program is determined to be infeasible. The City will 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.

The updating of H1.20 “Adopt San Mateo General Plan 2040” is built into the HE.

H1.20 would lead to a ballot measure in November 2024 to update Measure Y. If approved by the voters, significantly higher density and heights would be possible in key areas, such as near transit.

This change, if approved, will make meeting the RHNA numbers more possible. It will also potentially make providing more open space to “green” the City more feasible (parks, open space, trees, wider and safer bike and pedestrian paths, restoring creeks and riparian areas, etc.). However, it is important that the City have a strong communication plan to inform the voters of the reasons for this vote and the consequences of approval or denial. The plan to meet RHNA needs to be clear in case the measure fails.

We ask that you consider this information as you finalize the Housing Element for submission to the State HCD. 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 1813 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Ashley Snodgrass
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 8:56 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Public Comment on Latest Draft Housing Element Attachments: 2023.8.9 City of San Mateo Housing Element Letter.pdf Hi Nicky,
Please see the comments below.

Ashley
From: Jeremy Levine
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:41 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on Latest Draft Housing Element Good afternoon San Mateo City Council and staff,
Please see the attached letter for comments from the Housing Leadership Council regarding San Mateo's latest draft housing element. We greatly appreciate the progress the city has made with this draft and look forward to continuing to work on further improvements.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Facebook • Twitter • LinkedIn • Instagram • Become A Member! 1814 of 2271
August 9, 2023
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave.

San Mateo, CA 94403
To the honorable San Mateo City Council,
The Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County appreciates this opportunity to engage the City of San Mateo on its housing element. This is our fourth formal letter to the city. In the middle of last year, we sent the city two letters outlining opportunities to improve the initial draft of its housing element, one focused primarily on needs and constraints, the other focused on affirmatively furthering fair housing, the sites inventory, and the goals, policies, and programs.

We followed up with a more policy-focused letter last November.

At their core, housing elements are about policy change. All of the elaborate research that makes up a housing element–of local housing need, the governmental constraints to meeting that need, and the fair housing implications of the city’s policy choices–are supposed to lead to policy outcomes that respond to what the city learns. The analyses alone cannot make a housing element comply with state law, only appropriate policy change can.

The newest draft of the housing element makes several necessary policy changes that will help the city achieve compliance by responding to specific issues raised by the department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Of most significance, HLC recognizes the commitments to development timelines for publicly owned sites in policy H1.2; to eliminate the pre-application and third-party design review requirements for new projects and approve projects up to 25 units administratively in policy H1.6 1 ; to reduce parking requirements in policy
H1.7
2 ; and to increase the base density by a minimum of 25 du/ac in all General Plan update study areas as described in policy H1.20.
3 These are excellent and substantial changes.
3 HCD’s March 27, 2023 Review Letter, p. 8: “While the element includes Program 1.21 (Adopt San Mateo General Plan 2040), it must include specific commitments to increase densities and adjustments to development standards. In addition, the element should include a specific program to address the constraint of Measure Y.”
2 HCD’s March 27, 2023 Review Letter, pp. 5-6: “In addition, Program 1.7 must include specific implementation actions to reduce parking requirements for studio and one-bedroom units city-wide as well as for units that are at least 1,400 square feet.”
1 HCD’s March 27, 2023 Review Letter, p. 6: “[The permitting process] should be addressed as a constraint including but not limited to findings one, two and three and add or modify programs as appropriate. Lastly, the preapplication process adds at least four months in addition to the typical approval times listed and the element should add or modify programs as appropriate to address the constraint.“ 1815 of 2271
These policies form the foundation by which San Mateo can create a great housing plan that complies with state law. Nonetheless, these policies do not yet fully respond to the findings in the city’s analyses, in part because the findings are not yet accurate. The city should pursue a couple of methodological changes that will better align the housing element with state law and indicate where the city still can progress on policy.

1. Lower the realistic capacity for the city’s opportunity sites from 90% to 70% and provide supporting evidence as requested by HCD.
4 As of the latest draft, San Mateo’s realistic
capacity of 90% lacks supporting evidence. Historic development trends suggest a capacity closer to 70%.
5 If the city used a realistic capacity that reflected actual historic development trends, it would be clear that current zoning is inadequate to demonstrate enough capacity to satisfy the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, requiring the city to rezone through the housing element.

2. Expand the scope of policies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). San Mateo’s plans for rezoning through the General Plan continue to exempt the highest-opportunity areas of the community from new homes. The city’s AFFH analysis primarily justifies current conditions rather than seeking to understand the barriers to fair housing and remove them. Instead of continuing to expend energy on expensive studies to justify existing conditions, the city should implement meaningful new policies.

Though they seem esoteric, these methodological changes have large implications for the policies San Mateo must implement in order to comply with housing element law. The city currently maintains it can comply with RHNA without rezoning, which would mean that the city is not required to rezone during the current General Plan update. While this is a politically expedient result, it does not reflect reality. The city must identify additional sites to meet both the overall number of new homes in RHNA and to provide enough homes throughout the community to meet the AFFH expectation.
6, 7
These are not the only two methodological issues HLC could raise regarding the housing element. We have ongoing concerns about major opportunity sites that would further reduce the site inventory.
8 Yet we prefer to focus on policy change rather than nitpicking technical requirements. In order to comply with state law and create a great plan for new homes, HLC proposes the following amendments and additions:
8 See pp. 236-242 See analysis presented on pp. 244-245 of the public comment packet for agenda item 2 of the January 24, 2023 city council meeting.
7 HCD’s March 27, 2023 Review Letter, p. 9: “[AFFH] actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas [emphasis added], place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.” 6 See pages 4-9 of HLC’s May 6, 2022 comment letter to the city for an analysis of fair housing issues, which remain unaddressed.
5 See pp. 244-245 of the public comment packet for agenda item 2 of the January 24, 2023 city council meeting.
4 HCD’s March 27, 2023 Review Letter, p. 4: “The analysis should be based on factors such as development trends including nonresidential, performance standards requiring residential uses or other relevant factors such as enhanced policies and programs. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly.” 1816 of 2271
- Amend policy H1.2’s actions (d) and (e) to specify a minimum quantity of affordable homes that will be delivered on each site. Furthermore, amend action e to complete site analysis for 4142 S El Camino Real within 12 months of housing element adoption, issue an RFP for the site within 24 months, and select a developer within 36 months. 9 - Amend policy H.1.4 to add an action to implement a rental registry to track rentals and provide data to the city regarding ADU rental rates, prices, and evictions. Data from a rental registry will help the city identify whether the city is actually delivering on its affordability goals (which should be adjusted downwards, in any case). The city could further promote ADUs by allowing two ADUs on large lots and fee waivers for deed-restricted ADUs that are rented on the open market. - Amend policy H1.7’s action (d) to make a concrete commitment to implement an affordable housing overlay for quasi public sites owned by religious and public institutions to allow development at least up to the R-6d zoning standards. 10 Because a
meaningful portion of these sites are located within San Mateo’s highest-opportunity neighborhoods, creating a quick, streamlined process by which these areas can build housing will help San Mateo satisfy the AFFH requirements to plan for housing in higher-opportunity neighborhoods.
- Evaluate new sites to add to the housing element and commit to further rezoning. - Amend policy H1.20’s action (a) to clarify that the study areas with large opportunity sites like Bridgepoint and Hillsdale will be rezoned by a minimum of 100 du/ac. Furthermore, amend action (d) to clarify that the city will rezone single-family neighborhoods within one mile of transit to allow up to 55 du/ac if the amendment to the current Measure Y ballot initiative does not pass. These policies ensure San Mateo will adequately rezone to generate more capacity on its opportunity sites.

San Mateo’s city staff have worked hard to help San Mateo comply with state housing law, but, without clear direction from council to pursue more meaningful policy change, the city may continue to cycle through an expensive, time consuming loop of housing element review that can be avoided with bold action. San Mateo has tried to analyze its way into housing element compliance twice already, spending hundreds of hours of staff time and hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants, when the city could much more easily achieve compliance by committing to more meaningful policy recommendations.

Fundamentally, cities cannot analyze their way into new homes, nor can they analyze their way into compliance with state law. The housing element process challenges cities to provide a series of analyses and then commit to substantially change local policies to enable new housing development. HLC looks forward to continue working with San Mateo’s leaders as they strive to meet the housing needs of the entire community.
10 San Mateo draft housing element, p. 81: The policy as currently written says “Evaluate the feasibility of an affordable housing quasi-public overlay or code amendment to support the production of affordable housing on quasi-public sites, such as religious or educational institutions.” 9 San Mateo draft housing element, p. 78: The policy as currently written commits to complete site analysis within 48 months of housing element adoption and select a development partner within 60 months, virtually guaranteeing the development is not completed within the planning period. 1817 of 2271
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
1818 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:37 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element (Housing Action Committee comments on July 2023 draft) Attachments: 2023-08-09 Housing Action Coalition Comments on San Mateo July 2023 Draft Housing Element.pdf; RE: San Mateo stores - housing redevelopment plans?
From: Mayhew, Tom x4948
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 3:42 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Housing <[email protected]> Cc: Higley, CJ x4942 ; Corey Smith ; Ali Sapirman
Subject: Housing Element (Housing Action Committee comments on July 2023 draft) Please see aƩached, a leƩer on behalf of the Housing AcƟon CoaliƟon, commenƟng on the July 26 draŌ Housing Element. (Also aƩached is an email exchange with CVS regarding two sites on the inventory).

Tom Mayhew
Partner
Pronouns: His/Him

www.fbm.com

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.

For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 1819 of 2271

THOMAS B. MAYHEW CHARLES J. HIGLEY
August 9, 2023
Via E-Mail
City Council
City Planning Commission
Housing Manager, Planning Division
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Housing Element for City of San Mateo 2023-2031
Draft for Public Comment dated July 26, 2023
Comments of Housing Action Coalition
Dear City Council, Planning Commission, and Housing Manager:

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition,1 we write to comment on the July 26, 2023 draft 2023-2031 Housing Element for the City of San Mateo.

The new draft, if adopted without significant improvement, would fail to meet the need for housing and violate state law. First, it overstates how much housing the site inventory under current zoning will provide, by ignoring the specific and pointed comments of HCD and the requirements of the statute. Second, it continues to include unrealistic sites where existing uses are likely to continue. Third, it repeats the overestimation of ADU units despite being twice told by HCD why it should not. The result is that the draft is incorrect when it claims San Mateo can meet its share of the regional housing need without any rezoning.

Instead of identifying a real path forward (i.e., meaningful rezoning), the draft simply rewords the Housing Element’s failed arguments for compliance, argues that the same sites will provide more units based on more opaque data, and adds only two sites to the inventory: one of them based on a recent pre-application (site AQ: the “Post & Beam” project at 600 E.3rd), and the other a five-story office building that is still actively being leased to dozens of office tenants 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.
1820 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 2 ends

at 1690/1700 El Camino Real. If the City wants to comply with state law, a more ambitious program of rezoning, motivated by a genuine desire to affirmatively further fair housing, is necessary to do so.2
A. The Capacity of the Site Inventory To Meet The RHNA Need Is Not Realistic, Because It Ignores The Applicable Law And The Relevant Data.

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

The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site as follows:
(1) . . . If the city or county does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.
(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the realistic development capacity for the site, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.
2 A brief note about process: We have heard that City staff are bringing the new draft of the Housing Element only to the City Council, without having a hearing with the Planning Commission to obtain their recommendation, even after the Planning Commission repeatedly requested the opportunity to do so. Given the Planning Commission’s familiarity with development standards, policies, and land use in the City, it is surprising that their knowledge, experience, and expertise would not be desired as part of the process. We also note that under the San Mateo Municipal Code provides, at section 27.060.040(b), governing the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction, that the Commission “shall review and make recommendations to the Council upon all . . . General Plan Amendments.” The Housing Element is part of the General Plan, and so amendments to it are General Plan Amendments. In January the Planning Commission advised the City Council that the draft was non-compliant, and had it exactly right; the Commission identified the very issues that HCD then found prevented certification. The City Council should want to hear what the Planning Commission recommends with respect to the current draft, rather than relegating the Commission’s members to separate public comments as private citizens.
1821 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

1. The City Should Use Data From Existing And Approved Projects, As The Statute Requires, Rather Than Relying On “Applications.” The first step is to make sure the estimates are based on valid data. The law requires a realistic capacity estimate to be adjusted by considering “typical densities of existing or approved residential developments . . .” Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2). The January 1822 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 4 ends

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

But unfortunately, the January version improperly ignored three large projects to make the average look like it was over 100%, calling them “outliers” so that they wouldn’t affect the total, and omitting a few others. HCD’s March 27 letter told the City to revisit this issue: “The majority of sites still assume 100 percent maximum density as realistic capacity. The analysis must demonstrate that all projects in those zones developed at maximum density to support assumptions.”3
The new draft now ignores and even removes relevant data, and relies on an irrelevant chart instead. Table 4 in the July version, now at page H-32, has been edited to remove some of the information, including the maximum density. But worse, it removes the totals and averages, so that no one can easily figure out what is typical.

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

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

The July draft capacity estimate doesn’t rely on this data set of existing/approved projects, however: it looks at applications instead of approvals. See H-C-68 (chart based on “Applications from 2019 – present”). Applications are irrelevant. State law expressly requires consideration of “existing and approved” projects, rather than applications. The reason the statute requires consideration of “existing or approved” developments is simple: those developments have gone through the close study of whether they comply with all zoning requirements (setbacks, height limits, etc.) and the economics of building a project. “Existing and approved” projects have been battle-tested through the gauntlet of Planning Division, Planning Commission, and City Council review, unlike application or pre-application numbers that reflect only an initial proposal. The City knows well that many projects initially propose a 3 As Table 4 shows, 9 of 25 projects approved during 2017-2022 that included a residential component did not develop at or over the maximum density. 4 One site on the July version of Table 4 has been omitted from ours, because of an atypical situation: Kiku Crossing. Kiku Crossing achieved higher density only by invoking a unique state statute (AB1763) that overrode both the Measure Y height limit and eliminated the density limit entirely. Because this state law meant the project was not subject to a maximum density, it is not typical and cannot be used to calculate a percentage of maximum density for typical projects.
1823 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Despite HCD’s direction to evaluate this issue, the new July draft deletes the chart – former Table 5 in the January version – that addresses it. Hiding the data will not help. As we explained back in January, the City’s own data shows that residential capacity numbers should be reduced by approximately 25%, based on an 75% likelihood that a mixed-zoning site will be redeveloped with some residential units, and a 25% likelihood that it will be redeveloped with no residential units. Table 5, at page H-32 to H-34 of the adopted Housing Element showed that 78% of projects by number, and 75% of the acreage, contained some residential units, but that 25% of the re-developed acreage contained no residential units at all.5 5 Larger sites are more likely to be developed for commercial or office uses. The January adopted Housing Element Table 5 shows that while 20 of 25 sites contained at least some residential component, only 19.99 of the 80.88 acres (75%) did. A realistic calculation of the likelihood of residential development should apply the proportion developed by acreage before multiplying it times the allowable units per acre, not the site count.

We note that the deletion was only partial; the July version of the Housing Element still states that “[H]istorically 78% of the commercially zoned sites included housing,” and then claims – incorrectly – that realistic capacity numbers are reduced for mixed-use sites. (Housing Element at page H-31). There is even a new, stray reference to the old, now-omitted Table 5. (See H-34, referring to “the history described in Tables 4 and 5”). Table 5 should be restored to 1824 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

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

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

If the City were to accept that its January Housing Element was invalid, and that the Builder’s Remedy now applies – so that it cannot use its zoning laws to prevent these projects from being built as proposed, absent a health and safety concern – then the City could approve all of the applications now, and count these numbers towards the RHNA. But until and unless the applications are approved, there is insufficient basis to claim these numbers as realistic: the fact that an owner has proposed a number in a “pre-application” or even a formal application does not mean that the number is valid or likely to be accepted by the City. The history of actual approved projects, not the face value of a pre-application, is what should supply the realistic capacity of not-yet-approved sites on the inventory.
the draft, and the effect of its analysis should be included in estimating capacities as HCD directed.
1825 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 7 ends

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

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

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

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

The result shows that, based on an average of recent existing and approved projects, the median project includes only 8-9% affordable units (not even 15%, because of the interaction between the inclusionary ordinance and state density bonus law).7 The average, taking the atypical Kiku Crossing into account, is around 18%, though we note here that our chart is incomplete and that the City will have the necessary data to complete it. Even the incomplete data makes clear that 6 We do not fault the City for attributing the units across all properties, because it can be difficult to predict which parcel will develop in which way. The issue is what percentage should be applied across all properties.

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

The City does not have a significant city-owned land inventory to repeat this success. 1826 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 8 ends

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

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

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

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1).

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

The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element 1827 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 9 ends

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

Code § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).)
Despite this specific guidance from HCD, the site inventory still lists existing uses as “commercial” or “parking lot” without any additional discussion of most of the parcels, the existing uses are not described in detail to facilitate an analysis, existing leases are ignored, and the housing element does not demonstrate that existing uses are likely to discontinue in the planning period. In its March 27, 2023 letter, HCD reiterated:
[T]he element should describe the likelihood that existing uses will discontinue during the planning period, whether there are current leases, or other factors of whether the uses will impede residential development.

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

1. The Bridgepointe Shopping Center Parking Lot
(APN 035-466-100) 8.5 acres, 383 units (155 lower income) The City’s new draft has dropped the unrealistic Bridgepointe shopping center buildings, but tries to claim, contrary to the evidence, that much of the parking lot is nevertheless likely to become housing before January 2031.

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

The parking lot is used by all of the tenants. The City nonetheless claims that the parking lot will meet the need for 383 units of housing, including 155 lower income units. In order to do so, the City needs substantial evidence that the existing use of the parking lot will discontinue. 1828 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 10 ends

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

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

2. The Atrium: 1900 South Norfolk Street
(APN 035-391-090) 8.18 acres, 368 units (149 lower income) As stated in Housing Action Coalition’s earlier comment letters: The executive office building known as “The Atrium,” located at 1900 South Norfolk Street, is currently used by a large number of office tenants. The draft Housing Element does not perform any analysis of the current use, including whether existing leases would create obstacles to residential development of the site during the next eight years. Publicly available information shows that the owner continues to sign long-term leases with new tenants, even in 2023. https://property.compstak.com/1900-South-Norfolk-Street-San-Mateo/p/3970 (indicating a lease was signed with new tenant Golden Gate Regional Center in 2023 that expires in 2035). In prior letters we also submitted publicly available information indicates that a number of other leases continue to be signed or renewed for this three-story office building, with at least one other lease publicly reported to extend until 2030. Housing Action Coalition Comment Letter Dec. 16, 2022, Appendix Tab 9. Despite this information, the City does not analyze whether the existing leases present an obstacle to residential development during the 6th cycle as required by Government Code section 65583.2(g)(2), emphasizing only “owner/developer interest” in redevelopment.

Based on the results of a recent Public Records Act response, the evidence of owner/developer interest is insufficient to conclude that the existing use of the property as an office building is “likely to discontinue” during the 6th cycle, or that the property should be projected to provide the 368 units, and 149 low income affordable units, claimed on the inventory. A 2020 email shows that a developer was exploring the idea of building townhomes on a small portion of the parking lot only: 3 acres, for 55-60 townhome units, “while still 8 The earlier draft of the Housing Element had suggested that there was owner interest in redevelopment. In response to our Public Records Act request, no evidence of this was produced. On the new site inventory, the box for “Owner/Developer Interest” is left blank; the chart argues that the site is realistic solely because it is a parking lot with no structures on it. 1829 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 11 ends

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

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

3. Hillsdale Mall
(APN 042-121-040, -060, -080; 039-490-050, -170; 039-353-010, -020, -030, - 040) 28.91 acres, 1200 units (180 lower income)
As discussed in Housing Action Coalition’s prior comment letters, the question about Hillsdale Mall is not about whether the owner is interested in some mixed use housing for the site. The issue is when and how much housing will be built, and on which parcels or portions of parcels. Here, the City lacks evidence to justify the projections on the site inventory, or to claim that the existing uses are likely to discontinue soon enough for housing to be built during the required timeframe. The letter that the City cites at page H-35 fn.8 shows a proposal for densities higher than San Mateo zoning law allows (absent amendment of Measure Y). The new draft does not address these issues further, though it has – as explained in section A.4 above – reduced the number of affordable units to a more reasonable number. 1830 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 12 ends

4. Parkside Plaza Shopping Center: 1825 and 1850 S. Norfolk (APN 035-381-020 and -030) 6.65 acres, 299 units (121 lower income) The owner of Parkside Plaza shopping center has, according to the site inventory, expressed no interest in redevelopment. And, there are existing uses that would presumably prevent the owner from doing so anytime soon. The shopping center is full of retail tenants:

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

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

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

6.65 acres, 213 units (86 lower income)
The City has repeatedly been told by public comments why the Borel Shopping Center site is not realistic: tenants have long-term leases that preclude development even if the owner is interested. As explained by the comment letter by Campaign for Fair Housing Elements in April 2022, the major tenants (CVS and 24 Hour Fitness) have long-term leases that will not expire until long after January 2031, and have indicated they do not want to leave. See draft Housing Element, Appendix G at page 13.10 Our recent communication with CVS’s Northern California director of real estate confirms that CVS has no present intention or belief that it will move out before 2031. (Attached email from CVS, dated August 7, 2023). As demonstrated by our earlier 9 See staff report for item 26 of the July 17, 2023 City Council meeting for additional details. https://sanmateo.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=6875 10 Long-term leases are unsurprising, particularly after buildings are extensively remodeled.

As the City knows from the building department, 24 Hour Fitness did major renovations under its long term lease: $2.2 million in improvements in 2008. 1831 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 13 ends

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

6. Borel Estate Building, 1690 (1700) S. El Camino Real (APN 039-012-010)
Acreage not shown on inventory, 155 units (63 lower income) 1700 S. El Camino Real, the entire block between Borel and Bovet, is a five story office building with two banks (California Bank and Trust and Beacon Business Bank) on the first floor, and 32 offices on floors 2-4. The tenants are primarily in the financial services industry and other professionals.

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

7. Office Building at 1650 Borel
(1650 Borel)

2.51 acres, 113 units (46 lower income)
This office building is filled with professionals: law firms, accountancy practices, psychiatrists, mortgage brokers, opticians, and engineers. New leases continue to be signed; in 2022, one of their longtime occupants – a CPA firm (Galligan, Thompson & Flocas) – signed a new 10 year lease that will run to 2031. https://property.compstak.com/1650-Borel-Place-SanMateo/p/4097 The site inventory shows that no owner or developer interest has been expressed in redevelopment. The law requires the city to presume that this site’s existing use will continue, even if the city thinks this two-story building could or even should redevelop. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2). Existing uses preclude listing this site as meeting the need for lower income housing.

8. The Elks and The Shriners – 229 W. 20th Street and 150 W. 20th Street (Consolidated Site H) 5.4 acres, 140 units (57 lower income) (APN 039-030-220) 1.98 acres, 89 units (36 lower income) The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Lodge 1112 (“San Mateo Elks Lodge”), has been located at 229 W. 20th Street since 1954. The San Mateo Elks Lodge has a membership of over 1,100 as of earlier this year. The Elks use their lodge to operate a popular swimming 1832 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 14 ends

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

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

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

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

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

The same analysis applies to other sites. See, e.g., 1500 Fashion Island Blvd. (APN 035- 550-040) (“Developer interest in redevelopment.”); Consolidated Site B (APN 032-312-250, - 270, -150, -100, -070) (“General interest in redevelopment”). Vague expressions of interest do not constitute substantial evidence that the existing use will likely cease during the next eight 11 In order to rely on conversations purporting to express intent, the public needs to know much more. Who had the conversation cited by the City, and with whom did they have it? Has the Lodge taken any affirmative steps toward redevelopment beyond this conversation? Without more, the vague reference to “preliminary conversations” between unidentified speakers on an unidentified date does not constitute “substantial evidence.” 1833 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 15 ends

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

9. Mollie Stone’s – Olympic Shopping Center
(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)

8.82 acres, 296 units (120 lower income)
This site, consisting of twenty parcels including the only grocery store in the neighborhood (Mollie Stone’s), a CVS, a bowling alley, a church, and a number of small retail businesses, is claimed to accommodate 120 units of housing affordable to those with lower incomes. Many of the sites are separated by city streets. The only basis for including this group of sites appears to be the claim that there is “ownership interest in specific plan redevelopment,” which does not indicate that all of the parcels would be redeveloped as housing at the maximum density, or indicate who said what to whom, and when.12 There are three separate owners, and no indication that they are working together or have the agreement of the tenants to temporarily close during redevelopment. As with Borel Square, we note our recent communication with CVS’s Northern California real estate director (attached), showing that one of the major tenants has no current intention or belief that it will move out so that its store can be redeveloped as housing before 2031. We also note that, while the interest in redevelopment was in a specific plan process – probably necessary given that the city streets break up the site – the City has nothing in its Housing Element indicating it plans to engage in a specific plan process for this area. The City appears to lack substantial evidence that this site will likely redevelop during 2023-2031.

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

3.14 acres, 141 units (58 lower income)
The city claims that three parcels under separate ownership will consolidate and be redeveloped in the heart of downtown: Consolidated Site N is a combination of (1) the long downtown block on East Fourth with Dean’s Produce, Equinox, First Bank, Jamba Juice, Noah’s Bagels, Starbucks Coffee, Chase Bank, a bicycle shop, and other restaurants and stores; (2) an 12 Here too, the concern about specificity is not idle. There are five separate owners.

Carstens Realty owns most of the parcels, but CLC Investments, Sadigh Sassan, Shamco E LLC, and San Mateo Investment Co. each own one. The City does not discuss or address whether the five are willing or interested in a joint project, though it lists each of them as having expressed interest in a specific plan. Without evidence of what makes consolidation likely, the smaller sites are deemed insufficient to accommodate the need for lower income housing. See Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(A).
1834 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 16 ends

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

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

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

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

1.6 acres, 63 units (25 lower income)
Consolidated Site I contains six distinct parcels on either side of Pioneer Court. The multi-unit office park at 2041 Pioneer Court has at least 6 tenants, including two general dentistry practices, a spa, an acupuncture center, a chiropractor, and a consulting firm. Across the street at 2050 Pioneer Court is the offices of a manufacturing company, and next to that at 2070 and 2075 Pioneer Court are a law firm and a financial services firm, respectively. None of these proposed lots have evidence of owner/developer interest in converting to residential use during the planning period. These existing office uses are presumed to be an obstacle to residential development.

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

1.02 acres, 46 units (19 lower income)
It’s unlikely that a major national retailer like Walgreens doesn’t have a long-term lease.

But the City does not appear to have made any effort to determine whether it does, or whether it would preclude development at this site. Also on the site are smaller businesses. One of them does have a publicly reported lease, signed in 2021, that extends to 2031, precluding development even if the owner were interested. https://property.compstak.com/4060-South-ElCamino-Real-San-Mateo/p/4092. Absent further analysis, this site lacks evidence that it is likely to redevelop, particularly in light of the known lease that extends for the entire planning period. 1835 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 17 ends

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

0.98 acres, 44 units (18 lower income)
Consolidated Site B is made up of 5 distinct lots that are currently used as parking lots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In its September 28, 2022 letter, it wrote: “The trend does not consider the number of permits in 2018.” When the City included the same chart of 2019-2022 numbers, and presented a four-year average, HCD expressed annoyance that the City still didn’t comply: “The element did not address the finding regarding the City’s ADU projections, please see HCD’s prior review.” Despite this clear direction, the draft continues to omit 2018 numbers and projects the same 1836 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 18 ends

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

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

Based on data produced by the City, only 170 ADU permits were “finaled” (i.e., construction completed) during 2018-2022:
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Avg
Applications -- 56 94 94 115 90
Permits issued 8 44 47 66 84 49.8
Permits
finaled13
6 21 35 55 53 34
Averaged over 5 years, the number of ADUs developed during 2018-2022 was only 34 units per year.14 Projected over the eight year period, this would be 272 units, not 440, with proportional reductions across each of the income catgories.

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

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

We also noticed some minor errors and discrepancies in the site inventory that we call to staff’s attention for correction:
13 This is based on a document produced in response to a Public Records Act request.

Included in these totals are at least 14 existing units that had been constructed at some prior date, but which were finalizing a permit to make the unit legal in response to a code enforcement action.
14 The real number of ADUs added to the housing stock is less than the number of “finaled” permits. Some people use ADUs as home offices, as AirBNB short-term rentals, or for out-oftown visitors, not to provide full-time housing. 1837 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 19 ends

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

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

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

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

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

5. For certain sites, redevelopment would displace existing housing. For example, at Site AJ, the building at 245 S. Humboldt is an apartment building that appears to have at least 15 If 1900 S. Norfolk is zoned for 50 du/ac instead of 35 du/ac as shown on the spreadsheet, this will correct the discrepancy.
1838 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 20 ends

four units. Because RHNA is about increasing the capacity to accommodate housing, the capacity estimate for the site should be adjusted downward to take into account the housing that would be displaced by redevelopment, so that only the net increase is included on the inventory.

This issue must be analyzed for all sites, but we noticed Block 21/Consolidated Site S (where it appears 7 residential units were demolished for the project but the inventory does not show the net result),16 Site AP (2 single family homes that would be demolished), Site J (117 W. 20th), Site AJ (245 S. Humboldt), Site T (appears to include two duplexes on Jasmine, 4 units). The affordability of the displaced units should be analyzed so that they are subtracted from the correct category on the inventory.
* * *
Given these flaws, San Mateo is not yet ready to adopt a valid Housing Element.

Additional sites will need to be identified and potentially rezoned to ensure compliance with state housing law and to ensure that San Mateo’s share of the regional need for housing is met.

A more substantial inventory will also 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, and show that San Mateo is committed to doing its part to address the ongoing housing affordability crisis.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas B. Mayhew
Charles J. Higley
36615\16308305.2
16 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/88381/Appendix-CHistorical-Evaluation 1839 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 21 ends

2017-2022 Residential Project Densities
(based on combination of January and July versions)
Address Acres Units Max
Zoned
Density17
Max Capacity
(max zoned
times
acreage)
1650 Delaware 1.1 73 50 55
BM Montara, 2775 S. Delaware 1 68 50 50
Central Park South, 31 9th Ave 1.1 60 50 55
Station Park Green, 1790 S. Delaware St. 12 599 50 600
200/210 S. Fremont St. 0.4 15 50 20
BM Morgan, 2901 E. Kyne St. 1.6 82 50 80
BM Res 6, 3069 E. Kyne St. 1.1 54 50 55
Passage, 666 Concar Dr. 14.5 961 50 725
1919 O’Farrell St. 0.7 49 50 35
4 W. Santa Inez Ave. 0.25 10 40 10
1 Hayward Ave. 0.29 18 44 12.76
401 Concar Dr. 2.81 191 50 140.5
1, 2, 3 Waters Park Dr. 11.1 190 35 388.5
Promenade, 220 N. Bayshore Blvd. 2.1 42 50 105
Peninsula Heights, 2988 Campus Dr. 15.5 290 35 542.5
2089 Pacific Blvd. Multi-Family 2.37 16 35 82.95
406 E. 3d 0.88 25 35 30.8
303 Baldwin 0.93 64 50 46.5
5 Delaware St. at Landing 1.51 67 50 75.5
222 E. 4th 1.13 10 50 39.55
500 E. 3d (Block 21) 1.51 111 50 75.5
435 E. 3d 0.25 18 50 12.5
405 E. 4th 0.51 15 50 25.5
Totals 74.64 3028 3263

92.8% of max
17 Because the maximum density was not shown on the July version, we have tried our best to indicate what we think is the maximum for the additional sites added to the chart. We have italicized the ones where information does not appear on the site inventory. The City will have better information to complete the chart.
1840 of 2271
Housing Element
August 9, 2023

Page 22 ends

2017-2022 Residential Project Densities For Lower Income (based on combination of January and July versions)
Address Acres Units Lower
Income
Units
Percentage
1650 Delaware 1.1 73 6 8%
BM Montara, 2775 S. Delaware 1 68 68 100%
Central Park South, 31 9th Ave 1.1 60 5 8%
Station Park Green, 1790 S. Delaware St. 12 599 12 15%
200/210 S. Fremont St. 0.4 15 0 0%
BM Morgan, 2901 E. Kyne St. 1.6 82 ?? ??
BM Res 6, 3069 E. Kyne St. 1.1 54 5 9%
Passage, 666 Concar Dr. 14.5 961 73 8%
1919 O’Farrell St. 0.7 49 4 8%
4 W. Santa Inez Ave. 0.25 10 0 0%
1 Hayward Ave. 0.29 18 18 11%
401 Concar Dr. 2.81 191 16 8%
1, 2, 3 Waters Park Dr. 11.1 190 19 10%
Promenade, 220 N. Bayshore Blvd. 2.1 42 0 0%
Peninsula Heights, 2988 Campus Dr. 15.5 290 29 10%
2089 Pacific Blvd. Multi-Family 2.37 16 ?? ??
406 E. 3d 0.88 25 3 12%
303 Baldwin 0.93 64 6 9%
5 Delaware St. at Landing 1.51 67 7 10%
480 E. 4th (Kiku Crossing) 2.41 225 223 99%
222 E. 4th 1.13 10 10 100%
500 E. 3d (Block 21) 1.51 111 12 11%
435 E. 3d 0.25 18 1 6%
405 E. 4th 0.51 15 ?? ??
Totals 77.05 3253 579 18% mean (= 579/3253)
9% median
1841 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: LaBonge, Stephen
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 9:59 AM
To: Mayhew, Tom x4948
Subject: RE: San Mateo stores - housing redevelopment plans? External Sender
Tom – While we never know how retail will evolve, I do not see anything happening in the Ɵmeframe you outlined. I hope this helps.

Stephen LaBonge | Director of Real Estate, CVS Pharmacy / Longs Drugs c | Bay Area CA (Pacific Standard Time)
From: Mayhew, Tom x4948
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:55 AM
To: LaBonge, Stephen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] San Mateo stores - housing redevelopment plans? **** External Email - Use Caution ****
Stephen –
Hi, I’m working pro bono on a project involving long range housing plans in San Mateo, for a non-profit (Housing AcƟon CoaliƟon). The City has listed the two CVS locaƟons in San Mateo – 77 Bovet (Borel Square) and 4242 S. El Camino Real (Olympic Shopping Center) – as “likely” to become housing between now and January 2031. I have my doubts, so am reaching out to see if you can help shed light. Has CVS had conversaƟons with the property owners at either locaƟon about redevelopment? Is CVS planning on moving/closing these locaƟons, or is it likely to conƟnue these locaƟons between now and January 2031?
My phone numbers below if that’s easier.

Thanks,
Tom

Tom Mayhew
Partner
Pronouns: His/Him

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

www.fbm.com

1842 of 2271
2 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.

For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 1843 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:37 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: [correction] City of San Mateo Housing Element- Comment letter from NAACP San Mateo Branch Housing Committee
Attachments: City of San Mateo Housing Element- NAACP San Mateo Branch Housing Committee comments (2023-08-09)).pdf
From: Ellis A. Schoichet AIA On Behalf Of Ellis A. Schoichet AIA Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 4:27 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: 'NAACP San Mateo County' ; 'Rev. Lorrie Owens'
Subject: [correction] City of San Mateo Housing Element- Comment letter from NAACP San Mateo Branch Housing Committee
CorrecƟng the date of the Housing Element Update:

Please see the aƩached comments addressing the 7/26/2023 Housing Element update. Thanks in advance for your consideraƟon! Please let me know if you have any quesƟons or require addiƟonal informaƟon.

Best regards, Ellis
Ellis A Schoichet AIA, Co-Chair
NAACP San Mateo Branch #1068 | Housing Committee
1844 of 2271
NAACP San Mateo Branch 1068 | Housing Committee

Page 1 of 14 ends

August 9, 2023
Housing Manager, City of San Mateo, Planning Division
330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403
Subject: San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element
Dear City of San Mateo Housing Manager,
The NAACP San Mateo Branch #1068 Housing Committee (NAACP-SM/HC) advocates on issues related to equity and fairness in housing within San Mateo County. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on the 2023-2031 City of San Mateo Housing Element (the Housing Element), prepared in consultation with City of San Mateo Planning Commissioner Adam Nugent.

The Housing Element is a good start but there are areas where the Housing Element should be refined and improved. The following comments are intended as constructive input that can be used to strengthen the final document and better address the most recent HCD comment letter, of March 27, 2023 (HCD comments).

Fundamentally, the Housing Element will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) when it accomplishes these four goals:

1. Address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity.

2. Replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.

3. Transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.

4. Foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

San Mateo is tasked to create housing mobility strategies, new housing choices and affordability in areas of opportunity, place-based strategies that encourage community conservation and revitalization, and to protect existing residents from displacement. It is our hope that we can help the City accomplish these goals.

Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
The City still has work to do to in addressing housing needs, resources and constraints as these relate to the City’s responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing. 1845 of 2271

Page 2 of 14 ends

Page 1 ends

“Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: The element should analyze information on housing condition patterns within the City. This could include an analysis on concentrations of substandard housing geographically within the City.”
Page H-D-66 of the City’s Housing Element covers information on housing condition patterns within the City and states:
“In the City, 20 to 40% of all households that suffer from severe overcrowding, severe cost burden, or an incomplete kitchen or plumbing. Any of the four severe housing problems place households at risk of displacement and adverse physical and mental health. Regionally, the City of San Mateo is surrounded by municipalities with less than 20% of households with substandard housing issues. It is plausible that the high Hispanic population relative to other surrounding census tracts is behind the concentration. This population is more likely to rent and live in multigenerational homes. Both can be factors that indicate substandard and overcrowding conditions. While some tracts in the City of San Mateo likely offers refuge for low-income renters who cannot afford other areas of the County, it is important to note that substandard housing conditions place residents at risk of displacement from the City, as discussed in the following section.”
The City of San Mateo goes on to include new, additional information in Appendix D showing that there are significantly more code enforcement violations in census tracts with higher rates of poverty and higher populations of non-white residents. Census tract 94401, which has the highest percentage of non-white residents, had 50% of all violations in the City.

This new addendum appears to be in response to HCD’s request for an “analysis on concentrations of substandard housing geographically within the City.” While this addendum adds additional information on the geographic location of datapoints correlated to substandard housing conditions, it fails to adequately analyze the contributing factors to these substandard conditions, as it is tasked to do under the State’s AFFH requirements.

Unfortunately, the limited treatment of substandard housing conditions provided in San Mateo’s Housing Element, page H-D-66, is extremely problematic. The Housing Element is tasked to identify fair housing contributing factors - factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues.

Rather than relating the substandard housing conditions within the City to geographic and structural factors that could be fixed through the development of program actions addressing those conditions, the Housing Element’s analysis of “why” significant and disproportionate concentrations of substandard housing conditions exist within the City amounts to this sentence: “It is plausible that the high Hispanic population relative to other surrounding census tracts is behind the concentration [of severe overcrowding, severe cost burden, and substandard housing conditions].” 1846 of 2271

Page 3 of 14 ends

This is an unacceptable analysis. How can the City develop programs to ameliorate substandard housing conditions, cost burden, and severe overcrowding in the identified geographic areas if the only contributing factor listed for this concentration of negative conditions is the existence of a “high Hispanic population” within the subject census tracts? What does such an analysis imply the City should do? Instead, the analysis should focus on an array of known contributing factors:

1. Persistent, long-term lack of maintenance of properties.

2. Un-permitted structures that may not meet building codes.

3. Deteriorating or obsolete structures that would require costly repair or demolition to remedy - likely precluding continued use as naturally affordable housing if and when neighborhood conditions improve.

4. Zoning that makes the replacement of older, multi-unit buildings with new structures of a similar number of housing units either illegal or financially unviable.

5. Environmental quality issues such as lack of trees, public open space, excess paving, and large volumes of traffic on neighborhood streets.

These issues, among others, evidence a general lack of infrastructure needed to house the numbers of people who want or need to live in these neighborhoods- often revealed by the significantly higher number of vehicles stored in the street, on private driveways, and on front lawns as compared to other areas of the City. The way the current document is written implies that the blame or causality lies with the type of people who live in the area, and leaves it at that. Focusing on the actual contributing factors will help the City find effective program options for improving neighborhood conditions and quality of life.

Sites Inventory
The City's and region’s long-term and continuing shortfall in housing production, especially below market rate affordable housing, has had significant harmful effects on the entire population of the region. It has had disproportionate, negative impacts on people of color, people with disabilities, and low-income households - protected classes with disparate housing needs. When a city like San Mateo fails to provide adequate sites with a clear path to development, and subsequently experiences a shortfall in housing development, these negative impacts are perpetuated. The City’s program of identifying, designating, and incentivizing new housing development and its success or failure at achieving adequate housing is a fundamental Fair Housing issue. The following comments on the City’s Sites Inventory are provided through an AFFH lens.

Failure to identify adequate, fairly-placed sites in conjunction with programs to significantly incentivize and increase the production of housing, especially below market rate affordable housing, is a failure to affirmatively further fair housing. 1847 of 2271

Page 4 of 14 ends

Page 1 ends

“Sites Inventory: …The element states that there are no units in the sites inventory located in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA), but it should analyze whether conditions are exacerbated and promote strong housing mobility within the City’s programs to affirmatively further fair housing.” Low and very-low income units should be dispersed in all areas of the City. While it makes sense that the lion’s share be concentrated in areas that are rich in transit opportunities and other service amenities, sites for new types of units should also be identified within the highest-resource areas of the City in accordance with AFFH principles. The City should consider zoning changes and other incentives that would facilitate new multi-unit housing, with nodes of service amenities and transportation to serve them, outside of the transit-rich downtown core of the City.

An analysis of whether conditions are exacerbated by the City’s limited identification of sites within Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) was not found. The public is owed an analysis of whether the near total exclusion of the City’s RCAA from accommodating housing inventory sites will hinder the City’s ability to “replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.” Placing practically all housing inventory sites within the City’s intermediate-resource areas will make it difficult to significantly improve existing segregated living patterns. At the very least, a full and true analysis of the impacts of the City’s inventory site placements on its ability to “replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns” should be provided.

Similarly, the City is tasked to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.

Page 1 ends

“In addition, the element stated no sites are identified in areas with high overcrowding and cost burden. The element should include an analysis of whether this affects the existing patterns and whether sites exacerbate conditions and identify further program actions that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., anti- displacement and placebased community revitalization strategies).” The State’s comment appears to ask the City to analyze the impact of the Housing Element’s directing development opportunities for new housing away from areas of high overcrowding and cost burden. The Housing Element acknowledges that the, “[c]oncentration of naturally occurring affordable ownership and rental housing opportunities in the northeast areas of the City further concentrates poverty, cost burden, and overcrowding in areas with low economic and environmental outcomes,” as a factor contributing to the City’s fair housing issues. “Hispanic residents and single female parent households are concentrated in census tracts with higher poverty, low economic and environmental opportunity, high-cost burden, overcrowding, and flood 1848 of 2271

Page 5 of 14 ends

hazards compared to the rest of the City of San Mateo.” (quotes are from Pages H-66 to H-67).

The lack of planned Inventory sites in areas of high overcrowding and cost burden could be acceptable if the Housing Element also included strong program actions promoting equitable quality of life improvements in those underserved areas. Ideally, such improvements would parallel or exceed the quality of life improvements naturally accompanying new development in other areas. Unfortunately, the Housing Element commits to no measurable housing-related actions of this sort.

Providing a “Reasonable Buffer”
Page H-30 of the Housing Element states:
“Staff conducted a site-by-site review of all potential development sites, citywide.

As is demonstrated below, there are enough sites with sufficient acreage that can meet the RHNA, plus a reasonable buffer, within the existing zoning densities and the growth limits of the voter-approved initiative known as Measure Y.” Pages H-44 to H-45: We advocate for a buffer in the RHNA numbers that focuses on the needs and feasibility of Very-Low, Low, and Moderate income housing. The City does not control the sites identified for future housing development and it is prudent to assume that despite the City’s best efforts a significant number will remain undeveloped, underdeveloped, or develop with other uses. The City should increase the buffer percentage for Very-Low, Low, and Moderate income units accordingly. These are the housing types that have historically been the hardest to create.

The City’s Housing Element currently provides a buffer of only 9% for Very-Low and Low income units, and 1% for Moderate Income units. The buffers for these units should be at least 50%. The marked imbalance between the buffers for sites providing AboveModerate income housing units versus Moderate, Low, and Very Low income units highlights the inability or unwillingness of the City to provide capacity for these sorely needed categories of housing, especially given the State of California’s more stringent requirements for Very-Low or Low-income housing sites.

The Sites Inventory Affordability Breakdown notes the potential increased buffer provided by the City’s General Plan Update, but the City cannot commit to these numbers as part of this Housing Element. The significant increases in site capacity proposed in the General Plan Update must receive voter approval via a future ballot measure, an outcome that can hardly be counted on. An alternative means of achieving a buffer of 50% or greater for Very-Low, Low, and Moderate income housing should be outlined within this Housing Element. Without such a plan in hand, if the ballot measure fails, the City could be halfway through this Housing Element Cycle before it has a legitimate plan and rezoning program to meet its RHNA commitment. Likewise, the General Plan Update should be formulated to allow a buffer of 50% for Very-Low, Low, and Moderate income units not only for the current Housing Element cycle, but for the successive, extrapolated RHNA cycles occurring within the life of the General Plan Update (through 2040).
1849 of 2271

Page 6 of 14 ends

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites:

Pages 2 and 3 of the HCD comments state:
“Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element was revised to add some additional information for the nonvacant sites, it should connect the existing uses and feasibility of development to the project examples described. In addition, the element should describe the likelihood that existing uses will discontinue during the planning period, whether there are current leases, or other factors of whether the uses will impede residential development. The element should also analyze the feasibility of developing gas stations and car wash sites during the planning period. The element states that each parcel was ranked for likelihood of development, but it should describe the criteria used for ranking and how they were applied to feasibility of development.

In addition, as noted in the housing element, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lowerincome households. For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation.” [emphasis ours]
Pages H-30 to H-31, and H-C-15 to H-C-29: Essentially all of San Mateo’s inventory sites are on non-vacant properties. The Housing Element provides qualitative information on the characteristics and current uses of sites included in the site inventory. However, because many sites throughout the City and region share the qualitative characteristics described for the Housing Element’s selected sites and have not been recently redeveloped into housing, the City’s use of these qualitative descriptions of its inventory sites is not sufficient for demonstrating the likelihood that an existing use is not “an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period” for a given site.

The HCD comments note “(t)he Element states that each parcel was ranked for likelihood of development, but it should describe the criteria used for ranking and how they were applied to feasibility of development.” Right now, there is no way for the public to adequately evaluate whether the City’s claims that a site is likely to be redeveloped are warranted based on the qualitative descriptions added to this new version of the Housing Element. That is a problem.

For instance, some sites are included because they contain parking lots, as indicated in Appendix C. The City does not provide information on the utilization of the parking lots, nor whether the existing uses on the site would be functionally willing or capable of eliminating their parking. It does not factor in the costs associated with replacing some or all of this surface parking with parking garages. This is a significant potential 1850 of 2271

Page 7 of 14 ends

roadblock in the redevelopment of a site, given that San Mateo’s land uses are overwhelmingly suburban and car-dependent.

The following are examples of acceptable substantial evidence that an existing use will likely be discontinued in the current planning period (from the HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, May 2020):
• The lease for the existing use[s] expires early within the planning period, • The building is dilapidated, and the structure is likely to be removed, or a demolition permit has been issued for the existing uses, • There is a development agreement that exists to develop the site within the planning period,
• The entity operating the existing use has agreed to move to another location early enough within the planning period to allow residential development within the planning period.
• The property owner provides a letter stating its intention to develop the property with residences during the planning period.

With respect to the final point, the City should append copies of the actual letters from property Owners in support of assertions that the Owners of currently developed properties plan to re-develop their properties with residential uses during the planning period. Absent specific evidence that fulfils the intent of the above criteria, the City should use an objective, calculated probability of redevelopment based on the redevelopment of all similar properties locally or regionally over an appropriate period of time in order to weight and estimate the likelihood of redevelopment of any given site.

Site capacity should then be calculated based on this weighted trend.

For instance, the City could use easily accessible data on redevelopment rates of all properties within the City, or it could refine this data by considering qualitatively similar sites, such as those that contain parking lots, where existing buildings and their uses remain. It could factor in the number of such parking lots that have been redeveloped within the City while the existing leased or occupied structures have remained, and use the more specific data if the data shows an increased likelihood of redevelopment.

Surface parking lots proximate to significant transit nodes could be weighted higher given recent trends. This methodology will undoubtedly lead to the City considering additional sites for Very-Low, Low, and Moderate income units - a positive and more defensible outcome that is absolutely necessary in our view.

Page 5 ends

“As noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or 1851 of 2271

Page 8 of 14 ends

revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.”
Additional sites should be selected. Or programs and incentives articulated that would spur re-development of currently selected sites. Re-zoning, as needed to achieve an accurate and achievable site capacity that meets the City’s RHNA allocation plus an adequate buffer, should be committed to within this Housing Element. For a non-vacant site, the information provided should be clearly consistent with the intent of the HCD criteria outlined above. Otherwise, it does not adequately demonstrate that an existing use has a true chance of being replaced with housing within the planning period.

Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Plan
Pages H-66 to H-69: We appreciate the Housing Element’s new prioritization of contributing factors and agree that of the contributing factors listed, those that are ranked “high” are the most impactful factors that the City has the power to remedy.

These include 1) the concentration of Hispanic residents and populations living with a disability in the northeastern portion of the City, 2) the relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the City, 3) the undersupply of accessible housing units, and 4) the persistence of housing discrimination for residents with disabilities and for Hispanic households.

However, the City’s listing of contributing factors misses many pertinent factors that are provided as examples in the “California Department of Housing and Community Development: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” document. Many of the example contributing factors are more easily influenced by city-level programs than the contributing factors listed in the City’s Housing Element. The Housing Element should focus its attention on contributing factors that can be influenced by city-level policies, and factors that cannot be influenced by city-level policies should be included only as background information. For example, the City has little influence on “higher rates of mortgage denial rates among Hispanic households” and would not be well positioned to produce policies that have a significant impact in that arena.

Some contributing factors excerpted from the “California Department of Housing and Community Development: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” document, pages 68- 70 where the City could have a significant impact include:
• Community opposition
• Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
• Deteriorated and abandoned properties
• Lack of community revitalization strategies
• Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods 1852 of 2271

Page 9 of 14 ends

• Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities
• Lack of tenant protections
• Land Use and Zoning Laws
• Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure • Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services • Lack of affordable, accessible housing in range of unit sizes Acknowledging and addressing some of these factors could go a long way toward building programs that have a beneficial impact in San Mateo.

Implementation Plan - Goals, Policies, and Actions
The Housing Element needs to show the “Beneficial Impact” of its Goals, Policies, and Actions as they relate to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Greater focus should be placed on actual outcomes and material progress.

The State guidance document, “California Department of Housing and Community Development: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” page 52, describes the term “Beneficial Impact” as such:
“Programs in the element must have specific commitment to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation. Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to ensure actual housing outcomes. For example, programs to “explore” or “consider” on an “ongoing” basis are inadequate to demonstrate a beneficial impact in the planning period. Conversely, a program with clear and specific commitment and numerical objectives such as “rezone 50 acres to high density by June 2022” is adequate to demonstrate a beneficial impact. This specific and clear commitment combined with numerical objectives and timelines is called “beneficial impact.” Similarly, programs to affirmatively furthering fair housing must have specific and clear commitment, milestones, and metrics or numerical and anticipated outcomes.”
1853 of 2271

Page 10 of 14 ends

Page 7 ends

“As noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs. The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis.” In light of the need for a complete AFFH analysis and the likely need to add or revise programs to reflect this analysis, our review of the Housing Element’s Goals, Policies, and Actions focuses on whether currently listed policies and actions answer the following four questions listed in the “California Department of Housing and Community Development: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” page 63:
• Did the element identify goals and actions based on the identified and prioritized contributing factors?
• Do goals and actions address mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for preservation and revitalization, displacement protection, and other program areas? • Are actions significant, meaningful and sufficient to overcome identified patterns of segregation and affirmatively further fair housing?
• Did the element include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs/actions and fair housing results, including concrete timelines? Likewise, Page 7 of the HCD comments emphasizes the need to answer the above questions:
"Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.

In addition, the element should reference the table in Appendix D in the programs section and the programs identified in Appendix D (Attachment 1) should include geographic targets for each identified action to affirmatively further fair housing.

All programs that affirmatively further fair housing should include metrics, milestones and geographic targets. The analysis demonstrates a need for housing mobility in the RCAA and higher opportunity areas, but the sites analysis states no units were identified in these areas. Programs should be revised to include significant and meaningful action to overcome the identified patterns and trends.”
1854 of 2271

Page 11 of 14 ends

Throughout the Implementation Plan (pages H-75 to H-96), actions that include language like “present options,” “evaluate,” or “study” should be revised to provide specific commitments to meaningful policy changes that can be evaluated using metrics and milestones. This will typically mean the action provides a quantifiable description that can be objectively measured so that the public can both determine whether such an action as actually been meaningfully implemented by the City, and allow the public to evaluate objectively measurable outcomes. A listing of staff actions is not the desired focus of this section. Rather, the Goals, Policies, and Actions section should be focused on City policy that will be implemented during the Housing Element cycle and the anticipated effects of the policy’s implementation. Not staff’s process in developing possible policy options to present to the City Council in the future - without firm commitments to actually implement said actions. For most new and potentially meaningful programs the Housing Element does not outline actual policy-related actions and leaves open the possibility that future City Councils will opt out of them- effectively offering zero commitment to their implementation.

New Housing Choices and Affordability in High Opportunity Areas: Policies We believe the current sites inventory within the Housing Element fails to adequately provide new housing choices and affordability in the high and highest opportunity areas in a manner that will overcome identified, existing patterns of segregation in any significant way. The Housing Element could provide for this requirement through policies in the Implementation section, separate from the sites inventory, if currently listed polices are modified to satisfy the questions outlined above, and relevant new policies are added. Many of the policy proposals will have limited or no effect on mobility strategies, housing development, preservation, or AFFH. For the sake of brevity, we focus on policies likely to have the greatest impact:

Policy H1.7: A quasi-public affordable housing overlay or code amendment to support the production of affordable housing on quasi-public sites such as religious or educational institutions could add significant new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas. However, the Housing Element does not commit to this action, stating that the City will “evaluate the feasibility” of the overlay or code amendment.

Neither does it provide meaningful metrics or geographic commitments for such an overlay.

Policy H1.12: This policy has perhaps the greatest potential to provide new housing choices and more affordable options in high opportunity areas if implemented in an appropriate manner, and expanded to fully include R1 districts in the mix. Evaluating and researching missing middle infill housing opportunities is only the first step toward meaningful action. This policy should be fully implemented beyond the study stage.

Unfortunately, that is all that the policy currently commits to. In its current state, this policy does not meet the test for affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Policy H1.20: If passed, the General Plan Update should lead to a significant increase in the volume of available buildable capacity for residential construction within the City.

Since the land-use changes proposed in the General Plan Update are limited to a small portion of San Mateo’s overall land area, a complete AFFH analysis may find that this 1855 of 2271

Page 12 of 14 ends

General Plan Update will not lead to significant progress in replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns. In addition, the General Plan Update depends on the passage of a ballot measure to achieve much of its proposed new capacity. The Housing Element should pursue alternatives for achieving the City’s RHNA allocation, acknowledging that the ballot measure may fail. The alternatives should also consider the constraints resulting from the reliance on non-vacant sites in the inventory more realistically.

Policies H5.2.1 - H5.2.3: These policies encourage the development of more accessible units in inclusionary housing. They are good policies that could provide some benefit over the life of the Housing Element if aggressively implemented. In striving to accommodate hard to serve residents the City must commit to funding supportive services in conjunction with housing for extremely low-income and special needs residents.

Place-Based Strategies for Community Preservation and Revitalization: Policies Many of the contributing factors listed in the Housing Element refer to the concentration of people with disproportionate housing needs in the northeastern portion of the City.

The document cites households with higher poverty and cost burden, poor opportunity outcomes, overcrowding, and low economic and environmental outcomes. The Housing Element’s policies should commit to addressing and repairing these challenges in its community preservation and revitalization plans. The City’s policies could use improvement and a re-commitment to addressing geographic housing-related issues more comprehensively.

Policy H2.1: While this policy provides a significant benefit to a handful of homes, it is existing, and is not a significant way to achieve meaningful community preservation and revitalization at a scale that can meet the needs of the community. It should be continued, but should only be treated as a small-scale supplement to achieving progress in this area.

Policy H2.4: This policy can provide benefits to equity priority neighborhoods. However, it is an existing, status quo policy, and will have limited overall impact over the course of the planning period.

Policy H2.6: Provide commitments to implement a replacement unit program, not just to conduct a study.

Policy H5.3.1: This policy has the greatest potential to create positive change for the northeastern neighborhoods of the City from a community preservation and revitalization lens. As it stands, the policy goals and objectives of H5.3.1 are too openended to allow for meaningful evaluation. No concrete policy commitments that address the contributing factors affecting these neighborhoods are provided. Actions should be tied to addressing and ameliorating issues identified in the contributing factor analysis and should be provided with metrics for measurement and evaluation. Without such metrics and connections to the analysis, an area plan might succumb to maintaining the status quo. Or worse, it could produce unanticipated, unwanted, or even harmful 1856 of 2271

Page 13 of 14 ends

outcomes for the populations and geographic area the City is attempting to help. The Element’s prioritization of land use around Highway 101 could be troubling for environmental reasons, too. Circulation changes around Highway 101 may be beneficial, but housing-related policies should direct new housing away from this significant source of particulate air pollution and toward areas richer in transit opportunities and other service amenities.

Displacement Protection: Policies
Policy H3.3: This policy is limited by the Housing Element’s commitment to only “conduct a feasibility study.”
Policy H3.4: We applaud the City’s commitment in this Housing Element to extending AB1482 to tenants with a tenure of less than one year. However, the rest of the implementation action items of this policy should commit to meaningful actions with concrete results.

Policies H3.5 - H3.7: These policies are limited by the Housing Element’s commitment to only “explore,” “examine,” “study,” and “research” policy actions.

Policy H5.4.5: This policy will be fundamental to the City’s ability to both protect vulnerable residents from displacement and allow for meaningful place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization. As stated, this policy must be developed in conjunction with Policy 5.3.1.

Housing Mobility Enhancement: Policies
Policy H5.1.1: This could be a beneficial program. Because this policy requires a feasibility analysis that has not yet been conducted it is difficult to assess whether it would provide a significant increase in the number of inclusionary units produced over the course of this Housing Element cycle. It is likely null if the General Plan Update ballot measure fails to pass, given the City’s recent nexus study indicating that an increase in the inclusionary percentage at the height and density limits of the City’s current general plan would render housing projects financially infeasible.

Policy H5.1.2: This policy will significantly benefit and impact the lives of 30 households.

It will be extremely limited in impact at the scale of the City over the course of this Housing Element cycle.

Policy H5.1.3: A policy to financially support the construction of ADU’s could be beneficial, although, again, limited in scope. It needs firm commitments to be considered an acceptable AFFH action.
1857 of 2271

Page 14 of 14 ends

Related Environmental Justice Activities (Page H-97)
We applaud the City’s development of the “Related Environmental Justice Activities,” listed on page H-97, as part of the City’s General Plan Update and want to encourage the full implementation of these programs. These programs should be integrated with the City’s housing-related policies to maximize the benefit in lower-resource neighborhoods.

Conclusion
In conclusion, we ask that you consider the above points as you refine the Housing Element and work with the State of California to achieve certification. The NAACP San Mateo Branch Housing Committee is prepared to clarify our input to the extent it would be helpful in the process. We hope to be a trusted resource in the years ahead as the initiatives and policies in the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element are implemented.

Comments prepared by:

NAACP San Mateo Branch #1068 Housing Committee in consultation with City of San Mateo Planning Commissioner Adam Nugent.

August 9, 2023
1858 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 8:48 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 6:56 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form
Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022.

First Name Nina
Last Name Singh
Email Address
Comment on 2023-2031
Draft Housing Element
City continues to approve multiple housing projects without addressing infrastructure inadequacies specifically parking and traffic congestion.

Case in point apartments and office buildings constructed on Concar drive next to Hayward Park Caltrain station. There has been no change/expansion to the roads or parking in the area from pre-construction of these projects. However road traffic / usage increased multiple fold as a result of these new
constructions. All the City did was replace the roads and refresh parking signage! To top it City is now planning another project in the same oversaturatued Concar drive area
It would behoove the City to put some attention to upgrading and expanding roads and parking instead of ad-nauseam
approving new housing. Without the infrastructure
1859 of 2271
2 improvement, people are being packed into areas resulting in quality of life degrading further
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 1860 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 8:48 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing element
From: Bennett Charles
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 7:36 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing element
Hello - I am writing to provide public comment for the city's housing element. I am very supportive of the city's planning efforts in identifying sites for housing development.

My concern is that the city is under-allocating units to these prime development sites. Hillsdale Mall, Bridgepoint, and others such as the 41st street commercial area, and sites along El Camino can all handle many more units than is currently discussed. I don't see why Hillsdale Mall is limited to, say, 1200 units; I think 2000 would be fine if the massing was well designed and is on El Camino.

The reason is that I do not want timid allocations to these prime sites to affect future housing elements, requiring impingement on detached single family home neighborhoods beyond what those neighborhoods want. In a different world, I'd be happy to simply relocate if the physical environment of my neighborhood changed in a way I do not like. But that's not the real world.

While I am strongly supportive of a significant number of new housing units, like many single family homeowners, I do not want to have any new structures, whether they are houses, apartments, or ADU's taller than about 30 feet in my neighborhood west of Alameda, especially if they are on lot lines.

If the city wants to experiment with upzoning an existing area with single family homes, I would urge that you obtain consensus from property owners in that area.

I am very happy with AB 2011 and the potential it offers to make good use of retail sites, and I think this is the best path forward.

I also would encourage the city to find ways to reduce costs to homeowners who want to modernize their houses, but that's a separate conversation.

Thank you,
Bennett Charles
--
Bennett Charles
1861 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 9:17 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo - Housing Element + Zoning/GP Update From: Justin Kim
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 9:14 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo - Housing Element + Zoning/GP Update Hi,
We’re a development company based in San Jose. I saw that the city is working with HCD on the 6th cycle Housing Element.

Could you possibly provide some insight into the expected timeline for achieving compliance with HCD for the Housing Element?
Moreover, once the Housing Element aligns with HCD requirements, what's your estimation for the duration needed to update the zoning and GP to be in accordance with the updated Housing Element? Will Zoning/GP be updated at the same time as the Housing Element gets approved by HCD?
Is there a possibility of any delays occurring post-adoption of the Housing Element? If so, could you provide an estimate of the potential delay duration?
Thank you,
Justin Kim
Valley Oak Partners, LLC
www.valleyoakpartners.com
This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges. 1862 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 9:11 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Julia Klein; Prasanna Rasiah; Mazarin Vakharia; dianarelrod; Veronica Tam; Linda Ly; Nicholas Hamilton
Subject: FW: Comment on Latest Draft Housing Element,
Attachments: 2023.10.23 City of San Mateo Housing Element Letter V.pdf FYI
From: Jeremy Levine
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 12:49 PM
To: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on Latest Draft Housing Element,
Good afternoon San Mateo planning commission and city council, Please see the attached letter for the Housing Leadership Council's latest comment on the San Mateo housing element.

Thank you to staff and the city's consultants for their hard work on the latest draft. We look forward to the next public hearings related to this issue.

Regards,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Facebook • Twitter • LinkedIn • Instagram • Become A Member! 1863 of 2271
October 23, 2023
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave.

San Mateo, CA 94403
To the honorable San Mateo City Council,
The Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County appreciates this opportunity to engage the City of San Mateo on its housing element. This is our fifth formal letter to the city. In the middle of last year, we sent the city two letters outlining opportunities to improve the initial draft of its housing element, one focused primarily on needs and constraints, the other focused on affirmatively furthering fair housing, the sites inventory, and the goals, policies, and programs.

We followed up with a more policy-focused letter last November and a fourth letter in August, 2023.

With the guidance of city staff, San Mateo’s city council has made numerous improvements to the housing element. Still, with this letter, we share evidence that San Mateo must continue strengthening its policy proposals in order to comply with housing element law. To summarize, we have proposed the following additional policy improvements to San Mateo’s housing element:
- Entitle housing on city-owned properties on a faster timeline. - Track ADU rentals through a rental registry or other mechanism to establish affordability. - Allow housing ministerially on sites owned by faith-based institutions (state law SB 4 has partially facilitated this change; the city should provide even more flexibility on height and densityon faith-owned land).
- Commit to a minimum of 100 du/ac and 10 stories on major opportunity sites like Bridgepoint and Hillsdale.
- Implement a “backstop policy” that commits to rezone to allow housing in all areas within a quarter mile of a transit stop and major transit corridors if a ballot measure to overrule Measure Y fails to pass in 2024.

We proposed these policies because they will help the city maximize opportunities for new affordable housing development. We also believe they are the bare minimum that the city of San Mateo must pursue in order to comply with state law. A handful of ongoing technical issues compel San Mateo to implement stronger policies than currently proposed.

Issue #1: San Mateo has not actually demonstrated capacity to meet RHNA because several major non-vacant opportunity sites lack substantial evidence of redevelopment. 1864 of 2271
Two major sites in particular, Concar Passage and the Bridgepoint shopping mall, lack substantial evidence of redevelopment. These are just the two largest sites for which we have identified potential issues; more are referenced in Appendix A below. - Concar Passage, which accounts for 961 units in the inventory, faces steep barriers to development, both governmental and nongovernmental. A prior development agreement was not executed because the developer does not currently have the property rights, as noted on pg 127 of the Planning Commission meeting packet. 1 In the
Planning Commission meeting the developer explained the options to obtain the property rights are predicated on the existing retail leases expiring and some of the leases were renewed during COVID. The developer also said that the property owners were planning to renew other leases as well. Commissioner Patel asked when all of these renewed leases would expire and the developer said that was confidential. On page 127 of the meeting packet, the developer acknowledges the project is no longer financially feasible.2In the Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Ebneter directly asked if the project was financially feasible under the current economic conditions, zoning, Measure Y, etc. and the developer responded, "Today? No. We would build it if it was."
- Bridgepoint, which accounts for 838 units in the inventory, has become fully leased up as described in a letter sent to the city by Farella, Braun & Martel LLP on August 7, 2023. Two years ago, the mall had a number of vacancies; today, it has none. The property owner has indicated no plans to redevelop, and the city is providing no incentives beyond rezoning.

Rather than removing these sites from the inventory, which would require identification of new sites and further analysis, we believe the city should adjust their realistic capacity significantly downward–say, to 5%. That way, the city can continue to promote housing on these sites while being realistic about their probability of redevelopment in the next ten years. Additionally, the city should ask the land owner and the developer if there are any policies or programs the city could adopt that would make these sites more likely to develop in the future, and consider adding those policies to future housing elements.

The draft housing element further overcounts likely ADU production and assumes ADUs will be affordable at higher rates than are supported by historic data. The city should use HCD “safe harbor” formulas, which would lead the city to calculate 49.8 ADUs per year, 398 over the 8 year cycle. The city should further assume an affordability breakdown of 5% VLI / 30% LI / 50% M / 15% AM and commit to establishing a monitoring program (with a timeline of key milestones) for tracking rental rates of constructed ADUs.
2 "...the current economic conditions are such that the entitled project is not currently financially feasible, especially due to inflationary construction and financing costs." 1 "At the time the entitlements were obtained in 2020, the above described transactions were not expected to close for approximately 2 years because of on-going, binding leases between the land owners and the retail tenants (e.g. Ross). At that time, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute the DA upon notice from the Applicant that the land transactions had closed and the DA could be recorded against the Property. The authorization to execute the DA expires on September 30, 2023." 1865 of 2271
Issue #2: San Mateo’s plans to rezone raise AFFH concerns that the city has yet to address
28 Pipeline Projects, Redevelopment Opportunity Sites, and other Sites are located within 500 feet of Highway 101 or Highway 92 east of El Camino Real, both of which average in excess of 100,000 vehicles per day. These 28 sites account for 4,806 units of housing, 48% of the Site Inventory capacity. Of these units, 1,252 are assigned Low Income, 42% of the Low Income capacity. Only 30% of the Site Inventory capacity is assigned Low Income, so a disproportionate number of these units are located within 500’ of heavily trafficked highways.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook considers the risks of poor air quality on sensitive receptors such as homes, daycares, etc., and recommends against siting these uses within 500ft of a roadway that averages in excess of 100,000 vehicles/day. Per the EPA 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment and CDC Places data, people who live within a mile of a busy freeway have a 43% higher cancer risk over the course of their life. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 shows that census tracts adjacent to Highways 101 and 92 have high levels of particulate matter. The intersection of Highways 101 & 92 in particular has more than half a ton of particulate emissions per year. This level of particulate matter is 95% higher than other census tracts in CA and 6x the particulate emissions in San Mateo Park, the R1 neighborhood located the farthest from Highways 101 and 92.

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

92. This is in line with BAAQMD’s recommendation (pg 37, Planning Healthy Places), “...when updating or making revisions to a zoning code in an area characterized by elevated levels of air pollution (such as immediately adjacent to a freeway), local government may choose to designate the land use as commercial, office, or parking instead of residential…” The City did not incorporate the General Plan Subcommittee and Planning Commission’s suggestions.

At this point, HLC wants the City of San Mateo to focus on implementing adequate policy responses to these issues; we do not want the city to engage in more time-consuming and expensive analysis. However, the housing element should be honest: San Mateo does not have capacity to meet its housing goals without rezoning. The city council must ensure that the city has adequate plans in place to rezone, whether through a ballot measure to overturn Measure Y in its existing multi-family areas or a “backstop” commitment to rezone other parts of the city up to the Measure Y limit.

San Mateo’s city staff have worked hard to help San Mateo comply with state housing law, but, without clear direction from council to pursue more meaningful policy change, the city may continue to cycle through an expensive, time consuming loop of housing element review that 1866 of 2271
can be avoided with bold action. Fundamentally, cities cannot analyze their way into new homes, nor can they analyze their way into compliance with state law. The housing element process challenges cities to provide a series of analyses and then commit to substantially change local policies to enable new housing development. HLC looks forward to continue working with San Mateo’s leaders as they strive to meet the housing needs of the entire community.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
1867 of 2271
Appendix A: Other Sites with Unaddressed Constraints to Development from the Inventory
Pipeline Projects and Redevelopment Opportunity Sites
● Pipeline Project #1, Fremont Terrace: Status should note that construction has been halted for over a year and has not yet resumed.
● Pipeline Project #3, Block 20: Site constraints should note that two properties on the site qualify as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. ● Pipeline Project #7, 1919 O’Farrell St.: Status should note that the property was listed for sale in November 2021, a month after entitlement.
● Pipeline Project #11, 4 W Santa Inez: Status should note that the property was listed for sale after entitlement.
● Redevelopment Opportunity Site #14, Hillsdale Mall: Development opportunity should incorporate a discussion of the barriers to development outlined in the letter submitted by Farella, Braun & Martel LLP on August 7, 2023. The maximum allowable base density is 1,630 units and the property owner is proposing a max of 1,200 units. It’s unclear why an increased base density in the new General Plan would induce the owner to increase the number of units when the owner is not currently proposing to maximize residential. APN 042-121-060 also appeared on the Site Inventories for Cycle 4 and Cycle 5 and as such constraints to development warrant additional analysis and should include a discussion of how the constraints will be mitigated.
● Redevelopment Opportunity Site #15, Borel Square Shopping Center: Site constraints should note that the excluded parcel in the middle of the site contains an environmental covenant in place by the County of San Mateo precluding development for sensitive receptors including residential uses.
● Redevelopment Opportunity Site #19, Downtown Cluster: Status should note that a project was entitled on this site in 2017 and ultimately expired. APN 034-144-240 also appeared on the Site Inventories for Cycle 4 and Cycle 5 and as such constraints to development warrant additional analysis and should include a discussion of how the constraints will be mitigated.
● Redevelopment Opportunity Site #22, Olympic Shopping Center: APN 042-245-120 also appeared on the Site Inventories for Cycle 4 and Cycle 5 and as such constraints to development warrant additional analysis and should include a discussion of how the constraints will be mitigated.
● Redevelopment Opportunity Site #27, Car Wash: APN 035-200-070 also appeared on the Site Inventories for Cycle 4 and Cycle 5 and as such constraints to development warrant additional analysis and should include a discussion of how the constraints will be mitigated.

Non-Vacant Sites
● Forty-one of the sites listed on the Sites Inventory were also included on the sites inventories for Cycle 4 and Cycle 5, thirty-six of which accommodate low income housing. These sites are not identified in Table 2: Sites Inventory (pg H-C-22-29) even though pg 12 of HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook instructs that if a site accommodates 1868 of 2271
any low or very low income RHNA, and it was used in a prior cycle (for non-vacant) or two prior cycles (for vacant) then it must be identified in the sites inventory. The city does not identify any constraints to development of these sites over the past fifteen years, nor note any new incentives to development, beyond the rezoning required by AB 1397.

These sites APNs are listed below:
○ 032-292-070
○ 032-292-080
○ 032-312-250
○ 032-331-010
○ 032-331-020
○ 032-331-150
○ 033-171-060
○ 033-171-180
○ 035-200-070
○ 035-215-060
○ 035-221-010
○ 035-221-020
○ 035-242-090
○ 035-242-140
○ 035-242-160
○ 035-242-170
○ 035-242-190
○ 035-242-200
○ 035-242-210
○ 035-242-220
○ 039-052-350
○ 039-060-010
○ 039-060-060
○ 039-060-070
○ 039-060-090
○ 039-351-070
○ 039-351-110
○ 039-351-120
○ 039-351-130
○ 039-360-160
○ 039-360-070
○ 034-183-060
○ 040-030-190
○ 042-121-060
○ 034-144-240
○ 042-241-180
○ 042-245-120
○ 032-122-240
○ 032-122-250
1869 of 2271
○ 032-075-010
○ 032-075-100
● In the Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Analysis (pg H-C-15) the City identifies four missing middle projects received in Cycle 5 and notes “[t]his trend is expected to continue, with the recent approval of a 10-unit project at 4 Santa Inez (net increase of 8 units). This demonstrates that the City’s existing zoning allows for a range of housing types and sizes.” The City omits that 4 Santa Inez was only approved after a lawsuit determined that the City had illegally denied the project in violation of the Housing Accountability Act.
1870 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 12:27 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: Fwd: Community Feedback: San Mateo Housing Element 2023-2031 Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
650-522-7239
From: Mike Hagmaier
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 12:04:10 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Community Feedback: San Mateo Housing Element 2023-2031

To Whom it May Concern,
I have a lot of concerns regarding the housing element plan for 2023-2031. There are so many things wrong with it, I really don't know where to begin, so let's start here:

The state of our current infrastructure and lack of maintenance of it (storm drains, roads), is abysmal. We pay taxes for these things every year based on the misnomer that the money will go to fix them, but it doesn't seem to help. That's not our fault, it's the city's. The primary starting place should be improving our current infrastructure for existing homes so that they perform as they should. No harm in preparing for new homes during the renovation, just don't pack in the new homes first as that's just adding more cost by doing things backwards.

I'm sure you've seen the lack of driving etiquette on our streets, by our schools, through parking lots, through red lights. Where are the police? What happened to patrol cars monitoring our roads? We need more law enforcement to manage the chaos out there now with our current population. There better be some serious consideration for law enforcement, firefighters, EMTs, and other civil servants that make our communities safe. Fund them first, fund housing second.

The plan to build housing in phases over years is simply allowing an onslaught of noise, pollution, and angst. I'm sure you've experienced a neighbor doing a large remodel or complete new home construction before. It's horrific for anyone's wellbeing, especially for those who work from home. I can't imagine the state of mind people will be in if all they hear while at home is the noise of building. We just had a house built next door to us that took nine months, and we were pretty close to our wit's end before it wrapped up. And that is just one single home. I can't imagine it on a larger scale.

Far less people are commuting to work, but are commuting more to take care of daily chores and errands. Hoping that we'll be a populace that uses mass transit is a moot point. Nobody takes the train to drop their kids off or get groceries, very few people use the bus to shop or go to the doctor, and even fewer people use bicycles to get around the peninsula.

Office vacancies are at an all time high, so allowing more office space is simply a lark. Convert those unused spaces into housing (if you must). Reasonable growth should be the rule, and using reason to enable it should be a requirement. 1871 of 2271
2 Measure Y was voted on and won. It seems that ignoring the voice of the people is the new political strategy. The state of California really should be sued by the cities and counties that don't want to enact housing requirements. Quality of life matters, and there is quality of life outside of San Mateo for those who can't find a residence here. It's a harsh truth. I'd like to live in Atherton, but I sure can't afford it, so I'll stay here in San Mateo.

And, lastly; the housing element is, as was well-stated by Keith Weber in the San Mateo Daily Journal last week, simply "Out of Whack". I too say "send it back", and be sensible for the wellbeing of the community that matters. Us. Not the developers, not the Mayor, and not the out-of-touch Governor of California.

Regards,
Mike Hagmaier
San Mateo, CA
1872 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 10:47 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: San Mateo Reality
From: William Williams
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 10:28 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Reality
As long as the Planning Commission and the San Mateo City Council continue to approve office development, housing will not get built.

Getting rid of Measure Y will just enable highrise office development, especially at the Hillsdale Mall.

How many more residents and businesses will be displaced to vacate blocks for office development? Be honest.

X Bill Williams, San MateoOutlook
1873 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 3:54 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: City of San Mateo Housing Element
Attachments: 23-1115 City of San Mateo Housing Element_MidPen Letter.pdf From: Mollie Naber
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 3:38 PM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Cc: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: City of San Mateo Housing Element
Dear Mr. Dahl,
Please see MidPen’s aƩached leƩer regarding the City of San Mateo Housing Element.

Sincerely,
Mollie Naber
Mollie Naber (she/her) | Associate Director of Development MidPen Housing
1874 of 2271
November 15, 2023
Zachary Dahl, Interim Director of Community Development Community Development Department, City of San Mateo
339 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403
Email: [email protected]
RE: City of San Mateo Housing Element
Dear Mr. Dahl,
MidPen Housing (“MidPen”) is one of the nation’s leading nonprofit developers, owners and managers of highquality affordable housing and onsite resident services. Since MidPen was founded in 1970, we have developed over 125 communities and 8,500 homes for low-income families, seniors, including homeless families and individuals and those with supportive housing needs throughout the greater Bay Area. Committed local partners are essential to fulfil our mission, and the City of San Mateo is among the best.

Our four communities in San Mateo, including our most recent development, Kiku Crossing, represent the City’s commitment to build affordable housing. In 2018 the City selected MidPen from a pool of affordable and market rate developers to execute their vision for workforce housing at 480 East 4th Avenue. The City worked closely with MidPen in the following ways to maximize public benefit at this 225-unit affordable development, which will open in early 2024:
- Prioritized City land for development of 100% affordable housing. - Encouraged use of State density bonus legislation to build additional height and density beyond what was allowed under local code, resulting in 61 more units with no added parking. - Dedicated City staff to accelerate entitlement, permitting, and inspection processing, which shortened the project timeline thereby reducing escalation contingencies and interest rate risk. - Waived approximately $2,000,000 in City permit and plan check fees and deferred impact fee payment to permanent loan conversion, thereby saving an additional approximately $350,000. - Supported revisions from the initial City RFP that significantly reduced cost and time, specifically supporting off-site resident parking and shared public parking to reduce costs of required podium parking and allowing concurrent construction of two structures to reduce time and save more than $2,000,000.

The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sets a goal of 7,015 units of production by 2031.

Approximately 40% of these units have a target of being affordable to residents making 80% of AMI and below.

To meet these goals, the City needs to utilize all tools at its disposal. Drawing from deep experience working with jurisdictions across the Bay Area on Housing Element Policy, MidPen published a guide on best practices. The City used many of these best practices at Kiku Crossing, such as fee waivers and deferrals, reduced parking requirements, and prioritizing public land for affordable housing.

Thank you for your commitment to affordable housing production. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650) 339-6181 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Mollie Naber, Associate Director, MidPen Housing
Cc: City of San Mateo Housing Department, [email protected] 1875 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 8:44 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: HAC Comments to San Mateo Housing Element (11-15-2023) Attachments: Ltr to City of San Mateo re HAC Comments to Housing Element (11-15-2023).pdf From: Higley, CJ x4942
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 5:42 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: Mayhew, Tom x4948 Ali Sapirman
; Contreras, Daniel x4984
Subject: HAC Comments to San Mateo Housing Element (11-15-2023) On behalf of our client, the Housing Action Coalition, attached please find comments to the updated draft of the Housing Element for the City of San Mateo.

CJ Higley
he/him

www.fbm.com

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.

For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 1876 of 2271

THOMAS B. MAYHEW CHARLES J. HIGLEY
November 16, 2023
Via E-Mail
City Council
City Planning Commission
Housing Manager, Planning Division
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Housing Element for City of San Mateo 2023–2031
Draft for Public Comment dated November 8, 2023
Comments of Housing Action Coalition
Dear Planning Commission:

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition,1 we write to comment on the November 8, 2023 draft 2023–2031 Housing Element for the City of San Mateo. In our earlier letter on August 9, 2023, we identified several issues that show that the new draft does not comply with state law, and is likely to be rejected by HCD, including overestimating realistic capacity, including sites without evidence that the existing uses are “likely to discontinue” during the planning period, and overestimating ADU production by ignoring the 2018 numbers.

Unfortunately, none of these issues were corrected in the November 2023 draft; we reiterate that they should be for a valid Housing Element.

This letter addresses one sub-issue where the draft did make some edits. When a city includes sites zoned for non-residential use (as most of the lower income sites on the San Mateo inventory are), the realistic capacity estimates should be reduced to account for the probability of a non-residential development. While the City has previously acknowledged this requirement, and twice been directed to incorporate the analysis by HCD, the current draft still does not do so. 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. The Housing Action Coalition has commented on previous drafts of the 2023–2031 Housing Element for the City of San Mateo.
1877 of 2271
Housing Element
November 16, 2023

Page 2 ends

As explained in our August 9, 2023 letter, the City’s own adopted Housing Element showed that 25% of the acreage developed from 2017-2022, and 22% of the projects, were office or commercial projects. Thus, even if a typical residential project develops at 90% of the zoned maximum, the capacity estimate should be reduced by 25% to account for the probability of a site being developed for a non-residential use (if it is redeveloped at all). The current draft includes no adjustment to account for non-residential development.

Unlike the adopted Housing Element, the new draft simply omits the data, depriving the City Council and the public of the information used to calculate realistic capacities. The draft includes serious errors about the statistics:
 The draft incorrectly claims at page H-32 that “90% of projects in the last six years located in commercial or mixed-use zones have included a residential component.” This is inaccurate. As table 5 from the adopted Housing Element in January 2023 shows, the actual statistic based on the City’s own prior data for 2017-2022 showed 78% of projects, and 75% of the acreage. Including the 2023 numbers shows that the real number is even lower.
 The draft Appendix C, at page H-C-18, then tries to dodge these statistics by changing the time period. Instead of using 2017-2022 as the time period, it shortens the time period to 2019-October 2023, and claims that only 2 of 24 projects were non-residential.

Deliberately shortening the time period to omit major commercial and office projects (e.g., the August-November 2018 approvals of 2940 S. Norfolk, 1 Franklin Parkway, and 115 Monte Diablo) does not mean that there is no continued demand for non-residential uses in San Mateo; it means only that the City is trying to ignore this evidence of the demand.
 Having changed the time period to include 2023, the draft fails to consider that nonresidential projects continue to be applied for and built. In addition to 180 E. 3d (a retail office project approved in 2019), and 400 E. 5th (a five-level parking structure constructed at the same time as Kiku Crossing, both for the residents but also for 526 public spaces), the 222 E. 4th Street project (over 90% of the square footage for nonresidential uses), and 303 Baldwin (over 60% of the square footage for non-residential uses) – four projects which show a continued demand for non-residential development in the City – there is other recent 2023 development application activity for non-residential uses that reinforces the point:
 2164 Palm Avenue: a 2 story private tennis court building, approved June 13, 2023.
 3125 Clearview Way: changing a parking lot into a food truck court, with seating and landscaping, approved February 8, 2022
 Hillsdale Mall: convert 37,611 square feet of retail uses to office use, approved May 23, 2023.
1878 of 2271
Housing Element
November 16, 2023

Page 3 ends

 1050 S. Amphlett: pre-application approved for 3 story self-storage building  922 S. Claremont: pre-application submitted for demolition of one-story building to build two story self-storage building.
 2 West 3d/El Camino: A three-story office building proposed on a former gas station site.

In estimating whether the existing site inventory is adequate to meet the need for housing, the City cannot ignore that its zoning laws permit other non-residential uses, and there continues to be a demand for office and commercial uses of properties throughout the City. The City should perform the required analysis and reduce its estimates to account for the probability of non-residential development. It cannot realistically claim that the yield for mixed zoning sites will be 90% of the zoned maximum.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas B. Mayhew
Charles J. Higley
36615\16483918.2
1879 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 8:44 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: San Mateo Revised Housing Element Letter
Attachments: San Mateo Revised Housing Element Letter 11.15.23.doc.pdf From: Choua X. Vue On Behalf Of David D. Bohannon II
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 4:56 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia <[email protected]>; Mazarin Vakharia <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; John Ebneter <[email protected]>; Seema Patel <[email protected]>; Adam Nugent <[email protected]>; Martin Wiggins <[email protected]>; Margaret Williams <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Revised Housing Element Letter
Good evening Zach,
Please see aƩached leƩer. Thank you!
David Bohannon

www.ddbo.com
This email and any attachments may contain material that is proprietary, confidential and/or privileged, and it is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, retransmission, distribution, reproduction or other action taken in reliance upon this message by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and delete all copies. This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510, et seq., and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message.
1880 of 2271
November 15, 2023
[Sent via email: [email protected]]
Zach Dahl
Community Development
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: San Mateo Revised Housing Element Comments
Dear Zach and City staff:

On behalf of HSC Property Owner LLC, the owners of the Hillsdale Shopping Center and surrounding properties (Hillsdale Mall Site), we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the revised Housing Element, recently released on November 9, 2023.

As you may know, our team is actively monitoring the multiple long-range planning efforts occurring concurrently in the City to understand the City’s needs and goals so that the long-range planning and development efforts for the Hillsdale Shopping Center can evolve in alignment with the City’s long-term vision.

We previously commented on the inventory assumptions for the Hillsdale Mall Site on December 15, 2022 and appreciate the City’s willingness to modify the total unit count and affordable housing assumptions. However, we continue to have additional comments, as described below.

Moderate Income Assumptions
We object to the inclusion of 180 Moderate income units at the Hillsdale Mall Site. In the “Identification of Affordable Sites” section of the Housing Element, the discussion of the Hillsdale Mall identifies that a realistic capacity of 1,200 units has been estimated for this site, “with 15% of the units identified as affordable in accordance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing policy.” (HE, p. H.36) We previously reviewed 15% inclusionary housing language and were comfortable with the assumption.

We note that the inclusionary housing program requires 15% of rental units to be affordable to low income families.1 Further, while moderate income units are required for ownership projects (i.e. for sale units), there is no obligation to provide moderate income rental units. It follows that, according to the description in the Housing Element, the inventory assumption for the 1 City of San Mateo, Below Market Rate Housing Program, available at:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3896/Developer-Resources 1881 of 2271
Hillsdale Mall Site should be 15% low income units (or 180 low income units out of 1,200 units).

The assumptions in the inventory, however, assume 180 low income units as well as 180 moderate income units, along with 840 above moderate units, for a total of 1,200 units. Our current development plans have considered the inclusion of low income and possibly very low income units, but we currently have no plans to include moderate income rental units and thus the assumption of 180 moderate income units for the site is not realistic, as required by state law for a housing element inventory.

We also note that the inclusion of moderate income units for the largest development site in the City appears to be a departure from the City’s methodology elsewhere. The discussion of “Distribution of Sites by Affordability” describes the City’s methodology (p. H-38):

For emphasis, we note that the above language provides that “[f]or large sites over 10 acres, the City applies only the inclusionary housing requirement (15%) for the lower income category.” In contrast, the Housing Element says that moderate income assumptions were applied to smaller units that are naturally affordable. It is, therefore, inconsistent to apply a 15% low income unit assumption plus a 15% moderate income unit assumption to the Hillsdale Mall Site, which is identified in the inventory as 32.68 acres. Again, we are planning for a robust affordable housing program to include low income and possibly very low income units, but the overall mix of affordable housing is to be determined and we are not currently planning for moderate income rental units. This is due, in part, to the lack of financing available for moderate income units.

Suggestion to Add Moderate Income ADUs
For the purpose of collaboration, we suggest that the 180 units allocated to the Hillsdale site are moved to other sites that are more likely to include naturally occuring moderate income housing.

One specific suggestion is to increase the assumption for moderate income accessory dwelling units (ADUs). We note that the Housing Element explains that the City has used conservative methodology with respect to ADU production (p. H-40):
1882 of 2271
Of the 440 units, the City expects 132 very low income units, 132 low income units, 132 moderate income units and 44 above moderate income units. (Housing Element Inventory, p. HC-14) HCD itself describes this as a “conservative” approach. (Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook2, p. 31) HCD further notes that “[s]ince 2017, the Legislature has passed a series of new laws that significantly increase the potential for development of new ADUs and JADUs by removing development barriers, allowing ADUs through ministerial permits, and requiring jurisdictions to include programs in their housing element that incentivize their development. As a result using trend analysis when estimating the potential for development may not accurately reflect the increased potential for these units.” Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 31) In addition, HCD suggests using trends from “regional production of ADUs.” Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 31)
Accordingly, given these conservative assumptions, we strongly suggest that more moderate income units are assumed as ADUs, rather than as part of the Hillsdale Mall site.

Inventory Assumption Corrections
We also request additional corrections to the following inventory assumptions:
• The Bohannon owned Ana Furniture site (Address: 3011 S El Camino Real; APN 039- 360-140) existing use is listed as parking, but the actual use is an existing, operating commercial building. The affordable assumption of 24 (40%) low income units plus 10 (16%) moderate income units as part of a total development capacity of 60 units, exceeds the inclusionary obligation of 15% low income.
• The Bohannon owned sites (Addresses: 3101 El Camino Real and 3111 El Camino Real; APNs: 039-360,140 and 039-360-070) also include an affordable assumption of 26 (41%) low income plus 11 (17%) moderate income units as a part of a total development capacity of 64 units that exceeds the inclusionary obligation of 15% low income. • The Michael's site (Address: 2955 S El Camino Real; APN 039-360-120) is listed as parking, but the acutal use is an existing, operating commercial building. The affordable assumption of 41 (39%) low income units plus 18 (30%) moderate income units as part of a total development capacity of 103 units, exceeds the inclusionary obligation of 15% low income.
2 HCD, Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, available here: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf 1883 of 2271
• The Petsmart site (Address: 3520 S El Camino Real; APN 042-121-040) affordable assumption of 32 (39%) low income units plus 14 (17%) moderate income units as part of a total development capacity of 81 units, exceeds the inclusionary obligation of 15% low income.

A screenshot of these assumptions is provided below:

We formally request that these assumptions are corrected, particularly for those sites that are non-vacant, consistent with the methodology in Housing Element Inventory (Appendix C), Section 4.3 explaining that non-vacant sites must meet at least three citeria in order to be included in the inventory. Given that these sites are not vacant, that removes one of the criteria for inclusion in the inventory.

Conclusion
We recognize that the Housing Element Update is an extraordinarily difficult task. We thank you for your time and your consideration and your efforts on the revised Housing Element to date. At this stage, we strongly request that the moderate income units are reallocated from the Hillsdale Mall assumptions to another location where such units are more likely to be developed, such as ADUs, and that other inventory assumptions are corrected to reflect realistic redevelopment capacity.

Sincerely,
David Bohannon
1884 of 2271
Cc: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia ([email protected]) Mazarin Vakharia ([email protected])
Planning Commission ([email protected]) John Ebneter ([email protected])
Seema Patel ([email protected])
Adam Nugent ([email protected])
Martin Wiggins ([email protected])
Margaret Williams ([email protected])
City Council ([email protected])
Amourence Lee ([email protected])
Lisa Diaz Nash ([email protected])
Adam Loraine ([email protected])
Rob Newsom, Jr. ([email protected])
Rich Hedges ([email protected])
Kohar Kojayan ([email protected] )
Chelsea Maclean ([email protected])
Paul McDougall ([email protected])
1885 of 2271
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 3:25 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: SCLP Comments on San Mateo Updated Housing Element Attachments: SCLP Letter to San Mateo Nov 16 2023.pdf
From: Dashiell Leeds
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 2:05 PM
To: [email protected]; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: James Eggers ; Mike Ferreira ; Gladwyn D'Souza
; Gita Dev
Subject: SCLP Comments on San Mateo Updated Housing Element Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council, Planning Commission, and City Staff,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the November 9, 2023 Updated Housing Element. Please read the attached letter for our full comments.

Respectfully Submitted,
Gita Dev
Co-Chair, Sustainable Land Use Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
email sent from account of:

Dashiell Leeds
Conservation Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
1886 of 2271
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
November 16, 2023
City of San Mateo
330W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Subject: Comments on San Mateo Updated Housing Element
Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council, Planning Commission, and City Staff,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the November 9, 2023 Updated Housing Element (HE).

The updated HE has some important improvements (Fair housing on p. H-68 to H -75, clarification on p. H-93 of Action d on Policy H1-20). But some final adjustments will further strengthen this important HE with regards to encouraging more affordable housing and allowing for more greening of the city.

The HE assumes that the Land Use Designation High II is not going to be used 1. We have maintained that High II should be included in the HE, though only in limited areas and only near transit. Its higher density and height are good tools to increase affordable housing, as a required community benefit, and to do it in an environmentally positive way by requiring green open space on the site.

The need to add more housing, particularly affordable housing, is important to addressing environmental issues. As essential workers (e.g. teachers, nurses, service workers, etc.) on the Peninsula cannot afford to live here, they must commute from long distances to housing they can afford.

A key to addressing this problem is increasing housing density, particularly near transit, while requiring inclusionary affordable housing as a community benefit.

Allowing higher density is one way the HE can provide a financial incentive for more inclusionary affordable housing (e.g. as high as 20-33% of a project, if financially feasible), as noted in prior studies for San Mateo 2.
1 See pages H-31 and H-41. They state a maximum density of 130 du/ac (which is the High I maximum).

The High II maximum is 200 du/ac.
2 https://sanmateo.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=715&type=0 1887 of 2271
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~
More green open space: The ability to allow higher buildings in the High II Land Use Designations, when combined with restricting lot coverage, is also an important tool for freeing up land area for greening the city.

The greening of the city has major environmental benefits as well as improving the quality of life for residents. Being allowed to go to higher building heights, when coupled with restricting lot coverage, is a way to create more open space, parks, bike paths, pedestrian walkways and green streets.

A good example of this was demonstrated in the recent scenarios put forward as part of the “Re-imagine Hillsdale” presentation of March 8,20233. The scenario that stayed with the current 5-story limit produced a design with very little open space and with the area facing the neighborhood on Edison Street being high and dense. However, the scenario that allowed heights up to 10 to 12 stories for buildings near the railroad and along El Camino Real (ECR) produced a design with a large amount of open space, parks, and a more compatible neighborhood design, with lower heights, along Edison Street. The higher height allowed, adjacent to the railroad and ECR, made it possible to lower heights near the existing neighborhood on Edison Street and to provide much more parks and open space for the entire community to enjoy.

We ask that you consider this information as you finalize the HE.

Respectfully submitted,
Gita Dev
Co-Chair, Sustainable Land Use Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
3 https://vimeo.com/806539434/5bbfc4a1a9
1888 of 2271
From: Planning
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Linda Ly
Subject: FW: Housing Element questions
Date: Friday, January 19, 2024 4:32:04 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image002.png
Hello Nicky and Linda,
Please see and respond to email below.

Thank you
From: Somer Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Housing Element questions
Hi,
This should be forwarded to someone on the Housing Element team. I believe Nicky Vu or Linda Ly should be able to respond.

Thanks,
Somer
Somer Smith, AICP (She/Her)
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7214 | [email protected]
From: Planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 2:01 PM
To: Somer Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Housing Element questions
Hi Somer,
Please see and respond to email below.

From: Borel Place
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 12:23 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element questions
Hi,
I previously spoke with Mrs. Klein about some General Plan questions and her voicemail suggests she is no longer working for the city so I am looking for someone I can talk to.

I represent Borel Place Associates which owns and manages 1611 Borel Place, 1777 and 1650 Borel Place. We also own the land under 411 Borel Ave but we won't manage that building for several years due ot a land lease on that.

In reviewing the General Plan Housing Element Appendix C- Housing resources and sites inventory list, I discovered there appears to be a new set of requirements which will change what we may or may not do with our property.

Interestingly, we have 4 parcels and only 1 of those 4 will change, and that parcel is in the middle of the 4. 1889 of 2271
Is there someone I can set up a meeting to get a better understanding of what and how these changes will be imposed on the ownership of the parcel? Below is a screenshot of the page showing 1650 Borel Place being a site on the inventory list which is scheduled to change to have a minimum density requirement.

Thank you,
Alex Spence
( c
Borel Place Associates
Inline image
1890 of 2271
From: Housing
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Zachary Dahl
Subject: FW: Housing Element Update
Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 9:39:37 AM
From: Ted McKinnon
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 4:43 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Update
Hello,
My understanding is that the Housing Element for 2023-31 has been provisionally approved by HCD.

Is this correct, and if so, when will the confirming letter from HCD be available on the city website? Please advise.

Thanks,
Ted McKinnon
1891 of 2271
Re: City of San Mateo Sixth Cycle Housing Element (2023- 2031) Zachary Dahl, Interim Director of Community Development City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Mar 20, 2024
Dear Zachary Dahl,
Public Advocates and the Public Interest Law Project write to inquire into your current compliance with Housing Element Law for the sixth cycle. Based on information from the state Department of Housing and Community Development, it appears that the City of San Mateo has not yet adopted a legally compliant Housing Element update more than a year past the legally required deadline for doing so.

The housing element is an essential tool to ensure that communities are addressing the housing needs of all people, especially our most vulnerable neighbors. In order to plan for the production and preservation of affordable housing, communities must take deliberate steps to ensure there is adequate zoning, removing of regulatory barriers and targeting of resources. State law requires compliance with Housing Element requirements.

Public Advocates is a civil rights and economic justice law and advocacy organization.

Similarly, the Public Interest Law Project is a nonprofit California legal support center for public interest law programs advancing justice for low income communities and communities of color.

Our organizations have decades of experience litigating to enforce Housing Element Law to increase access to affordable and fair housing. We are committed in 2024 to ensuring jurisdictions come into compliance with Housing Element law. We request that you share a list of steps you intend to take to complete an adequate draft ready for adoption or update the existing plan so that it is in compliance with the law.

I. The City of San Mateo has failed to timely adopt a legally compliant Sixth Cycle Housing Element
1892 of 2271
Housing Element Law requires local governments in the Bay Area to adopt a legally compliant housing element to the City’s General Plan for the 2023-2031 Planning Period (Sixth Cycle) no later than January 31, 2023. (Gov. Code § § 65302, 65580 et seq.) As of Mar 20, 2024 the HCD Housing Element Compliance Dashboard indicates that the City of San Mateo has failed to adopt a legally compliant Housing Element.

There are many consequences of this failure to adopt a timely and compliant housing element update, including an obligation to complete any rezoning required to make sites available to satisfy their Regional Housing Needs Allocation by January 31, 2024. (Gov. Code § 65588(e)(4)(C)(i)).)
Failure to adopt a legally compliant Housing Element by the statutory deadline may also result in private or public enforcement in the Courts, and/or can result in so-called “builder’s remedy” projects under the Housing Accountability Act. (Gov. Code § 65589.5.) Further consequences of delaying the adoption of a housing element, may include court oversight.

II. The City of San Mateo’s failure to timely adopt a housing element harms individuals and groups considered to be protected classes and/or with special needs State Housing Element Law requires every jurisdiction to adopt a plan that will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). (Gov. Code sec. 8899.50; sec 65583(c)(10)). More than a rote administrative task, this requirement is designed to ensure that members of communities who have been historically prevented from accessing affordable, secure, healthy homes are given the opportunity to live in homes in the locations they want, surrounded by the communities they want. In order to accomplish this, each jurisdiction must analyze the factors and issues specific to that jurisdiction that have led to discrimination and inequitable housing access based on protected class. (See HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo, pg. 9-10.)55 In the context of Housing Element Law, local governments must adopt policies and programs designed to mitigate and undo the harms caused by housing discrimination and segregation based on race, disability, and other protected classes. These policies and programs must be designed to have an actual beneficial impact on the actual community members, and must include plans to expand housing opportunities for community members in protected classes and community members who have special housing needs. (Id. at pg 12-13.) Protected classes include race, immigration status, and disability status. Community members with special housing needs include, but are not limited to, the senior population, households with a single parent, community members who are currently or formerly unhoused, large families, and agricultural workers.

The nature and extent of the housing affordability crisis in California demands that each jurisdiction plan carefully to ensure that local housing policies are sufficient and appropriate for 55 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
1893 of 2271
low income communities, disinvested communities, communities that have been historically discriminated against, and communities with special needs. This includes production of affordable housing, preservation of housing already occupied by these communities, protection of renters, and addressing the needs of those who are unsheltered. Without careful planning, housing projects throughout the Bay Area tend towards developments that are unaffordable and inaccessible to these communities. (See HCD Housing Element Implementation APR Dashboard.)56 The law requires jurisdictions to update Housing Elements every eight years for this reason–i.e., to ensure that every jurisdiction is putting careful thought into housing development, and guaranteeing that these communities will be welcomed, safe, comfortable, and stable in their homes. Without a properly updated, legally compliant housing element, the members of your community are at risk of displacement and discrimination. It is imperative that you adopt a legally compliant Housing Element as soon as possible.

III. Conclusion
We are confident that the City of San Mateo understands the importance of adopting a legally compliant housing element as quickly as possible to meet the needs of all people for a safe and stable home and to come into compliance with the law. Given that the January 31, 2023 deadline passed more than a year ago, however, we are concerned about the City of San Mateo’s progress.

We request that you share a list of steps you intend to take to complete an adequate draft ready for adoption. To assist with your response, we provide this Google Form. Your response may include information about steps you have taken in recent history towards Housing Element compliance–e.g. meetings with HCD regarding proposed updates, holding a planning commission study session, making edits in collaboration with community partners–or an outline of steps you plan to take and/or public meetings you plan to hold in the future. If you have any follow up questions or would prefer to respond over email, please direct them to:
[email protected] and [email protected].

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Skylar Spear, esq.

Legal Fellow, Public Advocates
56 Annual Progress Reports - Data Dashboard and Downloads | California Department of Housing and Community Development (See Housing Needs → Progress → 5th Cycle, showing that nearly 150% of the RHNA was met for housing affordable to those with above moderate incomes in the fifth cycle, as compared with 21%, 31%, and 56% for housing affordable to those with very low, low, and moderate incomes, respectively). 1894 of 2271
Tahirah Dean, esq.

Staff Attorney, Public Advocates
Craig Castellanet, esq.

Staff Attorney, Public Interest Law Project
1895 of 2271
From: Housing
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Manira Sandhir
Subject: FW: Housing Element
Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:20:36 PM
!!
From: Jerry Boyke
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 1:42 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
What is preventing you from speaking or writing in a clear and direct fashion? Is there a hiring requirement in San Mateo that prohibits anyone with an IQ above 75 from being employed? There is no university, to my knowledge, that offers a degree curriculum titled 'Housing Element'. None of the retailers in this area sell 'housing elements'. Why can't you speak clearly and meaningfully?
The same applies to the State.

You all work for the same folks.
1896 of 2271
From: Housing
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Manira Sandhir
Subject: FW: Housing Element
Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:10:38 AM
Attachments: image001.png
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 7:08 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element
Hi,
Thanks for posting the current housing element. Could you point me to the explanation of the column headings from page H-C 22 and several following pages? Thank you,
Dennis Keane
1897 of 2271
From: Housing
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Manira Sandhir
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 1:22:09 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 12:58 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form
Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022.

First Name Dennis
Last Name Keane
Email Address
Comment on 2023-2031
Draft Housing Element
I would be more enthusiastic about this vision of our city if we could get the development projects to include more than 10-12% "affordable" units. It makes all whining over the last couple of years about affordable housing seem pretty phony and not really much of a priority - not enough of a priority to mess with the profits involved, that is.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 1898 of 2271
From: Housing
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Manira Sandhir
Subject: FW: Housing Element
Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 1:22:16 PM
From: Tom Taber
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 11:18 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Taber
Subject: Housing Element
I am a long time home owner in San Mateo. I read the housing element and I have a few thoughts:
1) The cost of housing is a function of supply and demand. The best way to make housing more affordable is to greatly increase the supply. Requiring that developers build "affordable" (subsidized) housing decreases the incentives for developers to build. Housing construction won't happen unless it is profitable for developers to do so.
2) There are too many studio and one bedroom units being built. Those are ok for young singles, but families need 2 and 3 bedroom housing units. 3) We should encourage the construction of townhouses and condominiums that people can buy and build equity. People who own their residences have a greater investment in the city.
4) It is ridiculous to limit housing to only 55 feet close to downtown and near the three Caltrain stations. A measure should be put on the ballot to raise the height limit to at least 85 feet in those areas.

Thanks,
Tom Taber
1899 of 2271
From: Housing
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Manira Sandhir
Subject: Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 8:09:31 AM
Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
650-522-7239
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 5:28:07 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form
Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022.

First Name Stephen
Last Name Howard Sarin
Email Address
Comment on 2023-
2031 Draft Housing
Element
Thank you all for the hard work of creating the Housing Element and getting it approved. It makes me proud of the
professionalism of our planning functions that San Mateo is able to become substantially compliant in a timely fashion. And I’m hopeful that a solid city plan plus market forces will produce many more new homes than required. Expanding San Mateo is good for everyone, and lowering the cost of housing through plentiful supply will be good for my children and future neighbors.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 1900 of 2271
From: Housing
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Manira Sandhir
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:26:52 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:52 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form
Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022.

First Name Suzanne
Last Name Flecker
Email Address
Comment on 2023-2031
Draft Housing Element
Issues are:
-Sights inventory was not adequately altered. Too much of the existing and previously failed listed sights will fail to produce the housing that San Mateo needs.
-Regarding affirmatively furthering fair housing, the city did not adequately examine the underlying causes of segregation and poverty. No meaningful methods of overcoming these past, present and serious issues have been addressed, created and included in the document.
-The city now suffers with some in the Baywood neighborhood seeking to be designated a Historical district.
-Since I believe this plan will fail to produce the necessary housing required to address the previously mentioned issues, I must also mention an overarching concern which is our climate.

If this plan is not successful, and if many other jurisdictions likewise fail to produce successful plans, we will only continue to exacerbate the Climate Crisis, speeding us to further climate disaster. Without our climate we are nothing. Please undertake a complete examination of the Housing Element with an eye towards making it functional. We cannot continue to kick the can 1901 of 2271
down the road any longer. Thank you for your most sincere attention to this very pressing matter.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 1902 of 2271
From: Housing
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Manira Sandhir
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:27:03 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:43 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form
Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022.

First Name Dennis
Last Name Keane
Email Address
Comment on 2023-2031
Draft Housing Element
re the Fish Market development site
What commitments/efforts will be made to keep Parkside Plaza buisnesses? Particularly the Smart and Final. Will development mean we lose these local services? Will we retain a local market?
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 1903 of 2271
From: Housing
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Manira Sandhir
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 2:22:00 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:46 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form
Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022.

First Name iraida
Last Name dayen
Email Address
Comment on 2023-2031
Draft Housing Element
City should have rent control, especially for seniors and invalids.

I`m 86 y/o
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 1904 of 2271

D RAFT M EMORANDUM
To: Manira Sandhir, City of San Mateo
From: Thomas Gonzales, Darin Smith, and Ryan Martinez
Subject: Housing Element Sites Inventory Review; EPS #241028 Date: April 17, 2024
This memo summarizes a feasibility review conducted by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. regarding potential housing sites identified in San Mateo's Housing Element. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) directed the City to address concerns regarding existing uses potentially hindering development on some sites in conjunction with adoption of the Housing Element.

EPS’ review concludes that despite certain challenges posed by existing uses, San Mateo's Housing Element inventory reasonably identifies potential development sites. However, significant financial support will be necessary to achieve the RHNA goals for affordable housing.

Summary of Key Findings
• While existing commercial uses can constrain redevelopment, market trends suggest the inclusion of sites with existing uses in the Housing Element Sites Inventory is reasonable.
• Redevelopment of commercial sites for housing is a growing national trend also reflected in development trends within nearby cities.
• Strong housing demand and high land values for residential development have made redevelopment financially attractive and feasible for commercial property owners.
• Most existing commercial leases are expected to expire within the eight-year Housing Element planning period, reducing that barrier to future redevelopment opportunities.
• The City's methodology for site selection is generally sound, reflecting observed industry trends, property owner interests, and site-specific conditions likely to support redevelopment. • Meeting the RHNA allocation for affordable housing in San Mateo would require significant financial subsidies greatly exceeding current City resources.

DRAFT
1905 of 2271
Draft Memorandum: Housing Element Sites Inventory Feasibility Review Page | 2
Existing Uses Do Create Financial and Logistical Challenges Many sites in the inventory currently have commercial uses. "Buying out" existing leases or consolidating surface parking into structures can significantly increase development costs.

Still, Real Estate Industry Trends Indicate Movement toward Redevelopment Shopping center conversions and phased residential development on commercial surface parking lots are increasingly common real estate industry trends. Also, tenants are increasingly open to negotiating with developers for phased projects that improve long-term benefits for a retail property.

Local Development Economics Support Redevelopment
High housing demand has driven up land values for residential development, making it financially attractive for many commercial property owners to offer their sites for redevelopment even if they must absorb certain costs to terminate leases, consolidate parking, etc.

Regional Trends Indicate Commercial Redevelopment is Common Utilizing data from CoStar, EPS found that 88% of large multifamily projects built in San Mateo County and nearby areas of Santa Clara County since 2014 were on land with previous commercial uses, indicating that such redevelopment is not only possible but in fact the norm in the general market area.

Lease Term Research Shows Opportunities within the RHNA Period Although redevelopment of commercial uses is complex, EPS research suggests that most commercial leases in San Mateo have terms of five years or less, suggesting upcoming expiration and potential redevelopment opportunities during the Housing Element cycle (2023-2031).

Housing Sites Inventory Selection Criteria Appear Reasonable Over 40% of the 7,015 total housing units in the City’s RHNA allocation are projected to be developed in projects that are already in the development pipeline. Most of the remaining development capacity is on sites with documented redevelopment interest or potential. A smaller proportion of capacity (roughly 14% of total unit capacity) is on sites for which developers or owners have not yet expressed interest in redevelopment but with multiple physical or financial characteristics suggesting potential redevelopment.1 Funding Needed to Support Development of City's RHNA Goals EPS estimated that meeting the City’s full RHNA allocation for affordable housing, a total of 3,975 units in total, will require financial subsidies of over $2 billion, well beyond what current resources can likely support.

DRAFT
1906 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 3
Attachment : Housing Element Sites
Inventory Review Presentat ion
DRAFT
1907 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

The Economics of Land Use
1330 Broadway, Suite 450  Oakland, CA 94612
510 841 9190  www.epsys.com

HOUSING ELEMENT

SITES INVENTORY
REVIEW
April 17, 2024
EPS #241028
DRAFT
1908 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 1

HCD INSTRUCTIONS
 HCD found the City’s Housing Element in substantial compliance with state law  Directed City to “find existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period” given the reliance on “nonvacant sites” to accommodate a substantial portion of the RHNA targets  City needs to make these findings when adopting the Housing Element DRAFT
1909 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 2

KEY FINDINGS
 While existing uses are a constraint to redevelopment feasibility, market trends indicate that it is reasonable to include such sites in San Mateo’s housing sites inventory – EPS identified that 88% of units in large multifamily projects built since 2014 in nearby cities occurred on land previously developed for commercial uses – Most commercial leases in San Mateo are expected to expire within the Housing Element cycle, which will relieve a constraint on redevelopment – Land values for residential development have been very high, enabling developers to overcome the cost and risk of redeveloping existing commercial sites  The City’s methodology for site selection is generally reasonable as it reflects observed trends in redevelopment and site-specific conditions
 To build the 3,975 units affordable to moderate and lower income households allocated under RHNA would require a financial subsidy over $2 billion—likely more than is financeable with existing sources
DRAFT
1910 of 2271

EVALUATION OF EXISTING USES AS SITE CONSTRAINTS
DRAFT
1911 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 4

EXISTING USES DO CONSTRAIN REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY
 Many of the properties in the City’s Housing Element Site Inventory include existing commercial uses. The cost of “buying out” existing commercial leaseholders can substantially increase the cost of purchasing commercial land redevelopment project.  Estimating this cost can be challenging and difficult to generalize due to limited available data and the complexity of commercial leasing activity—each site and set of leases and tenants will present different costs and issues.  Overall, it is expected that active/profitable uses at a site add significant risk for redevelopment in terms of timing and cost; in some cases, a tenant that does not want to interrupt its business activity can prevent them from redeveloping until the end of the lease term.
 Some landlords may have recapture clauses that reduce these risks and costs, but these are rare (or rarely enforceable) for leases with experienced national/regional tenants. Even for phased redevelopment (e.g., on parking lots), loan and tenant agreement terms typically make changes to the property difficult to negotiate.

DRAFT
1912 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 5

BUT REASONABLE TO EXPECT SOME EXISTING USES TO REDEVELOP  Redevelopment of shopping centers and other
commercial uses (both wholesale and phased) has
been a growing industry trend for at least a decade 1
– Developers have looked to add residential uses to
shopping centers to create mixed-use nodes and
activity centers that better meet changing consumer
demand for retail
– Developers looking to improve site utilization have built residential uses on top of former surface parking lots at shopping centers, office parks, and hotel sites
 Tenants are increasingly interested in negotiating
and partnering with owners, especially on phased
projects that may have long-term benefits of drawing
more customers and activity to a property or
shopping center 2

INSERT IMAGE
Example site in Orange, CA with housing built on the former surface parking lot of a hotel development, which has been consolidated into a multistory parking garage.
1 Turning Malls into Neighborhoods, Urban Land, February 27, 2023 2 'Ransom Payment' No More: Mall Anchors Losing Their Leverage As Owners Ramp Up DRAFT
Redevelopment, Bisnow, October 8, 2023
1913 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 6

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS JUSTIFY REDEVELOPMENT
 Strong demand for housing has increased the land price that residential developers can pay, making it easier to assume the cost and risk of buying a site with existing commercial uses
 From available CoStar sales data, EPS found that developers in San Mateo paid between $19 and $31.6 million per acre for residential developments in 2021 and 2022, up from $9.5 to $17 million per acre in 2016-2020 – In many cases, these land values are enough to finance the purchase of an existing office or retail site
– It can also justify the consolidation of surface parking into a parking garage  Housing Element makes reasonable claims that
– “Rather than the existing uses discontinuing from lack of interest, market trends reveal that developers have bought out long-term businesses to allow redevelopment into housing or utilized phased development or partial site redevelopment to allow the existing use(s) to remain while new housing was developed.” (p H-C-16) Source: CoStar
DRAFT
1914 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 7

DEVELOPMENT TRENDS SUPPORT ASSERTION
EPS used data from CoStar and Google to research the previous uses at large multifamily housing projects built since 2014 within San Mateo County and nearby cities in Santa Clara County:
 The 42 largest (200+ units) projects either completed or under construction include approximately 15,795 total units
 Of these units, 13,937 (88%) have been built on land previously developed for office, retail, industrial, and/or associated parking uses  Another 829 units (5%) have been built on land previously developed for residential uses
– The City of San Mateo has allocated fewer than 100 units to sites with existing residential uses (less than 2% of its total housing site inventory)  1,029 units (6.5%) have been built on land that was either vacant or dedicated to public parking (e.g., BART and Caltrain parking lots) DRAFT
1915 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 8

LEASE TREND RESEARCH SHOWS OPPORTUNITIES
EPS analyzed leases and subleases signed in the last five years (since Apr. 2019) for which lease term data from CoStar is available:
 Most commercial leases were signed for a term of five years or less:
– Out of 248 total leases, about 158 (64%) were for five years or less  The largest commercial leases had longer terms:
– Of the 25 largest commercial leases* (more than 10,000 square feet), 12 (48%) were for a term of 5 years or less
 EPS identified over 1.44 million square feet of rentable space with leases set to expire in the next five years (by Apr. 2029)
 These data suggest that most existing commercial leases will expire during the current Housing Element cycle (2023-2031), potentially making their sites available for redevelopment
DRAFT
1916 of 2271

REVIEW OF HOUSING SITES INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
DRAFT
1917 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 10

SUMMARY OF SITE SELECTION CRITERIA FACTORS
Any site meeting any one of the following five criteria:

1. Property owner or developer interest in redevelopment

2. Site that is developer owned

3. Site with previous proposal for redevelopment

4. Vacant site

5. Sites with surface parking lot use only or similar unimproved condition Or, meeting at least three of the following five criteria:

6. Existing use similar to commonly redeveloped sites (retail or shopping center, banks, office, gas station or automotive use, grocery stores, lower density residential)

7. Structure is more than 30 years old (or 20 years if commercial use)

8. Current structure is one-story only

9. Property has Improvement to Land Value ratio of <1.0 (or <2.5 if commercial use)

10. Property has 50% or less lot coverage
DRAFT
1918 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 11

SELECTION CRITERIA ARE GENERALLY REASONABLE
 While not necessarily indicating imminent redevelopment, Criteria 1-5 reflect sites with proven interest in or low barriers to redevelopment during the 2023-31 Housing Element Planning period (RHNA Cycle)
 Criteria 6-10 provide a less clear expectation of redevelopment interest, but they do reflect redevelopment potential, and were used to select a relatively small number of sites:
– Taken together, these sites account for a
relatively approx. 14% of all site capacity
(1,449 units) within the inventory
– EPS estimated that less than 35% of this
site capacity (approx. 500 units) would be
lost if a higher threshold (at least 4 of the 5
criteria) was required for site selection
DRAFT
1919 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 12

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA DETAILED ANALYSIS
Criteria Provides reasonable expectation that property may be redevelop during the Planning Period (RHNA cycle)?

1. Property owner or developer interest in redevelopment Yes, active interest from a developer or owner provides reasonable expectation.

2. Site that is developer owned Yes, confirming a known owner that specializes in development also provides reasonable expectation. However, there are many challenges with identifying true owners of property and categorizing owners as developers vs non-developers.

3. Site with previous proposal for redevelopment Yes, a history of redevelopment proposals provides some reasonable expectation.

However, relying on outdated proposals that are not reflective of current zoning or market trends may be a poor indicator of redevelopment potential.

4. Vacant site Yes, a vacant property condition provides reasonable expectation.

5. Sites with surface parking lot use only or similar
unimproved condition
Yes, an unimproved property condition provides reasonable expectation.

6. Existing use similar to commonly redeveloped sites
(retail/shopping center, banks, office, gas station, etc.) Yes, this provides a reasonable expectation as these are uses the City has seen at proposed redevelopment projects in the past.

7. Structure is more than 30 years old (or 20 years if
commercial use)
This is in some cases correlated with properties that may be redeveloped. However, assessor data on age of structure does not account for renovated structures that have extended their life and thus does not necessarily provide a strong expectation.

8. Current structure is one-story only Yes, this provides a reasonable expectation as one-story structures are among the most common type of commercial property that is redeveloped.

9. Property has Improvement to Land Value ratio of <1.0 (or <2.5 if commercial use)
Assessor data regarding values is impacted by Prop 13 and typically does not reflect true market value of land or improvements.

10. Property has 50% or less lot coverage Yes, lot coverage of less than 50% is correlated with underutilization (often large DRAFT
surface parking areas) that provide a reasonable expectation. 1920 of 2271
FUNDING NEEDED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF CITY’S RHNA GOALS

ESTIMATE OF RHNA HOUSING PRODUCTION SUBSIDY
DRAFT
1921 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 14

RHNA HOUSING GOALS ARE DESIGNATED BY INCOME
San Mateo’s Goals include:

Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI)
Low Income
(50%-80% of AMI)
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of AMI)
Above Moderate
(>120% of AMI) Total
San Mateo Units 1,777 1,023 1,175 3,040 7,015
San Mateo County
Units 12,196 7,023 7,937 20,531 47,687
Bay Area Units 114,442 65,892 72,712 188,130 441,176
San Mateo Percent 25.3% 14.6% 16.7% 43.3% 100.0%
San Mateo County
Percent

25.6% 14.7% 16.6% 43.1% 100.0%
Bay Area Percent 25.9%
DRAFT

14.9% 16.5% 42.6% 100.0%
1922 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 15

AFFORDABLE UNITS REQUIRE FINANCING SUBSIDY
 Housing units priced for Above Moderate Income households can reasonably be financed through market-based pricing
 Housing for lower income groups will have to be restricted to below-market rates, which are typically insufficient to fully finance the cost of construction  EPS calculated a rough estimate1 of the subsidy needed to finance a unit of housing at each income level, as well as the cumulative total needed to meet the 2023-31 RHNA goals
 The subsidy needed to build all 3,795 below-market-rate units was estimated at $2.0 billion as detailed in the table on the following slide 1 EPS developed a static (i.e., point-in-time) pro forma model to simulate the “financing gap” associated with the City’s affordable portion of its RHNA allocation. The model estimates the supportable development value of income-restricted units based on assumptions concerning maximum incomes, affordable lease rates, operating costs, and capitalization rates, and compares the unit valuation with its estimated cost of construction. The difference between construction costs and achievable rent-based unit value represents the subsidy required to produce these units
The estimate assumes that all housing is rental housing and is built with a mix of unit sizes informed by a review of CoStar data on multifamily rental projects built in San Mateo during the previous Housing Element cycle.

DRAFT
1923 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 16

SUBSIDY GAP ESTIMATE TO MEET RHNA NEEDS
Item Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Total
6th Cycle RHNA Allocation [1] 1,777 1,023 1,175 3,975
Per-Unit Supportable Development Value [2] $280,041 $599,645 $947,805 $559,684 Per-Unit Construction Cost [3] $1,066,296 $1,066,296 $1,066,296 $1,066,296 Per-Unit Financing Gap ($786,255) ($466,651) ($118,491) ($506,612) Total Financing Gap ($1,397,174,319) ($477,383,871) ($139,226,391) ($2,013,784,581) [1] Excludes 3,040 Above-Moderate units for a total RHNA allocation of 7,015.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., CA HCD, San Mateo County Housing Authority, CTCAC [3] Assumes 50-unit per acre apartment construction with a mix of unit sizes averaging 990 square feet. EPS compared costs against affordable housing cost data from recent project applications in San Mateo County submitted to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC). [2] Assumes that households pay no more than 30% of published maximum household income limits including utility cost, using income data published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (CA HCD) and utility allowance data from the San Mateo County Housing Authority. Total value reflects per unit operating cost assumptions of $9,000 per unit and a 4.25% cap rate, based on EPS market research, DRAFT
1924 of 2271
Supplemental Informaꢀon
for
Housing Element 2023-2031
Appendix C: Housing Resources and Sites Inventory
• Housing Element Sites Inventory Review Memo, Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.

May 17, 2024
Appendix F: Public Parꢀcipaꢀon
• City Response Leꢁers
o Housing Acꢀon Coaliꢀon Response, May 17, 2024
o California Housing Defense Fund Response, May 17, 2024 1925 of 2271

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Manira Sandhir, City of San Mateo
From: Thomas Gonzales, Darin Smith, and Ryan Martinez
Subject: Housing Element Sites Inventory Review; EPS #241028 Date: May 17, 2024
This memo summarizes a review conducted by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. regarding potential housing sites identified in San Mateo's Housing Element. This final version contains additional information and clarifications based on discussions at San Mateo’s Planning Commission on April 23, 2024 regarding whether there is substantial evidence that the uses on the non-vacant sites are likely to be discontinued during the planning period.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) directed the City to address concerns regarding existing uses potentially hindering development on some sites in conjunction with adoption of the Housing Element.

EPS’s review concludes that despite certain challenges posed by existing uses, market trends demonstrate that redevelopment of existing uses on sites included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory is likely to occur within the planning period.

Summary of Key Findings
 Redevelopment of commercial sites for housing is a growing national trend also clearly reflected in development trends within nearby cities.
 Strong housing demand and high land values for residential development, combined with weakening performance of
commercial uses, have made redevelopment within the planning period financially attractive and feasible for commercial property owners.


Most existing commercial leases are expected to expire within the eight-year Housing Element planning period, reducing that barrier to future redevelopment opportunities.

The City's methodology for site selection reflects observed industry trends, property owner interests, and site-specific conditions likely to support redevelopment and identifies sites where uses may well be discontinued during the planning period.
1926 of 2271
Memorandum: Housing Element Sites Inventory Feasibility Review Page | 2
Existing Uses Do Create Financial and Logistical Challenges Many sites in the inventory currently have commercial uses. "Buying out" existing leases or consolidating surface parking into structures can significantly increase development costs relative to constructing on vacant sites.

Still, Real Estate Industry Trends Indicate Movement toward Redevelopment Despite constraints, there are numerous examples of housing developments that have been built on sites with existing uses, and shopping center conversions and phased residential development on commercial surface parking lots are increasingly common real estate industry trends. Also, tenants are increasingly open to negotiating with developers for phased projects that improve long-term benefits for a retail property by adding or substantially increasing the number of residential units on a site.

Recently built examples within San Mateo include Station Park Green (430 Station Park Circle, built 2018), Kiku Crossing (480 E 4th Street, built 2024), and The Lark (1950 Elkhorn Court, built 2015). Other recent, prominent examples of nearby shopping center conversions include Stonestown Galleria (3,500 apartments approved in San Francisco in May 2024), and Westlake Shopping Center (393 apartments approved in Daly City in September 2022).

Local Development Economics Support Redevelopment
High housing demand has driven up land values for residential development, making it financially attractive for many commercial property owners to offer their sites for redevelopment during the planning period, even if they must absorb certain costs to terminate leases, consolidate parking, etc.

Using data from Costar,1 a subscription-based real estate data service that is an industry standard information source, EPS analysis of available transaction data shows that developments including residential uses paid between $9.5 to $17 million from 2016-2020 for land. Similar land purchases in 2021-2022 increased further to between $19 and $31.6 million per project, which is sufficient to purchase underutilized commercial land with existing uses where residential uses are permitted. Note that achievable land purchase price will depend on allowable zoning at a specific site.

Even as land values for residential development have been increasing, values of existing uses have been decreasing. Costar data again demonstrates that rents and building sales prices for commercial office and retail uses in San Mateo and San Francisco Counties fell significantly between 2019 and 2023, while vacancy rates have increased. This divergence of value will make redevelopment for residential uses more viable for many commercial sites. 1 Costar (costar.com)
1927 of 2271
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 3
Regional Trends Indicate Commercial Redevelopment is Common EPS has confirmed that housing redevelopment on sites with existing commercial uses is reasonable, as most large residential projects in the surrounding area have occurred on such sites. EPS used data from Costar, a commercial real estate data provider, to identify the 43 largest residential/multifamily developments built in San Mateo County and nearby areas of Santa Clara County since 2014. EPS then used historical Costar and historical imagery (from Google Maps and Google Earth) to confirm that 88% of these projects were on land with previous commercial uses, indicating that such redevelopment is not only possible but in fact the norm in the general market area.2
Lease Term Research Shows Opportunities within the RHNA Period Although redevelopment of commercial uses is complex, EPS research has indicated that most commercial leases in San Mateo have terms of five years or less. EPS reviewed available term data for 248 commercial leases in San Mateo obtained from Costar and found that 64% of them had a term of 5 years or less, suggesting that most existing use leases will expire within the Housing Element cycle ending in 2031.3 Furthermore, the presence of existing leases at a particular property may generally be less of a constraint to the discontinuation of existing uses over such a longer, eight-year period, where economics support redevelopment into different uses.

Housing Sites Inventory Selection Criteria Identify Sites that are among those Most Likely to Redevelop during the Planning Period Over 40% of the 7,015 total housing units in the City’s RHNA allocation are projected to be developed in projects that are already in the development pipeline. Most of the remaining development capacity is on sites for which the City has identified documented redevelopment interest or potential. A smaller proportion of capacity (roughly 14% of total unit capacity) is on sites for which developers or owners have not yet expressed interest in redevelopment but with multiple physical, use, or financial characteristics suggesting potential redevelopment during the planning period.

Additional discussion, data, citations, and case study examples regarding these findings can be found on the attached presentation materials.

A t t a c hm e n t : H o u s i n g E l em e n t S i t e s I n v e n t o r y R e v i ew P r e s e n t a t i o n
2 Sources: Costar (costar.com), Google Maps (google.com/maps), and Google Earth (earth.google.com) 3 Source: Costar (costar.com)
1928 of 2271

HOUSING ELEMENT

SITES INVENTORY
REVIEW
May 17, 2024
EPS #241028
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

T h e E c o n o m i c s o f L a n d U s e
1330 Broadway, Suite 450  Oakland, CA 94612
510 841 9190  www.epsys.com
1929 of 2271

HCD INSTRUCTIONS
. HCD found the City’s Housing Element in substantial compliance with state law . Directed City to “find existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period” given the reliance on “nonvacant sites” to accommodate a substantial portion of the RHNA targets . City needs to make these findings when adopting the Housing Element Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 1
1930 of 2271

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
. While existing uses may constrain redevelopment feasibility, market trends demonstrate that redevelopment of existing uses on sites included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory is likely to occur within the planning period – EPS identified that 88% of units in large multifamily projects built since 2014 in nearby cities occurred on land previously developed for commercial uses – Most current commercial leases in San Mateo are expected to expire within the Housing Element cycle, giving landlords a chance to consider redevelopment vs. lease renewals or re-tenanting
– Market trends (vacancy, rent, sale price) for commercial uses have weakened in recent years
– Land values for residential development have been very high, enabling developers to overcome financial obstacles to redeveloping existing commercial sites . The City’s methodology for site selection is reasonable as it reflects observed trends in redevelopment and site-specific conditions
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 2
1931 of 2271

EVALUATION OF EXISTING USES AS SITE CONSTRAINTS
1932 of 2271

EXISTING USES MAY CONSTRAIN REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY
. Many of the properties in the City’s Housing Element Site Inventory include existing commercial uses. The cost of “buying out” existing commercial leaseholders can increase the cost of purchasing commercial land for a redevelopment project. . Estimating this cost can be challenging and difficult to generalize due to limited available data and the complexity of commercial leasing activity—each site and set of leases and tenants will present different costs and issues. . Overall, it is expected that active/profitable uses at a site add significant risk for redevelopment in terms of timing and cost; in some cases, a tenant that does not want to interrupt its business activity can prevent them from redeveloping until the end of the lease term.
. Some landlords may have recapture clauses that reduce these risks and costs, but these are rare (or rarely enforceable) for leases with experienced national/regional tenants. Even for phased redevelopment (e.g., on parking lots), loan and tenant agreement terms typically make changes to the property difficult to negotiate.

Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 4
1933 of 2271

BUT STILL REASONABLE TO EXPECT REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING USES . Redevelopment of shopping centers and other commercial uses (both wholesale and phased) has been a growing industry trend for at least a decade 1
– Developers have looked to add residential uses to shopping centers to create mixed-use nodes and activity centers that better meet changing consumer demand for retail
– Developers looking to improve site utilization have built residential uses on top of former surface parking lots at shopping centers, office parks, and hotel sites
. Tenants are increasingly interested in negotiating and partnering with owners, especially on phased projects that may have long-term benefits of drawing more customers and
activity to a property or shopping center 2
. 2022 data shows that housing has become the most common redevelopment use at mall sites across the U.S.
– 54% of sampled redevelopment projects included Example site in Orange, CA with housing built on the former surface parking lot of a hotel development, which has been residential uses consolidated into a multistory parking garage. 1 Source: Turning Malls into Neighborhoods, Urban Land, February 27, 2023 2 Source: 'Ransom Payment' No More: Mall Anchors Losing Their Leverage As Owners Ramp Up Redevelopment, Bisnow, October 8, 2023 3 Source: Jones Lang LaSalle website article, March 9, 2023 Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 5
1934 of 2271
EXAMPLES: REDEVELOPMENT WITH EXISTING USES
. 83% of units in active development pipeline identified in Housing Element are located on sites with some existing commercial uses . Concar Passage (San Mateo Housing Element site)
– 961 multifamily units and 40,000 SF of retail approved by City Council for

14.5-acre site currently occupied by Concar Shopping center Concar Passage Plans Source: City of San Mateo website • Source: Concar Passage | San Mateo, CA - Official Website (cityofsanmateo.org) . Stonestown Galleria Redevelopment (San Francisco, CA – approved May 2024) – 3,500 homes to be developed on 40-acre mall site, with no planned discontinuation of mall operations and uses, and a slight increase in commercial retail uses at the site Stonestown Galleria Plans Source: Brookfield Properties • Sources: San Francisco Chronicle, SF YIMBY . Westlake Shopping Center Redevelopment (Daly City, CA – approved Sept 2022) – 393 apartments approved to date at 25-acre shopping center as phased redevelopment of individual parcels with continued retail operations • Source: The Real Deal, City of Daly City Westlake Shopping Center Plans Source: SGPA Architecture and Planning
. See additional examples in attached Redevelopment Case Studies Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 6
1935 of 2271

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS JUSTIFY REDEVELOPMENT
. Strong demand for housing has increased the land price that residential developers can pay, making it likelier that sites with existing commercial uses will be redeveloped into housing within the planning period . EPS found that developers in San Mateo paid between $19 and $31.6 million per acre for residential (including mixed-use) developments in 2021-2022, up from $9.5 to $17 million per acre in 2016-20201
– These land values are enough to finance the purchase of many existing office or retail sites, especially underutilized sites such as those identified in the City’s Site Inventory – They can also justify the consolidation of surface parking into a parking garage1 . Supports Housing Element claim:
– “Rather than the existing uses discontinuing from lack of interest, market trends reveal that developers have bought out long-term businesses to allow redevelopment into housing or utilized phased development or partial site redevelopment to allow the existing use(s) to remain while new housing was developed.” (p H-C-16) 1 EPS analyzed 22 separate property transactions associated with eight separate residential and mixed-use development projects in San Mateo from Sept. 2016 to Nov. 2022. Data was primarily sourced from CoStar. 2 EPS developed a conservative estimate of $12 – 15 million as the cost of building a parking structure to free up one acre of developable land Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 7
1936 of 2271

OBSERVED DEVELOPMENT TRENDS SUPPORT STATEMENT
EPS researched the previous uses at large multifamily housing projects built since 2014 within San Mateo County and nearby cities in Santa Clara County : 1 . The 43 largest (~200+ units) projects either completed or under construction include approximately 15,795 total units
. Of these units, 13,937 units (88%) have been built on land previously developed for office, retail, industrial, and/or associated parking uses . Another 829 units (5%) have been built on land previously developed for residential uses
– The City of San Mateo has allocated fewer than 100 units to sites with existing residential uses (less than 2% of its total housing site inventory) . Only 1,029 units (6.5%) have been built on land that was either vacant or dedicated to public parking (e.g., BART and Caltrain parking lots) 1 EPS looked at the 43 largest residential development projects identified from CoStar data. EPS reviewed historic property data from CoStar as well as historic imagery from Google Maps and Google Earth in order to confirm prior uses.

Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 8
1937 of 2271

LEASE TREND RESEARCH SHOWS OPPORTUNITIES
EPS analyzed leases and subleases signed in the last five years (since Apr. 2019) for which lease term data from CoStar is available : 1
. Most commercial leases were signed for a term of five years or less – Out of 248 total leases, about 158 (64%) were for five years or less . The largest commercial leases had longer terms
– Of the 25 largest commercial leases* (more than 10,000 square feet), 12 (48%) were for a term of 5 years or less
. EPS identified over 1.44 million square feet of rentable space with leases set to expire in the next five years (by Apr. 2029)
. These data suggest that most existing commercial leases will expire during the current Housing Element cycle (2023-2031), making their sites more viable for redevelopment
1 Costar provided term length data for 248 commercial leases, out of a total of 854 known leases signed since Apr. 2019 within San Mateo city limits.

Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 9
1938 of 2271

WEAKENING MARKET TRENDS FOR EXISTING USES
. Vacancies are up for both
office and retail uses Index of Commercial Market Performance, San Francisco & San Mateo Counties
Source: Costar
. Rents and building values per 4.00

3.50 3.00

2.50 2.00

1.50 1.00

0.50 0.00
square foot are down
– Retail buildings are worth just Office Sale
over half of 2019 values Price/SF
Office Rents
– Office buildings are worth
less than half of 2019 values Office
Vacancy
Retail Sale
Price/SF
. These changes indicate Retail Rents
oversupply relative to demand Retail
Vacancy
. Increases likelihood that
office and retail existing uses
may be discontinued within
the planning period
2019 2023
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 10
1939 of 2271

REVIEW OF HOUSING SITES INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
1940 of 2271

SUMMARY OF SITE SELECTION CRITERIA FACTORS
Any site meeting any one of the following five criteria:

1. Property owner or developer interest in redevelopment

2. Site that is developer owned

3. Site with previous proposal for redevelopment

4. Vacant site

5. Sites with surface parking lot use only or similar unimproved condition Or, meeting at least three of the following five criteria:

6. Existing use similar to commonly redeveloped sites (retail or shopping center, banks, office, gas station or automotive use, grocery stores, lower density residential)

7. Structure is more than 30 years old (or 20 years if commercial use)

8. Current structure is one-story only

9. Property has Improvement to Land Value ratio of <1.0 (or <2.5 if commercial use)

10. Property has 50% or less lot coverage
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 12
1941 of 2271

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA DETAILED ANALYSIS
Criteria Provides reasonable expectation that existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the RHNA cycle?

1. Property owner or developer interest in redevelopment Yes, active interest from a developer or owner provides reasonable expectation.

2. Site that is developer owned

3. Site with previous proposal for redevelopment

4. Vacant site
Yes, confirming a known owner that specializes in development provides reasonable expectation.

Yes, a history of redevelopment proposals provides reasonable expectation as the site was previously vetted and pursued by developers.

Yes, a vacant property condition provides reasonable expectation given the high demand for housing and high value of developable sites.

5. Sites with surface parking lot use only or similar
unimproved condition
Yes, an unimproved property condition provides reasonable expectation given the high demand for housing and high value of developable sites.

7. Structure is more than 30 years old (or 20 years if
commercial use)
Yes, aging properties that have reached the end of their useful life and have been fully amortized or depreciated are more likely to be redeveloped than newer buildings.

8. Current structure is one-story only Yes, one-story structures are among the most common type of commercial property that is redeveloped where allowable densities are greater.

9. Property has Improvement to Land Value ratio of <1.0 (or <2.5 if commercial use)
Yes, properties on which the land is more valuable than the buildings above would indicate potential financial incentive for redevelopment. However, assessor data regarding values is impacted by Prop 13 and may not reflect true market value of land or improvements.

10. Property has 50% or less lot coverage Yes, lot coverage of less than 50% is correlated with underutilization (often large surface parking areas) that provide a reasonable expectation.

Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 13
1942 of 2271

SELECTION CRITERIA FOCUS ON SITES WHERE THE EXISTING USES ARE LIKELY TO BE

DISCONTINUED DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD
. Sites that are already active in the development pipeline represent nearly half of the required total unit count from RHNA (3,088 out of 7,015 units) . In general, Criteria 1-5 reflect sites with proven interest in or low barriers to redevelopment during the 2023-31 Housing Element Planning period . Criteria 6-10 provide a less clear expectation of redevelopment interest, but they do reflect redevelopment potential, and were used to select a relatively small number of sites:
– Taken together, these sites account for a
approx. 14% of all site capacity
(1,449 units) within the inventory
– EPS estimated that only about 500 units
would be lost if a higher threshold (at least 4
of the 5 criteria) was required for site
selection, still leaving the Housing Element
with adequate physical capacity for units
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 14
1943 of 2271

REDEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES
1944 of 2271
1001 SHORELINE BLVD, MOUNTAIN VIEW

PHASED INFILL MULTIFAMILY ON FORMER OFFICE SURFACE PARKING The Residences @ Shoreline Gateway
Under Construction (Expected 2025)
Outer Mountain View/Los Altos Submarket
Residential Project Size: 7 stories, 203 units
Lot Size: 8.02 Acres Total – 25 Units per Acre

2.35 Acres – 86 Units per Acre (Residential Portion Only) New Use: Seven-story multifamily building
Prior Use: Parking lot and recreational space
(volleyball and basketball court) associated with a
Google office building built in 2017
Description: Construction began after 6-story office
parking garage constructed on adjacent portion of
site. An additional 100 condominiums are planned
for the site but not yet under construction. Source: City of Mountain View Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 16
1945 of 2271
1001 SHORELINE BLVD, MOUNTAIN VIEW BEFORE: SEP. 2020
Source: Google Earth
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 17
1946 of 2271
1001 SHORELINE BLVD, MOUNTAIN VIEW AFTER: FEB. 2024
Source: Google Earth
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 18
1947 of 2271
1401 BROADWAY ST, REDWOOD CITY

REDEVELOPMENT OF RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER
1401 Broadway Street – Broadway Plaza apartments
Under Construction (Expected 2026)
Staumbaugh Heller Submarket
Residential Project Size: 6 stories, 518 units (120 affordable) Lot Size: 12.2 Acres Total – 43 Units per Acre

6.3 Acres – 83 Units per Acre (Residential Portion Only) Source: BizJournals
New Use: Six-story multifamily building and
420,000 SF office (proposed)
Prior Use: Retail Strip Mall with former tenants
including: CVS, Office Max, Big Lots, UPS
Description: Residential portion of project is
under construction. Remainder of site is reserved
for proposed office uses.

Source: CoStar
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 19
1948 of 2271
1401 BROADWAY ST, REDWOOD CITY BEFORE: APR. 2018
Source: Google Earth
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 20
1949 of 2271
1401 BROADWAY ST, REDWOOD CITY AFTER: FEB. 2024
Source: Google Earth
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 21
1950 of 2271
550 E WEDDELL DR, SUNNYVALE

REDEVELOPMENT OF FLEX BUILDINGS WITH RECENTLY LEASING ACTIVITY Encasa Apartments
Built 2016
Outer Sun Garden Submarket
Residential Project Size: 4 stories, 465 units
Lot Size: 12.0 Acres – 39 units per acre
New Use: Six-story multifamily building
Prior Use: Fair Oaks Business Park: 180K sq. ft. of
flex space across 10 facilities in addition to
surface parking (demolished 2015)
Source: CoStar
Description: At least two tenants leased in 2013,
prior to sale to developer in 2014
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 22
1951 of 2271
550 E WEDDELL DR, SUNNYVALE BEFORE: APR. 2013
Source: Google Earth
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 23
1952 of 2271
550 E WEDDELL DR, SUNNYVALE AFTER: APR. 2017
Source: Google Earth
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 24
1953 of 2271
100 ASPEN WAY, MOUNTAIN VIEW

REDEVELOPMENT OF FLEX BUILDINGS WITH RECENTLY LEASING ACTIVITY Landsby Apartments
Built 2022
The Crossings Submarket
Residential Project Size: 5 stories, 632 units
Lot Size: 8.75 Acres - 72 units per acre
New Use: Five-story multifamily building with 15,000
sq. ft. of ground floor retail
Prior Use: Three separate lots: vacant site of former
Safeway grocery store; active/leased small retail strip; and active/leased Old Mill Office Center (58k sq. ft.).

Description: 40k+ sq. ft. of office leases were signed
within the three years prior to demolition (2016-2018)
and 4,500 sq. ft. of retail leases signed 2013-15.

Source: CoStar
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 25
1954 of 2271
100 ASPEN WAY, MOUNTAIN VIEW BEFORE: AUG. 2018
Source: Google Earth
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 26
1955 of 2271
100 ASPEN WAY, MOUNTAIN VIEW AFTER: AUG. 2023
Source: Google Earth
Economic & Planning Systems EPS PPT Presentation | 27
1956 of 2271

CITY OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7000
May 17, 2024
Mr. Thomas B. Mayhew
Mr. Charles J. Higley
Farella Braun + Martel
One Bush Street, Ste. 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Via email: [email protected], [email protected]
RE: Comment Letter on San Mateo’s Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element Dear Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Higley,
This letter responds to your April 19, 2024 correspondence (“Letter”) on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition (“HAC”). Notably, you previously submitted comment letters to the City of San Mateo (“City”) and/or the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on January 3, 2023, February 24, 2023, August 9, 2023, November 14, 2023, and December 19, 2023.

On December 6, 2023, and April 22, 2024, the City provided written responses to your comments. The City’s prior responses addressed the probability of nonresidential development, the City’s adjusted timeframe of recently approved projects (2019-2023) to inform the housing sites inventory methodology, and other questions regarding the feasibility of housing opportunity sites and allocation of units on particular sites.

Sites Inventory Comments
As already detailed in the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (“Revised Housing Element”) and the City’s April 22, 2024 response letter, the City prepared an analysis demonstrating the redevelopment potential of existing non-vacant commercial sites. This analysis was included in Appendix C, Section 4.3 (Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Analysis and revised Table 2).

The additional analysis examines existing site characteristics and utilizes objective criteria to evaluate each parcel for near-term redevelopment. Factors considered by the City to determine redevelopment potential included property owner or developer interest in redevelopment, whether the site is developer-owned, whether the site had a previous proposal for redevelopment, whether the site has surface parking lot areas or similar unimproved features, whether the existing use is similar to commonly redeveloped sites such as retail/shopping centers, banks, offices, gas stations, etc., whether structures are more than 30 years old, whether current structures are one-story only, whether the property has an improvement to land value ratio of less than 1.0 (or

2.5 if commercial), and whether there is 50 per cent or less lot coverage. These characteristics were determined individually for each non-vacant site and are further described in Appendix C. Other criteria considered on an individual basis include physical characteristics, floor area ratio, location and context, local knowledge, and environmental and infrastructure constraints.

Building Division (650) 522-7172 · Code Enforcement Division (650) 522-7150 Housing Division (650) 522-7220 · Planning Division (650) 522-7212 · General (650) 522-7200 1957 of 2271
These criteria were chosen in response to HCD’s Sites Inventory guidance that suggests similar criteria for identifying appropriate sites for future development. HCD determined that application of this methodology and use of such criteria substantially complied with State law and identified sites likely to redevelop. Similar methodologies are also used by many jurisdictions to develop their RHNA sites allocation. As provided in the HCD Sites Inventory guidance, lease information is only one criterion to determine the potential for redevelopment during the planning period and, by itself, does not preclude a site from being considered a housing opportunity site if there are other favorable indicators.

Nevertheless, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (“EPS”) conducted a peer-review of the City’s housing sites redevelopment assumptions and methodology used in the Revised Housing Element. EPS summarized their findings in a final memorandum submitted to the City on May 17, 2024. Overall, EPS concluded that market trends demonstrate that redevelopment of existing uses on Housing Element sites is likely to occur within the planning period. EPS noted that the methodology used for site selection is reflective of observed industry trends, property owner interests, and site-specific conditions, and that the selection criteria focus on sites where the existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period. Specific findings that EPS identified to support the City’s methodology and Sites Inventory include:
• Since 2014, 88% of large multi-family projects built in San Mateo County and nearby cities were on land with previous commercial or office uses. Shopping center conversions and phased residential development on commercial surface parking lots are increasingly common real estate industry trends; land values for residential development have been increasing, while values of existing commercial uses have been decreasing.
• Most commercial leases in San Mateo have terms of five years or less, and existing leases on a particular property may generally be less of a constraint over an eight-year period. Tenants are increasingly open to negotiating with developers, especially for phased projects that bring customers and activity to a retail property.

A summary table of the thirteen (13) properties identified in your Letter is attached to the end of this letter that provides the specific criteria that were used to demonstrate redevelopment potential for each individual site based on the City’s methodology, found to be acceptable by HCD and supported by the EPS report. In addition, of the approximately 3,550 units contained in those 13 properties, Appendix C, pages H-C-31 through H-C-64, provides a detailed, individual site analysis for the eight most significant properties, projected to have a total capacity for over 3,100 units.

Consideration of Nonresidential Projects
Your Letter reiterates earlier comments that the City neglected to consider nonresidential projects that were approved between 2019-2023. As stated in the City’s December 6, 2023 and April 22, 2024 response letters, the City anticipates that most new projects proposed during this housing cycle will be residential or have a significant residential component. This is based on the development approval trends for pipeline projects since 2019 outlined in Table 4 of the Revised Housing Element, current economic and construction financing conditions which appear to favor residential development, and verbal input received from property owners and developers who state that it is very challenging to secure financing for non-residential projects. It is anticipated that development trends observed since 2019 will continue during this Housing Element cycle. To account for the possibility that approximately 10 percent of projects may be entirely non-residential, the City has generally assumed a capacity of 90 percent on sites zoned for mixed uses. On the major sites reviewed in Appendix C, capacity ranges from 70 to 100 percent of base density, depending on whether the site is a pipeline project, owner interest and site characteristics, even though the majority of the recently developed sites shown in Table 2 utilized state density bonus provisions to achieve more than 100 percent of base density. The City also did not assume that 100 percent of each parcel would be redeveloped for housing. 1958 of 2271
Your Letter also states “the draft also fails to determine or adjust the capacity numbers based on “typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level” as required by Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2).” The City provided a detailed response to this issue in the April 22, 2024, response letter under the heading Affordability Allocations.

Lastly, your Letter states “[the Housing Element] projects capacity numbers that are too high for sites where no application has yet been approved, by counting bonus density requests as if they have already been approved.” The City provided a detailed response to this issue in the April 22, 2024 response letter under the heading Pipeline Project Densities. In addition, the City has a strong recent track record of approving all housing development projects that have been proposed, with over 50% increasing their density during the development review process. Table 1 (Pipeline Projects) in Appendix C of the revised Housing Element includes additional information to support this finding. Please find attached an updated version of Table 1 with a new column showing that only one pipeline project had a reduction of a single unit (291 to 290 units). Nine out of 17 projects had increased unit counts from the time of project submittal to project approval. The Housing Accountability Act does not allow reductions in proposed density, even additional density achieved through density bonuses, except in rare instances. (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) In addition to the responses outlined above, we would like to highlight that on March 18, 2024, the City Council adopted Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, which creates capacity for 19,764 new dwelling units around the City, pending a ballot measure this November to amend the City’s height and density limits, approved in 2020 by the voters (Measure Y). There are also other properties in the City, such as the 10.3-acre Marriott site, that recently became a housing opportunity site but is not listed on the Sites Inventory that could further increase the City’s RHNA buffer. The City is also moving forward with a housing opportunity overlay district (Housing Element Policy 1.10) that would allow 32 sites within the City that were on previous housing elements to develop qualifying housing projects by-right without any discretionary review process.

We hope this additional information provides further details about our methodology and approach and helps alleviate your concerns. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at [email protected] (please copy the City Attorney) or we can set up a meeting to discuss.

Sincerely,
Zachary Dahl, AICP
Interim Community Development Director
Cc: Prasanna W. Rasiah, City Attorney
[email protected]
Attachment 1 – Sites Inventory Excerpt (Table 2 in Appendix C) Attachment 2 – Pipeline Projects 2019-2023 (Table 1 in Appendix C) 1959 of 2271
ATTACHMENT 1
Owner/
Developer
Interest
(1)
With
Previous
Proposal
(3)
Developer
Owned
(2)
Limited
Structures
(5)
Existing
Use
Trend (6)
Lot
Coverage
(10)
Housing Element
ID/ Ownership
Vacant
Site (4)
Met 3 of
6-10
Age
(7)
Single
Story (8)
Prior ILV
(9) Site Address APN
23 – Bridgepointe 035-466-
100 No site address Y Yes
Yes
Y
Y

0.05 0.35
0% Shopping
035-391-
090 17 – The Atrium 1900 S Norfolk St Y 1983
0 17%
14 – Hillsdale 039-490-
170
039-353-
010
039-353-
020
039-353-
030
039-353-
040
042-121-
080
042-121-
060
035-381-
020
035-381-
030
039-011-
450
039-011-
460
039-011-
470
039-011-
480
039-011-
500
41 W Hillsdale Blvd Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

0.72 3.17
-
40%
29%
0%
Mall
2950 S El Camino
Real
No site address
No site address
No site address

0.5 0.49

0.59 -
0%
0%
3590 S El Camino
Real
36th Ave/Colegrove
St
44%
0%
24 – Parkside 1850 S Norfolk St
1826 S Norfolk St
1957
1957
0 Y
Y

0.57 0.32
-
90%
33%
8%
Plaza
15 – Borel Square 93 Bovet Rd
71-77 Bovet Rd
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1999
0 0.56

1.18 3.18

4.24 -
100%
96%
102%
95%
9%
71-77 Bovet Rd
71-77 Bovet Rd 1968
1750 S El Camino
Real
039-011-
510
039-012-
010
71-77 Bovet Rd Y Yes
1690 El Camino Real
039-011-
400 25 – Borel Place
22 – Olympic
1650 Borel Pl Y
Y
Y
Yes
Yes
Y
Y
Y
0 2.33

0.42 1.43
17%
41%
71%
150 W 20th Ave 039-030-
220 1961
or 1925 Elkhorn Ct
042-242-
060 4107 Piccadilly Ln
1960 of 2271
ATTACHMENT 1
042-242-
070
042-242-
160
042-243-
020
042-244-
040
042-244-
050
042-245-
040
042-245-
050
042-245-
060
042-245-
070
042-245-
080
034-144-
220
034-144-
230
11 41st Ave Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

1.23 1.31

3.01 60%
85%
48%
1%
40 42nd Ave
49 42nd Ave Y
Y
Yes
Yes
0 42nd/El Camino Real Y -
4242 S El Camino
Real 5.71

0.05 1
52%
43rd Ave Y Yes 5%
61 43rd Ave
55 43rd Ave
53 43rd Ave
45 43rd Ave
487 S El Camino Real
62 E 4th Ave
65%
65%
65%
65%
93%
89%
0%

0.46 1.26

1.42 0.9 19 – Downtown Y
Y
0 Cluster
Yes
Yes
1955 2.44
0 E 5th Ave/San Mateo
Dr
034-144-
240 Y
039-060-
050
Pioneer Ct
Multiple owners
2040 Pioneer Ct Yes Y 1960 Y 0.91 58%
039-060-
100
039-060-
060
039-060-
070
039-060-
090
039-060-
080
042-241-
180
2041 Pioneer Ct
2050 Pioneer Ct
2070 Pioneer Ct
2055 Pioneer Ct
2075 Pioneer Ct
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1961
1961
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

0.84 1
58%
64%
49%
38%
48%
34%

0.86 1957 0.9
1990

0.07 0.69 4060 S El Camino
Real Villa Plaza
Downtown
Parking Lots
032-312-
250
032-312-
270
032-312-
150
032-312-
100
5 N San Mateo Dr
123 Baldwin Ave
117 Baldwin Ave
26 N San Mateo Dr
27 N San Mateo Dr
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
- 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

0.06 -
-
-
032-312-
070
1961 of 2271
ATTACHMENT 2
Originally
Proposed
Dwelling
Units
Address
Development
Type
Approved
Dwelling
Units
% of Project
Residential
(approx.)
Lot
Size
(Acre)
Dwelling
Units per
Acre
% of
Base
Density
Age of Existing
Building
Existing Building
# of Story
Improvement
to Land Ratio Description Base Zoning Approval Discretion CEQA Existing Use FAR

0.0 0.5

0.3 Demo surface parking lot (City-owned
480 E 4 parcel). Construct new seven-story, th Ave. CBD-S: CC approved. Permitted under applicable Two Public Parking Lots (Kiku Crossing) 100% affordable multi-family building Multi-Family
164
68 225
111
120
53%
33%
80%
Commercial and code and policies. Applicant utilized State DT residential
IS/MND
IS/MND

2.41 1.51

1.6 93
74 75
186%
148%
150%
N/A - No Building
1900 - 2002
1980s
0 2
1 0.0

0.4 0.7
with a separate five-level parking
structure.

Density Bonus
Retail and
residential
structures (8
units)
Demo existing retail and residential
structures (8 units). New mixed-use
building with office and residential uses.

CBD-S: CC approved. Permitted under applicable Block 21 Mixed-Use Commercial and code and policies. Applicant utilized State DT Residential Density Bonus
PC approved. Project was appealed (based
on heritage tree removal). Then CC upheld
PC approval. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus. SUP issued for residential
uses.

PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
Demo existing commercial buildings.

New five-story office and residential
building.
477 9th Ave.

Mixed-Use
Cat Ex
(Infill) 120 E2-2: Office Office
Office
1919 O’Farrell
St.

Multi-Family
E1-1/R4: Office
with residential
overlay
Demo existing office building. New fivestory residential apartment building.Cat Ex (Infill) 48 49 100%
100%

0.71 2.82
69 68
138%
136%
N/A 1
0 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 Tiered off
of the Rail
Corridor
Plan EIR
401 Concar Dr. Demo surface parking lot at Hayward
Hayward Park
Mixed-Use
PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
CalTrain Parking
Lot Park Caltrain Station. New five-story
residential apartment building.
189 191 TOD: Mixed use No Building
C1-2/R5:

Commercial
with residential
overlay
303 Baldwin
Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing grocery store. New fivestory mixed-use building with commercial, office and residential uses.

PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
63 64 40% IS/MND 0.93 68 136% Grocery Store 1956 1 0.4 0.3 1650 S.

Delaware St.

Multi-Family
Demo the existing office building. New
five-story, 73-unit residential apartment
building.

PC approved. Permitted under applicable
TOD: Mixed-Use code and policies. Applicant utilized State Cat Ex (Infill) 73 73 100%
97%

1.07 68
66 136%
132%
Office Before the 1980s
1969 - 1991
2 1

0.4 0.3

0.3 2.6
Density Bonus
Demo existing shopping center. New
mixed-use buildings with commercial,
office and residential uses.

CC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State 666 Concar Dr.

Mixed-Use 935 961 TOD: Mixed use EIR 14.51 Regional Retail Density Bonus
Demo existing commercial and
residential uses (5 units). New mixeduse building with office and residential uses.
1 Hayward
Ave.

0.29 1.51
61 44
122%
88%
1938 1
0 0.4

0.0 0.1

0.0 New four-story mixed-use building on
MU2 Block with ground floor retail uses
and office above; and new four-story
mixed-use building on MU3 Block with
ground floor retail uses and residential
above.

S Delaware St.
at Landing Ave
(PA20-053)
Bay Meadows
Mixed-Use
BMSP: MixedUse per Bay
Meadows
Tiered off
of the
Specific
Plan EIR
PC approved. Permitted under applicable Vacant No Building code and policies.

Specific Plan
4 W Santa Inez Demo two single-family dwellings. R4: MultiFamily Dwelling CC approved. Permitted under applicable Cat Ex
(Infill)
2 single-family
dwellings Ave.

Multi-Family
Construct new four-story condominium
building.
10 23
10 25
100%
14%

0.25 0.88
40 28
80%
56%
1950s
1990s
1 1

0.3 0.9

0.1 0.8
code and policies.

Fast food
restaurant,
industrial/auto
uses
Demo existing commercial buildings.

New four-story office and residential
building.

CBD-S: PC approved. Permitted under applicable 406 E 3rd Ave.

Mixed-Use Commercial and code and policies. Applicant utilized State DT Residential
IS/MND
Density Bonus
Demo existing commercial buildings.

New five-story office and residential
building.

CBD-S:

Commercial and
DT Residential
PC approved. SUP for off-site
construction. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus.
435 E. 3rd Ave.

Mixed-Use 5 5 16% IS/MND
IS/MND

0.25 20
19 40%
38%
Gas station 1980s
1970s
1 3

0.1 0.3

0.1 0.3
2988 Campus
Dr.

Multi-Family
Demo four office buildings on two sites.

New multi-family residential buildings
(townhouses) on two hillside parcels.

PC approved. SUP for residential uses.

Applicant utilized State Density Bonus
and SB 330.
291 290 100% E1-1: Office 15.45 Offices
1962 of 2271
ATTACHMENT 2
Originally
Proposed
Dwelling
Units
Address
Development
Type
Approved
Dwelling
Units
% of Project
Residential
(approx.)
Lot
Size
(Acre)
Dwelling
Units per
Acre
% of
Base
Density
Age of Existing
Building
Existing Building
# of Story
Improvement
to Land Ratio Description Base Zoning Approval Discretion CEQA Existing Use FAR CC approved. PC approved PA
modification, which was then appealed.

CC upheld PC approval. Permitted under
applicable code and policies. Applicant
utilized State Density Bonus.
1, 2 and 3
Waters Park
Dr.

Demo office campus. New multi-family
buildings with single-family, townhouses
and condominium units.

Rezoned from
E1: Office to R3
multi-family
Executive
business
park
190 190 100% IS/MND 11.13 17 49% 1979 2 0.3 0.4
Multi-Family
Demo existing grocery store. New
mixed-use building with retail (grocery),
office and 100% affordable residential
uses.

CBD/R:

Commercial
with residential
overlay
CC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized AB
1763 (100% affordable), State Density
Bonus.

Tiered off
of the 2010
Gen Plan
EIR
222 E 4th Ave.
(Draeger’s)
Mixed-Use
10 16
10 16
7% 1.13

2.37 9
7 18%
14%
Grocery Store
Apartment
1997
2015
2 3

1.3 2.0

0.8 3.9
Conversion of 8 two-bedroom units into
16 studio units for a net increase of 8
units within an existing apartment
complex
Cat Ex
(Existing
Facilities)
2089 Pacific
Blvd.

Multi-Family
ZA approved. Permitted under applicable 100% TOD: Mixed-Use code and policies. 1963 of 2271

CITY OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7000
May 17, 2024
Dylan Casey, Executive Director
James M. Lloyd, Director of Planning and Investigations California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF)
360 Grand Avenue #323
Oakland, CA 94610
Sent via email: [email protected], [email protected]
RE: CalHDF Comment Letter on City of San Mateo’s Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element Dear Mr. Casey,
This letter is in response to your April 23, 2024 correspondence (“Letter”) expressing concerns over the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”) of the City of San Mateo (“City”). The City has considered all public comments in its iterative revisions to the Housing Element, which is scheduled for City Council adoption on May 20, 2024. The Housing Element was recommended for approval by the City’s Planning Commission on April 23, 2024. On January 19, 2024, the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) found it to be in substantial compliance with State law.

Governmental Constraints
Your Letter acknowledges that the Housing Element outlines many constraints on housing development but raises concerns that it fails to analyze how these constraints would affect the feasibility of housing developments, specifically regarding parking, fees, design standards, and voter approved growth limits.

Housing Element Sections 4.1 and 4.2 summarize the constraints analysis. Contrary to your assertions, the summary specifically addresses parking, fees, design standards, and voter approved density and height limits within the City (Measure Y). Furthermore, Sections 7.1 and 7.2 include several programs to address these constraints, and Appendix B contains an in-depth analysis. All of these programs were created with significant input from the public, housing advocacy groups, and HCD itself. HCD issued its substantial compliance letter based on these updates, including the analysis of and local efforts to reduce and/or eliminate the aforementioned constraints through firm commitments – such as reducing parking requirements and removing discretion through the adoption of objective design standards.

Regarding fees, the City concluded that fees of 7% or less of total cost of development is not considered a constraint. While your Letter takes issue with this conclusion, the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. 66000 et seq.) requires impact fees to be based on nexus and proportionality requirements. Fee studies evaluate these requirements and explain what fees can be legally supported, and the City has typically adopted fees that are below the maximum of what could be assessed to reduce potential for fees to be a constraint on housing production and impact financial feasibility. Many housing and mixed-use projects around the City have been approved and successfully constructed, as outlined in Table 4 in the Housing Element. The Housing Element also includes a specific program to monitor fees, with a focus on reducing the per unit costs for housing developments:

H 1.17 - Permitting and Development Fee Review
Building Division (650) 522-7172 · Code Enforcement Division (650) 522-7150 Housing Division (650) 522-7220 · Planning Division (650) 522-7212 · General (650) 522-7200 1964 of 2271
Regularly review development application, building permit and impact fees to identify opportunities to reduce per unit costs for housing developments, with a focus on reducing per unit costs for small multi-family projects (Missing Middle).

Regarding Measure Y, the Housing Element contains a detailed analysis of the measure as a constraint, both in the main document and in Appendix B. Nevertheless, your Letter claims that the City does not analyze the magnitude of this constraint and incorrectly characterizes it as a non-governmental constraint. The Housing Element analysis focuses on reducing the constraints posed by Measure Y to the extent that the City has the ability to do so. The City may not take action in conflict with Measure Y without voter approval because Measure Y is a voter-approved initiative. Second, based on input from housing advocacy groups, the City Council, and HCD, Policy H 1.20 was developed specifically to address the constraints imposed by Measure Y and to create substantial housing capacity through the adoption of General Plan 2040 (which has since occurred as explained below) and placement of a measure on the November 2024 ballot to amend Measure Y. Third, a back-up action was included in Policy H 1.20:
e) If the Measure Y ballot initiative does not pass in November 2024, present alternative plans within six months to the City Council, including a plan for rezoning, to address the housing production constraint of Measure Y with an emphasis on higher densities in high and highest resource areas, and to add at least 1,700 units of new capacity around the City, thereby increasing the City’s RHNA buffer by at least 25%.

Realistic Development Capacity
Your Letter claims that the Housing Element capacity analysis using 75% and 90% of maximum density, which is based on trends and expected outcomes, needs further adjustments to account for land use controls, constraints, and availability of utilities.

Staff developed the methodology that was used in close coordination with HCD and based on the City’s actual history of approved densities. The thresholds of 75% and 90% represent a conservative approach, in that typical densities for residential and mixed-use pipeline projects were higher, as shown in Table 2 in Appendix C (included as an exhibit to this letter). Table 2 also shows that most sites are developed at more than 100% of capacity, through application of State Density Bonus law. The assumptions in the City’s methodology account for the land use controls and constraints, which would also be addressed through the programs to reduce or eliminate identified local constraints. Additionally, the availability of utilities is not an issue within the City as almost all sites are non-vacant infill and have existing utility services.

Crucially, on March 18, 2024, the City Council adopted Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, which would create capacity for 19,764 new dwelling units around the City, if the voters approve an amendment to Measure Y this November. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for General Plan 2040 included extensive evaluation of utility availability and capacity and found that with the inclusion of appropriate policies and actions, sufficient utility capacity existed to serve the growth planned for in the General Plan. The General Plan EIR can be viewed here: https://strivesanmateo.org/environmental-impact-report-documents/. Thus, there is clear evidence in the record to support the finding that there is utility availability to serve many more than 7,015 new housing units (the City’s RHNA) by 2031.

In addition to the thorough analyses in the Housing Element in compliance with State law, and the adoption of General Plan 2040, the 10.3-acre site at 1770 S. Amphlett Blvd recently became a housing opportunity site with the closure of the San Mateo Marriott Hotel at this location. This site has a base density of 50-75 units/acre under current zoning and Measure Y. The Marriott site is not listed on the Sites Inventory and could further increase the City’s RHNA buffer. The City is planning to bring forward a land use map amendment, including the Marriott site, that could further increase the site’s density later this summer. Notably, this action would add more housing units than the additional capacity that would have been added by the City with the inclusion of 1965 of 2271
the “High II” General Plan land use designation, which ultimately did not occur. Again, if the City Council approves this land use map amendment, this will further increase the buffer beyond the City’s allocated RHNA.

Furthermore, the City is also moving forward with yet another action to facilitate the development of housing in the City, in accordance with State law. A Housing Opportunity Overlay District (as required per Housing Element Policy 1.10) would allow the property owners of approximately 40 sites within the City to develop qualifying housing projects by-right without discretionary review. These are sites that were identified in previous housing elements but were not the subject of entitlement applications during the past housing cycle. The program in Policy H 1.10 is as follows:

H 1.10 – Establish By-Right Housing Designation for Prior Housing Sites Amend the Zoning Code to establish a By-Right designation for housing sites reused from prior Housing Elements for housing projects that propose a minimum of 20% affordable units. Zoning for these sites must be at least 30 units/acre to meet default density requirements for lower-income households per Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c).

Your Letter also references communications from the Housing Action Coalition (HAC), which were considered during the iterative updates to the City’s Housing Element and sites inventory methodology. The City has provided direct responses to HAC to clarify information and address misunderstandings in their letters. These responses are included in Appendix F of the Housing Element.

Finally, your Letter references a 2018 project and lawsuit as the benchmark against which to evaluate the City’s current analysis (CaRLA v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal. App. 5th 820). The ten-unit market-rate condominium project that was the subject of that litigation has since been approved. No other projects have since been denied by the City. Rather, the City has a strong track record of approving and facilitating housing development. This is borne out by the lengthy list of pipeline projects referenced in the table attached to this letter, as well as the examples of recently approved projects in the Housing Element. The City has also committed over $35 million dollars in land and funding to support the production of affordable housing in Downtown San Mateo. The detailed commitments in the Housing Element’s Goals, Policies, and Programs further demonstrate the City’s commitment to meeting local housing needs and affirmatively further fair housing. This is again further reinforced by the adoption of General Plan 2040, which adds over 19,700 housing unit capacity and doubles the base density of over 1,300 properties around the City.

We hope this additional information provides appropriate clarification about the methodology and approach used in the Housing Element, shows the City’s genuine intent to meet and exceed its RHNA obligations and meaningfully address local housing needs, and helps to alleviate your concerns. If you have any questions or would like to discuss, feel free to email me at [email protected] (please copy the City Attorney) or we can set up a meeting to talk.

Sincerely,
Zachary Dahl, AICP
Interim Community Development Director
Cc: Prasanna W. Rasiah, City Attorney
[email protected]
Exhibit 1 - Table 2 from Housing Element Appendix C
1966 of 2271
Exhibit 1
Originally
Proposed
Dwelling
Units
Address
Development
Type
Approved
Dwelling
Units
% of Project
Residential
(approx.)
Lot
Size
(Acre)
Dwelling
Units per
Acre
% of
Base
Density
Age of Existing
Building Description Base Zoning Approval Discretion CEQA Existing Use Demo surface parking lot (City-owned
parcel). Construct new seven-story,
(Kiku Crossing) 100% affordable multi-family building
480 E 4th Ave. CBD-S: CC approved. Permitted under applicable Two Public Parking Lots 164
68 225
111
120
53%
33%
80%
Commercial and code and policies. Applicant utilized State DT residential
IS/MND
IS/MND

2.41 1.51

1.6 93
74 75
186%
148%
150%
N/A - No Building
1900 - 2002
1980s
Multi-Family with a separate five-level parking
structure.

Density Bonus
Retail and
residential
structures (8
units)
Demo existing retail and residential
structures (8 units). New mixed-use
building with office and residential uses.

PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
Demo existing commercial buildings.

New five-story office and residential
building.
477 9th Ave.

Mixed-Use
Cat Ex
(Infill) 120 E2-2: Office Office
Office
1919 O’Farrell
St.

Multi-Family
E1-1/R4: Office
with residential
overlay
Demo existing office building. New fivestory residential apartment building.Cat Ex (Infill) 48 49 100%
100%

0.71 2.82
69 68
138%
136%
N/A
Tiered off
of the Rail
Corridor
Plan EIR
401 Concar Dr. Demo surface parking lot at Hayward PC approved. Permitted under applicable code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
CalTrain Parking
Lot Hayward Park
Mixed-Use
Park Caltrain Station. New five-story
residential apartment building.
189 191 TOD: Mixed use No Building
C1-2/R5:

Commercial
with residential
overlay
303 Baldwin
Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing grocery store. New fivestory mixed-use building with commercial, office and residential uses.

PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
63 64 40% IS/MND 0.93 68 136% Grocery Store 1956
1650 S.

Delaware St.

Multi-Family
Demo the existing office building. New
five-story, 73-unit residential apartment
building.

PC approved. Permitted under applicable
TOD: Mixed-Use code and policies. Applicant utilized State Cat Ex (Infill) 73 73 100%
97%

1.07 68
66 136%
132%
Office Before the 1980s
1969 - 1991
Density Bonus
Demo existing shopping center. New
mixed-use buildings with commercial,
office and residential uses.

CC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State 666 Concar Dr.

Mixed-Use
E2-1/R4: Office
with residential
overlay
PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
Cat Ex
(Infill)
Residential and
office 18 18 77% 0.29 61 122% 1938
1967 of 2271
Exhibit 1
Originally
Proposed
Dwelling
Units
Address
Development
Type
Approved
Dwelling
Units
% of Project
Residential
(approx.)
Lot
Size
(Acre)
Dwelling
Units per
Acre
% of
Base
Density
Age of Existing
Building Description Base Zoning Approval Discretion CEQA Existing Use New four-story mixed-use building
g on MU2 Block with ground floor retail
uses and office above; and new fourstory mixed-use building on MU3 Block with ground floor retail uses and
residential above.

S Delaware St.
at Landing Ave
(PA20-053)
Bay Meadows
Mixed-Use
BMSP: MixedUse per Bay
Meadows
Tiered off
of the
Specific
Plan EIR
PC approved. Permitted under applicable 57 67 15% 1.51 44 88% Vacant No Building code and policies.

Specific Plan
4 W Santa Inez Demo two single-family dwellings. R4: MultiFamily Dwelling CC approved. Permitted under applicable Cat Ex
(Infill)
2 single-family
dwellings Ave.

Multi-Family
Construct new four-story condominium
building.
10 23
10 25
100%
14%

0.25 0.88
40 28
80%
56%
1950s
1990s
code and policies.

Fast food
restaurant,
industrial/auto
uses
Demo existing commercial buildings.

New four-story office and residential
building.

CBD-S: PC approved. Permitted under applicable 406 E 3rd Ave.

Mixed-Use Commercial and code and policies. Applicant utilized State DT Residential
IS/MND
Density Bonus
Demo existing commercial buildings.

New five-story office and residential
building.

CBD-S:

Commercial and
DT Residential
PC approved. SUP for off-site
construction. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus.
435 E. 3rd Ave.

Mixed-Use 5 5 16% IS/MND
IS/MND

0.25 20
19 40%
38%
Gas station 1980s
1970s
2988 Campus
Dr.

Multi-Family
Demo four office buildings on two sites.

New multi-family residential buildings
(townhouses) on two hillside parcels.

PC approved. SUP for residential uses.

Applicant utilized State Density Bonus
and SB 330.
291 290 100% E1-1: Office 15.45 Offices
CC approved. PC approved PA
modification, which was then appealed.

CC upheld PC approval. Permitted under
applicable code and policies. Applicant
utilized State Density Bonus.
1, 2 and 3
Waters Park
Dr.

Demo office campus. New multi-family
buildings with single-family, townhouses
and condominium units.

Rezoned from
E1: Office to R3
multi-family
Executive
business
park
190 190 100% IS/MND 11.13 17 49% 1979
Multi-Family
Demo existing grocery store. New
mixed-use building with retail (grocery),
office and 100% affordable residential
uses.

CBD/R:

Commercial
with residential
overlay
CC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized AB
1763 (100% affordable), State Density
Bonus.

Tiered off
of the 2010
Gen Plan
EIR
222 E 4th Ave.
(Draeger’s)
Mixed-Use
10 16
10 16
7% 1.13

2.37 9
7 18%
14%
Grocery Store
Apartment
1997
2015
Conversion of 8 two-bedroom units into
16 studio units for a net increase of 8
units within an existing apartment
complex
Cat Ex
(Existing
Facilities)
2089 Pacific
Blvd.

Multi-Family
ZA approved. Permitted under applicable 100% TOD: Mixed-Use code and policies. 1968 of 2271
1969 of 2271
1970 of 2271

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 18 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS Account Number: 10-4661 File ID: 24-8675 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2024
SUBJECT:

Local Roadway Safety Plan – Adoption
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan.

BACKGROUND:

In August 2020, staff from the Police and Public Works Departments introduced the topic of addressing traffic safety with a data-driven approach to City Council and shared preliminary data correlating staff’s efforts on neighborhood Traffic Action Plans to collision trends. Council supported applying funds and concentrating efforts where they would yield the greatest safety results. Staff brought additional data to Council in November 2020, which identified the challenges with vehicle-to-pedestrian collisions in the City. In June 2021, more detailed information regarding collision trends was presented, and Council directed staff to continue pursuing traffic safety project prioritization through completion of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

The LRSP creates a data-driven and community-informed decision framework that works toward the goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury collisions on local roadways. The LRSP uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context, while factoring in equity priority communities, to assess existing roadway safety conditions in San Mateo, identifies areas for improvement, and provides recommended actions and an implementation plan that will help create a Safe System (an approach to roadway safety adopted by the United States Department of Transportation and Caltrans) and culture of roadway safety in the City. Additionally, having an approved LRSP qualifies the City for certain types of grant funding, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program and Safe Streets for All grant programs.

City Council Feedback
In April 2024, staff presented the draft LRSP to City Council. Council provided feedback on prioritization of the proposed systemic treatments in the LRSP, which are improvements that can be made proactively at locations that do not have collision data trends but have similar characteristics to locations that do. Council also recommended modifying the LRSP’s Vision Statement to align with the goals of the Safe Systems Approach.

During the meeting, staff will present the revised Vision Statement prior to the request to adopt a Resolution to adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There are no budget impacts for adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan. The LRSP is funded through Caltrans grant funds, matching funds from the Citywide Traffic Calming project (466600), and supplementing funds from the Neighborhood Traffic Management project (462226).
1971 of 2271

CITY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The Council action is not subject to CEQA review because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of a Local Road Safety Plan may have a significant effect on the environment as the plan is comprised of locationbased collision data and strategies to reduce collisions that may be used to develop future safety-related projects. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061). In addition, any improvements as a result of the Local Road Safety Plan is exempt from CEQA review as an “existing facility,” in that they will consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.) Additional analysis may be found in Section 10 of the Local Roadway Safety Plan, “CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum.”

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Att 2 – Local Roadway Safety Plan

STAFF CONTACT
Bethany Lopez, Senior Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7313
1972 of 2271

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2024)

ADOPTING THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, Police Department and Public Works Department staff introduced the topic of addressing traffic safety with a data-driven approach in August 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to continue pursuing traffic safety project prioritization through completion of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP); and WHEREAS, an LRSP creates a data-driven and community-informed decision-making framework that will work toward the goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury collisions on City roadways; and WHEREAS, staff was awarded $72,000 in Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Plan Grant Funds to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan in May 2021.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1. The Council action is not subject to CEQA review because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of a Local Road Safety may have a significant effect on the environment as the plan is comprised of location-based collision data and strategies to reduce collisions that may be used to develop future safety-related projects. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061). In addition, any improvements as a result of the Local Road Safety Program is exempt from CEQA review as an “existing facility,” in that they will consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.) Additional analysis may be found in Section 10 of the Local Roadway Safety Plan, “CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum.”

2. The Local Roadway Safety Plan attached to the staff report is approved. 1973 of 2271
1 CITY OF SAN MATEO

LOCAL ROADWAY

SAFETY PLAN
May 2024
1974 of 2271
2 1975 of 2271
3 PREPARED FOR:

City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
PREPARED BY:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
510.839.1742
1976 of 2271
4 Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 11

1.1 What is an LRSP? 12

1.2 Plan Overview 15
2 VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS 17

2.1 Vision 17

2.2 Mission Statement 17

2.3 Overarching Goals 17
3 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 19

3.1 Project Development Team (PDT) 20

3.2 Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission (SIC) 21 4 EXISTING SAFETY CONDITIONS 23

4.1 Existing Safety Practice and Culture 23

4.2 Engagement and Outreach 26

4.3 Citywide Safety Performance Analysis 36
5 EMPHASIS AREAS 55
6 COUNTERMEASURES AND STRATEGIES 57

6.1 Countermeasures vs. Strategies 57

6.2 Available Countermeasures 57

6.3 Available Strategies 63
7 RECOMMENDATIONS 66

7.1 Systemic vs. Site-Specific Treatments 66

7.2 Systemic Treatments 67

7.3 Site Specific Treatments 74
Section 7.4 Prioritization of Improvements 74
8 ACTION ITEMS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES 78

8.1 Plan Updates and Evaluation 80
9 FUNDING 83

9.1 Federal Programs 83

9.2 State Programs 85
10 CEQA EXEMPTION ELIGIBILITY MEMORANDUM 89
1977 of 2271
5 List of Figures
Figure 1: FHWA’s Safe System Elements 14
Figure 2: FHWA LRSP Planning Process 19
Figure 3: MTC Equity Priority Communities and CalEPA Disadvantaged Communities with Collision Overlay 30
Figure 4: SS4A Underserved Communities with Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Overlay 31 Figure 5: Screenshot of San Mateo LRSP Story Map 33
Figure 6: Pop-up Community Engagement 34
Figure 7: Comments Webmap from Community Engagement Activities 35 Figure 8: Reported Collisions by Severity (2017-2021) 37 Figure 9: Collision Tree – San Mateo Collisions by Location, Severity, Mode (2017-2021) 39 Figure 10: Annual Reported Collisions for Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021) 40 Figure 11: Collision Type of Reported Collisions by Collision Severity (2017-2021) 41 Figure 12: Share of Fatal or Severe Injury Collisions by Collision Type and Collision Severity (2017-2021) 42
Figure 13: Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Severity (2017-2021) 42 Figure 14: Bicyclist-Involved Collisions by Severity (2017-2021) 43 Figure 15: Broadside Collisions by Severity (2017-2021) 43 Figure 16: PCF by Collision Severity (2017-2021) 45
Figure 17: Share of Fatal or Severe Injury Collisions by PCF and Collision Severity (2017-2021) 45 Figure 18: Priority Intersections – City of San Mateo 49 Figure 19: Priority Roadway Segments – City of San Mateo 51 Figure 20: Citywide Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Shares by Challenge Area Compared to Statewide Statistics 53
Figure 21: Near-Term Leading Pedestrian Interval Opportunities 68 Figure 22: Signal Visibility Improvement Opportunities 71 Figure 23: Speed Management Opportunities 72
Figure 24: Centerline Hardening Example in Oakland, California 73 1978 of 2271
6 List of Tables
Table 1: Race and Origin (Information directly from ACS) 27 Table 2: Language Spoken at Home 27
Table 3: Proportion of Fatal or Severe Injury Collisions in Disadvantaged Areas 29 Table 4: Collision Severity of Reported Collisions by Road User Involved (2017-2021) 37 Table 5: Collision Weights by Severity and Location Type 46 Table 6: Priority Intersections – City of San Mateo 48
Table 7: Priority Roadway Segments – City of San Mateo 50 Table 8: Summary of Available Countermeasures Toolbox for the City 58 Table 9: Site-Specific Projects (and Countermeasures) 75 1979 of 2271
7 Appendices
Appendix A: SIC Meeting Presentation
Appendix B: Document Review Memorandum
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Memorandum
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox Memorandum
Appendix E: Priority Projects with Proposed Countermeasures 1980 of 2271
8 Glossary
Aggressive Driving Challenge Area includes behaviors such as speeding, tailgating, running traffic signals or signs, and other reckless maneuvers (SHSP page 43).

Aging Drivers Challenge Area includes instances where the driver of a motor vehicle is 65 years or older (SHSP page 45).

Bicyclists Challenge Area includes instances where a motor vehicle is involved in a collision with a bicyclist (SHSP page 47).

Challenge Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions identified by the California Department of Transportation’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). These areas, when addressed, have the most potential to improve roadway safety.

Commercial Vehicles Challenge Area includes instances where the collision involves a truck, truck tractor, school bus or other bus (SHSP page 49).

Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.

Distracted Driving Challenge Area includes instances where the driver of a motor vehicle was not paying attention or using an electronic device (SHSP page 51).

Emphasis Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues identified based on local trends that merit special focus in City of San Mateo’s approach to reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.

Impaired Driving Challenge Area describes operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a substance, including alcohol, marijuana, illicit drugs, or some prescription medications.

Intersections Challenge Area includes collisions identified by the responding officer as occurring at an intersection or involving a train or rail vehicle (SHSP page 62).

Lane Departures Challenge Area includes head-on, hit object, and overturned collisions (SHSP page 63).

Local Roadway Safety Plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local-level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways. 1981 of 2271
9 Crash Severity KABCO, as defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition), is defined as a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash.
• Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
• Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene.

It does not include minor laceration.
• Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows).
• Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities).

2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so. • Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.

Motorcyclists Challenge Area includes instances where a motorcycle or moped is involved in a collision (SHSP page 65).

Occupant Protection Challenge Area includes collisions involving misuse, non-use, or lack of vehicle safety equipment including lap belts, shoulder harnesses, passive restraints, or child restraints (SHSP page 67).

Pedestrians Challenge Area includes instances where a motor vehicle is involved in a collision with a pedestrian (SHSP page 69).

Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision.

Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

The Safe System Approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https://safety. fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.

Safety Partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that City of San Mateo can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.

Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address road user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.

Work Zones Challenge Area includes instances where the collision occurs in a work zone for construction, maintenance and/or roadway repairs (SHSP page 71).

Young Drivers Challenge Area includes instances where one or more of the drivers of the motor vehicles are between 15 and 20 years old (SHSP page 73). 1982 of 2271
10 SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION
1983 of 2271
11 1 INTRODUCTION
The City of San Mateo is located about 20 miles south of San Francisco and borders Burlingame to the north, Hillsborough to the west, San Francisco Bay and Foster City to the east, and Belmont to the south. The City’s population, at the 2022 Census, was 100,9841. The City of San Mateo’s roadways see an average of one fatality and 16 severe injuries annually in the past five years. Despite an overall reduction in total collisions during the pandemic, the frequency of fatal and severe injury collisions has increased. Additionally, severe injuries involving people walking, biking, and rolling have tripled in the last five years.2 The City has a total of 418 lane miles of roadways, including freeways and state routes, according to Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s standards3.

The City of San Mateo (City) is committed to eliminating fatal and severe injury collisions on its roadways. To advance this mission, the City developed a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which establishes a framework to help San Mateo residents and visitors travel safely through the city to their destinations.

The City of San Mateo’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a living document designed to be updated to respond to evolving community needs. The City of San Mateo is diverse in terms of land use context, comprising of urban and suburban neighborhoods, as well as a multilingual population.

Additionally, the City’s growing economy and the presence of several major state-owned highways require the City to balance both the local and regional travel needs. Given these factors, this LRSP will be revisited and updated approximately every five years, to account for changes in travel patterns and road user behavior. Additionally, the Action Items and Performance Measures identified in the LRSP should be tracked annually to assess progress towards achieving the LRSP’s Vision, Mission, and Goals.
1 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanmateocitycalifornia/PST045222 2 UC Berkeley. Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Retrieved from https://tims.berkeley. edu/tools/safetypm/
3 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2133/Frequently-Asked-Questions#:~:text=Q%3A%20How%20 many%20miles%20of,A%3A%20210.
1984 of 2271
12 1.1 What is an LRSP?
The purpose of an LRSP is to assess the safety
of a city’s roadways, identify areas that need
improvement, and recommend engineering
countermeasures and strategies to address
those identified issues. The LRSP provides
a range of strategies to address safety
concerns, from engineering countermeasures
to educational campaigns and emerging
technology related strategies. The safety
plan also provides a timeline and goals for
implementation and evaluation. The approach
is multi-disciplinary, meaning that stakeholders
from different agencies and organizations
will need to work together to implement the
recommended countermeasures, strategies,
and overall vision for the plan. This includes
law enforcement, fire department, neighboring
jurisdictions, public health services, emergency
response providers, community organizations,
and the broader community.

LRSPs are recognized as a proven safety
countermeasure by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). They prioritize
investments and assist with the implementation
of engineering strategies. Two Federal funding
programs, the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) and Safe Streets and Roads
for All (SS4A), provide funding for the
implementation of countermeasures that
address road safety challenges on public
roads. In California, to pursue HSIP grant funds
through Caltrans’ grant program, a local agency
must have an LRSP or an equivalent planning
document. To pursue federal SS4A funding, a
local agency must have a safety action plan
that is equivalent to an LRSP, provided certain
implementation frameworks are included that
associate actions with timing, funding, and
leads. In addition to these federal funding
programs, the Active Transportation Program
(ATP), managed by California Transportation
Commission (CTC) consolidates federal and
state transportation programs to encourage
increased use of active transportation modes
and ensure that disadvantaged communities
fully share in the benefits of the program.

Access to these funds can help the City to
fund engineering- and non-engineering-related
solutions that can make its roads safer for
everyone.

1.1.1 ALIGNING WITH THE

CALIFORNIA STRATEGIC

HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN
LRSPs across the state complement the 2020-
2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP), providing intentional and continual
assessment and improvements to enhance
roadway safety. The SHSP sets out California’s
vision, goals, and objectives for reducing fatal
and severe injury collisions on public roadways
(local roadways and state highways).4 The
California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) leads ongoing efforts to analyze
collision data and collaborate with traffic safety
partners across the entire state to identify
these focus areas and continually monitor and
identify actions to address these focus areas.

The SHSP identifies key safety needs and guides
investment decisions toward strategies and
countermeasures with the most potential to save
lives and prevent injuries.

The SHSP identified California’s 16 Challenge
Areas, or areas that should be the focus for
roadway safety in California. As discussed in
greater detail in the Statewide Comparison
discussion in Section 4: Existing Safety
Conditions, the three items bolded on this list
were identified as high priority challenge areas
for San Mateo, meaning improvements in these
areas have the greatest opportunity to reduce
death and severe injury.
4 Caltrans. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Retrieved from https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safetyprograms/shsp 1985 of 2271
13 1.1.2 INCORPORATING THE

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
In January 2022, the United States Department
of Transportation (USDOT) released its National
Roadway Safety Strategy that adopted the Safe
System Approach as its core strategy5.

There are five elements (or layers) to a Safe
System (see Figure 1):
• Safe Roadway Users – All roadway users,
including bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit
riders, should be able to travel safely.
• Safe Vehicles – Vehicles should be designed
and regulated to reduce the frequency and
severity of collisions.
• Safe Speeds – The faster a vehicle is
traveling, the greater its risk to human life.

Safe speeds are speeds that reduce impact
forces, improve stopping time, and improve
visibility.
• Safe Roadways – Roadway design can
accommodate human mistakes and improve
injury tolerances through strategies, such
as physically separating those traveling at
different speeds or using signage to alert
drivers to hazards.
• Post-Collision Care – If a collision does
occur, first responders must assess,
stabilize, and transport those who were
injured. Forensic investigation or incident
management teams are also important parts
of post-collision care.1.1.2.1 San Mateo and the
Safe Systems Approach

1.1.1.1.1 SHSP CHALLENGE AREAS
• Pedestrians
• Bicyclists
• Aging Drivers
• Commercial Vehicles
• Distracted Driving
• Driver Licensing
• Emergency Response
• Emerging Technologies
• Impaired Driving
• Intersections
• Lane Departures
• Motorcyclists
• Occupant Protection
• Speed Management / Aggressive
Driving
• Work Zones
• Young Drivers
Historically, the SHSP has used the five
E’s (Education, Enforcement, Engineering,
Emergency Response, and Emerging
Technologies) to organize strategies. In 2021,
state transportation officials shifted focus and
adopted guiding principles that integrate social
equity, utilize the Safe System Approach, and
encourage the use of proven countermeasures
and emerging technologies.
5 National Roadway Safety Strategy, United
States Department of Transportation, January
2022 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.
gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-RoadwaySafety-Strategy.pdf 1986 of 2271
14 Figure 1: FHWA’s Safe
System Elements
Source: FHWA, 2022
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/zero_deaths_vision.cfm

1.1.2.1 SAN MATEO AND THE SAFE SYSTEMS APPROACH
This LRSP uses the Safe System Approach to identify ways that San Mateo and its safety partners can create layers to help protect all roadway users – even when they make mistakes. The City is the driving force behind implementing engineering-related safety measures such as speed management or roadway design. Commitment from City staff and road safety partners to prioritize safety in their efforts and to implement both proven and innovative ideas are key to advancing road safety and for the LRSP to be impactful. The Safe System Approach considers all road users and identifies potential conflicts, as well as locations where proactive safety treatments can be implemented. Collaboration among all stakeholders, including road users, transportation system managers, law enforcement, emergency responders, and vehicle manufacturers, is crucial for achieving its goal of eliminating fatal and severe injuries.

To build redundancy in the local transportation system, San Mateo and its teaming partners can:
• Establish and continue to revisit vision, goals, and partnerships to help implement the LRSP. • Identify systemic and location-specific engineering countermeasures and use them proactively and reactively.
• Provide education programs and overlap stakeholder efforts to communicate key roadway safety information to residents, business owners, and schools and create a culture of roadway safety. • Review and revisit policies, guidelines, and standards to prioritize roadway safety in the City. • Identify potential funding sources for project implementation, including quick-build projects.

This LRSP and its recommendations can help create a Safe System and culture of roadway safety in the City of San Mateo. However, state and federal policies, such as legislation for automated speed enforcement and continued regulation of vehicle safety standards will be essential to complete the Safe System categories that the City and local agencies cannot directly affect. 1987 of 2271
15 1.2 Plan Overview
This LRSP uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions in San Mateo, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommended actions and an implementation plan. Ultimately, this LRSP creates a data-driven and communityinformed decision-making framework to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on local roadways.

The plan is organized into five main sections:

1. Vision, Mission, and Goals – Establishes a larger vision for transportation safety in San Mateo and sets goals for how to get there.

4. Emphasis Areas, Countermeasures, and Strategies – Details the emphasis areas and lists proven countermeasures and strategies that can improve roadway safety.

5. Recommendations, Actions, and Implementation – Prioritizes shortand long-term projects and sets a strategy for assessing progress toward established goals.

2. Plan Development Process
– Details the collaborative
data-driven and communityinformed planning process.

3. Existing Safety Conditions
– Provides an analysis of
collisions in San Mateo.

EMPHASIS
AREAS
Based on the
collision trends and
patterns, key safety
concerns were
identified for the
City to focus on.

COUNTERMEASURES

AND STRATEGIES
After identifying
emphasis areas, specific
engineering infrastructure
improvements and nonengineering strategies
to address the safety
concerns were identified.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposed
countermeasures are
then assessed to confirm
feasibility given the City’s
street context and land
use.
1988 of 2271
16 SECTION 2

VISION, MISSION, AND
GOALS
1989 of 2271
17 2 VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS
The Vision, Mission, and Goals of the LRSP were created collaboratively by representatives from the City and the Project Development Team (PDT) and covers both short- and long-term outcomes. The City of San Mateo is committed to implementing the FHWA's Safe System Approach in its future efforts related to road safety, to achieve its goals. Although the City's road network is extensive and intricate, ongoing, and anticipated safety initiatives are designed to gradually reduce the risk of accidents on the City's roads.

2.1 Vision
Our vision is to cultivate a roadway network that prioritizes the safety of all users through proactive planning, redundant improvements, and a belief that fatalities and severe injuries are unacceptable.

We strive to create a roadway environment where every trip ends safely.

2.2 Mission Statement
The City of San Mateo will use a collaborative, data-driven, and community-informed approach to proactively identify and address collision risk factors to implement safety countermeasures, strategies, and programs that can ultimately eliminate preventable fatalities and severe injuries within the City.

The City of San Mateo is committed to using data and Safe System principles recommended by FHWA and the California SHSP to assess road safety to prevent collisions proactively and systemically across the entire roadway network. The City is committed to reaching its goal of eliminating all preventable traffic fatalities and severe injuries by 2050.

2.3 Overarching Goals
The following goals will guide collaborative planning efforts with the PDT and other safety related partners:
• Use a data-driven and community-informed approach to identify priority locations for safety improvements.
• Implement proactive approaches to improve roadway safety and identify cost-effective systemic countermeasures.
• Prioritize investments in countermeasures and strategies that reduce collisions in identified emphasis areas.
• Collaborate with agencies and safety partners towards implementation. • Educate and promote safe travel practices in the City of San Mateo. • Periodically monitor and evaluate collision reduction goals with respect to emphasis areas and overall safety performance of the City’s transportation network. 1990 of 2271
18 SECTION 3

PLAN DEVELOPMENT

PROCESS
1991 of 2271
19 3 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
This LRSP was developed according to the guidelines and requirements set forth by Caltrans and followed the FHWA's Developing Safety Plans manual and the Safe System Approach. The FHWA's LRSP development process is captured in Figure 2, and consists of four main steps:

The first step of the plan involved bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders, the Project Development Team (PDT), to provide input on roadway safety issues and identify needs.

Subsequently, the City analyzed available roadway and collision data to understand collision patterns, risk factors, and areas for improving safety. However, since data can be incomplete or inaccurate, the LRSP used a community-informed approach that combined data analysis with input from the community and the PDT to provide a more comprehensive understanding of transportation safety issues. Based on this analysis, a selection of proven countermeasures was identified to form a countermeasure toolbox and guide the implementation plan for the LRSP.

Figure 2: FHWA LRSP Planning Process
Source: FHWA, 2022, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/LRSPDIY/downloads/LRSP_FinalBuild_ Infographic_508.pdf
1 ESTABLISHING STAKEHOLDERS
3 CHOOSING PROVEN SOLUTIONS
2 USING SAFETY DATA
(analyzing safety data and identifying collision
types and high-collision risk locations)
4 IMPLEMENTING SOLUTIONS
1992 of 2271
20 The following two stakeholder groups have been
valued partners that represent a unique set
of experiences, needs, and views on roadway
safety in the City of San Mateo.

3.1 Project Development
Team (PDT)
The PDT was developed to include
representatives from a broad cross section
of community, business, educational, and
government interests. Each person represents
a unique set of experiences and perspectives
on the transportation system in San Mateo
that helped shape the LRSP. The following
departments and organizations were
represented in the PDT:
• San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department
• San Mateo County Office of Education
• San Mateo County Health
• City of San Mateo Senior Citizens
Commission
• San Mateo Police Department
• City of San Mateo Age-Friendly
Implementation Committee
• Center for Independence of Individuals with
Disabilities, serving San Mateo County

3.1.1 MEETING DATES AND
TOPICS
The PDT met twice over the course of the LRSP’s
development, discussing topics as summarized
below:

3.1.1.1 MEETING 1|JUNE 26, 2023
• Define LRSP purpose and scope.
• Present and gather feedback on preliminary
data analysis.
• Present network screening results.
• Discuss potential emphasis areas based on
data findings.

During the meeting, the PDT members
requested the project team to refer to the
High Injury Network (HIN) created by the Safe
Routes to School (SRTS) team for identifying
priority locations near San Mateo Schools,
as applicable. Furthermore, the project team
was advised to consider specific collision data
related to vehicle types, collision trends, and
develop maps detailing pedestrian and bicyclespecific collisions in the LRSP. Lastly, the PDT encouraged the project team to look at the
City’s older populations’ origins and destinations
to better understand and evaluate the sidewalk
network within these regions.

For development of the countermeasure toolbox
in the LRSP, the PDT members suggested
including the following measures currently being
installed near schools:
• Curb extensions
• Mini traffic circle
• High visibility crosswalks
• Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs)

3.1.1.2 MEETING 2|JANUARY 17, 2024
• Discuss community engagement activity and
reach.
• Discuss actions and performance measures.
• Review Draft LRSP recommendations.
• Discuss implementation and responsibilities.

One of the PDT members noted that the
crosswalk at the intersection of 3rd Avenue/
El Camino Real is slippery. The PDT members
suggested tracking drivers running a red light
and recommending installing stop signs or
plaques indicating intersections are not all-way
stop controlled, specifically at two-way stopcontrolled intersections.

One of the PDT members noted that the
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB’s) are helpful
for individuals with disabilities as they are
mounted overhead rather than on the side of
the roadway. They also noted that consideration
is needed at high-traffic locations to make
sure that the pedestrians in wheelchairs are
visible and are in the driver’s line of sight. This
PDT member also noted the consideration
of pedestrian and bicycle improvements on
Pacific Boulevard from Hillsdale Boulevard
to south City limits and at the 25th Avenue/
Flores Street intersection. These two locations
were not part of the Tier 1 locations identified
in this LRSP (noted in Section 4.3.2 Safety
Performance Network Screening). As a result,
they were neither specifically evaluated nor any
countermeasures were recommended in this
study.
1993 of 2271
21 3.2 Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission
(SIC)
The SIC is an advisory body to the City Council, established to advise on policies and programs related to environmental sustainability, transportation and infrastructure. Each committee member represents a unique set of experiences, needs, and views of the transportation system and roadway safety in the City of San Mateo that helped shape the LRSP. Continuing to leverage City relationships with the SIC will help in identifying proactive safety strategies, countermeasures at high-risk locations, and administering or promoting programs that encourage safe transportation behaviors.

Similar to the PDT, the SIC met twice over the course of the LRSP’s development, discussing the same topics as summarized above. The SIC meetings took place on July 12, 2023 and March 13, 2024.

Copies of the SIC presentations are included in Appendix A. The SIC meetings were also open to the community.

During the first meeting, the SIC commented that the outreach should be transparent about the costs of implementing the safety improvements. The SIC members were also concerned about the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Saratoga Drive which currently lacks a marked crosswalk on the eastbound leg of the intersection. Furthermore, the SIC suggested that the project team consider quick-build improvements6.

During the second meeting, the SIC commented that representation from individuals with disabilities committee would be helpful to understand their perspective on LRSP. One of the SIC members noted that there are three intersections on Santa Inez Avenue that are identified in the Tier 2 priority intersections list and that more explanation is needed in the LRSP on how Tier 1 and Tier 2 intersections are designated.
6 Quick-Build projects require minor construction activities but are built with durable, low to moderate cost materials, and last from one year to five years. These projects have moderate design flexibility to anticipate some adjustments that may occur. The purpose of a Quick-Build project is to immediately implement safety needs, allowing a community to benefit quickly from improvements made, and allowing the people of a community affected by the project to provide input and test the project improvements before they are permanently constructed. 1994 of 2271
22 SECTION 4

EXISTING SAFETY

CONDITIONS
1995 of 2271
23 4 EXISTING SAFETY CONDITIONS
The existing safety conditions are determined by reviewing relevant regional and local planning documents, community engagement, and collision analysis. Prior to engaging with the community, the project team developed a community outreach and engagement strategy that incorporated an equity analysis to identify underserved and disadvantaged communities. The engagement strategy was revised periodically as the LRSP progressed to ensure effective and meaningful engagement. The outcome from the existing conditions informed the emphasis areas and priority locations.

4.1 Existing Safety Practice and Culture
This section summarizes the regional and local planning documents pertaining to local roadway safety in San Mateo. Additionally, a summary is included to show the relevance of the document in the development of LRSP. The complete synthesis of roadway safety-related documents for the City of San Mateo and adjacent jurisdictions is included in Appendix B.

4.1.1 MTC REGIONAL SAFETY/
VISION ZERO POLICY (2020)
The MTC Regional Safety/Vision Zero Policy
establishes a strategy for working with partner
agencies to support equitable and data-driven
action towards eliminating traffic deaths and
serious vehicular injuries in the Bay Area by
2030.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Establishes regional vision for collaborative
and data-driven approach to eliminate traffic
deaths and serious injuries.
• Emphasizes equity in roadway safety
management planning and implementation.

4.1.2 C/CAG OF SAN MATEO

COUNTY SAFE ROUTES TO
SCHOOL REPORTS (2017)
In 2010, the C/CAG partnered with the San
Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE) to
develop and implement the San Mateo County
Safe Routes to School program to the 25
school districts in San Mateo County, in which
elementary schools and middle schools in the
City of San Mateo are affiliated with San MateoFoster City Elementary School District, and high schools in the City are affiliated with San
Mateo Union High School District. The goal of
the program was to improve the health, wellbeing, and safety of children by encouraging and enabling them to walk and bike to school.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Opportunity for collaboration across
agencies to create safe routes for students
and integrate strategies across the LRSP and
Safe Routes to School program.
• Identifies a toolbox of potential
improvements for school-specific concerns
and risks.
• Surveys include community-perceived
barriers to walking and biking to school,
which could inform development of targeted
countermeasures for the LRSP.
1996 of 2271
24 4.1.3 SAN MATEO COUNTY

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL

HIGH INJURY NETWORK
REPORT (2022)
The High Injury Network (HIN) report details
the process and outcomes of a youth-based
HIN analysis. The HIN identifies segments in a
roadway network where many pedestrian and
bicycle collisions have occurred, prioritizing
those with greater severity and those involving
youth or active-mode victims. HIN synthesizes
information about collision characteristics,
collision patterns, and user types to identify
roadway segments that account for the highest
number of specific types of collisions.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Opportunity to use HIN to identify segments
near schools where students traveling to
or from school may face increased safety
challenges.

4.1.4 TRANSIT-ORIENTED

DEVELOPMENT (TOD)

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN
(2022)
The San Mateo Transit-Oriented Development
Pedestrian Access Plan serves as a roadmap
to enhance pedestrian safety and create
comfortable walking routes to transit for all ages
and abilities. The scope of the Plan includes
the pedestrian path of travel within a half-mile
radius of the City’s three Caltrain stations and
along El Camino Real to account for frequent
SamTrans service along this corridor. Caltrain
and SamTrans have created new visions for
their service in San Mateo County and this plan
aims to complement these visions by making
it easy to access transit for existing and future
residents, employees, and visitors.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Identifies issues informed by the community
related to pedestrian access to transit.
• Provides examples and takeaways from
community engagement which informed the
LRSP’s community engagement activities
and safety recommendations.

4.1.5 SAN MATEO BICYCLE
MASTER PLAN (2020)
The 2020 San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan is the
culmination of over a year of robust community
engagement, data analysis, planning, and design
work. This Plan is an update of the City’s 2011
Bicycle Master Plan and serves as a blueprint for
expanding and improving the San Mateo bicycle
and mobility network in the coming years.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Establishes goal to reduce bicycle-related
crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
• Identifies bicyclist safety-related concerns
and hotspots.
• Proposes bicycle facilities and intersection
improvements that would enhance safety
and comfort of bicyclists.

4.1.6 SAN MATEO CITYWIDE

PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
(2012)
The Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan is a
blueprint for the City of San Mateo to improve
the pedestrian environment, secure funds
dedicated to pedestrian safety and livable
communities, and increase the number of
walking trips. The Plan provides a broad vision,
strategies, and actions for improving the
pedestrian environment in the city. Safety is
identified as one of the six goals of the Plan.

Specifically, the City sought to reduce the
number of pedestrian related crashes, injuries
and fatalities by 50 percent from 2010 levels by
2020.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Establishes goal to reduce pedestrian-related
crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
• Identifies pedestrian safety-related concerns
and hotspots.
• Integrates existing regulations and
best practices into a set of pedestrian
enhancements that can enhance the safety,
convenience, and mobility for pedestrians
in the City which was coordinated with the
LRSP recommendations.
1997 of 2271
25 4.1.7 SAN MATEO 2030
GENERAL PLAN (2010)
The San Mateo’s General Plan is the community’s
planning guide that defines the long-term
vision and provides the framework for all
zoning and land use decisions within the
community. The General Plan seeks to establish
a balance between the need for new growth
and development and the preservation of the
City’s high quality of life. At the time of writing
this LRSP, the City is working on updating the
General Plan 2040, which will likely be adopted
in March 2024. More information on this General
Plan 2040 can be found at www.cityofsanmateo.
org/1537/General-Plan.

The Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040
includes ten big ideas that will guide the next
20 years of San Mateo. These Big Ideas are a
mix of enduring principles that have guided
decision-making in San Mateo for many years
and support the City’s history and fabric while
introducing new concepts and topics that reflect
present-day concerns and challenges. The ideas
are as follows:

1. Balance growth and change,

2. Enhance San Mateo’s neighborhood fabric
and quality of life,

3. Preserve nature as the foundation of the city,

4. Encourage all ways to travel around the city,

5. Support the local economy,

6. Address historic preservation holistically,

7. Initiate a comprehensive sea level rise
strategy,

8. Strengthen community outreach,

9. Focus on equity and health for all residents,
and,

10. Improve community safety planning and
awareness.

This General Plan 2040 recognizes the
importance of improving the safety of the
multimodal transportation network and includes
a Vision Zero policy. Vision Zero is based on
the five elements of a Safe Systems Approach
advanced by the FHWA to eliminate traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on roadways – the
components and elements of the Safe System
Approach is explained in detail in Section 1.1.2
Incorporating the Safe System Approach.

The General Plan also notes an action related to
the Vision Zero Plan, as follows:

Action C 1.12 Vision Zero Plan: Complete and
regularly update a plan that uses a safe systems
approach to work towards Vision Zero and
identifies specific citywide changes to policies,
practices, funding, and other action items that
will reduce speeding, collisions, and collision
severity.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Citywide safety-related goals and policies
were considered in the LRSP.
• Coordination of long-term citywide
improvements with LRSP recommendations
and strategies.

4.1.8 AGE FRIENDLY SAN

MATEO THREE-YEAR ACTION
PLAN 2022-2025
The Age-Friendly Task force used public data
to identify likely walking routes for older adults
and partnered with the City Public Works
Department to encourage prioritization of
sidewalk repairs and minimizing safety hazards
on those routes to reduce liability risk and
encourage walking by seniors for health and
socialization. These results were also shared
with the San Mateo Police Department to assist
with enforcement of rules regarding parking that
obstructs sidewalks.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Identifies likely walking routes for older
adults and locations for prioritizing sidewalk
repairs.
1998 of 2271
26 4.2 Engagement and Outreach
As part of this LRSP, a series of public engagement activities were organized to gain insights on safety issues and needs from the community. These activities were tailored towards the unique character of the City of San Mateo and informed by discussions with City staff. Focused neighborhoods for community engagement were determined based on the results from collision analysis and equity analysis.

A comprehensive collision database was developed using the reported collision data from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. Collision analysis revealed collision types, primary collision factors, and intersections and segments that have the highest collision frequency and severity. More information on collision analysis is described in Section 4.3 Citywide Safety Performance Analysis.

4.2.1 EQUITY ANALYSIS
Equity is a fundamental consideration of the Safe System Approach, particularly given that pedestrian and bicyclist fatality rates on a per-capita basis vary largely by race,7 as well as by income, age, and gender to varying degrees in varying places.8 These outcomes underscore the need to explicitly examine correlations between sociodemographic and risk factors related to roadway infrastructure and operations.

To inform the communities in the City that are or have been historically underserved, Kittelson conducted the following evaluation:
• Demographic analysis
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC) • State of California’s Disadvantaged Communities
• Transportation Disadvantaged Population Index
• SS4A Underserved Communities Census Tracts (Historically Disadvantaged Communities and Areas of Persistent Poverty)
7 Federal Highway Administration. “Integrating Equity into the Safe System Approach” Presentation.

Accessed Apr. 17, 2023: https://highways.dot.gov/safety/zero-deaths/integrating-equity-safe-systemapproach-presentation. 8 Vision Zero Network. N.d. Equity Strategies for Practitioners. Accessed April 17, 2023: https:// visionzeronetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/VisionZero_Equity.pdf 1999 of 2271
27 Table 1: Race and Origin (Information directly from ACS) Table 2: Language Spoken at Home
Race and Origin Population Percentage
White alone, percent 55,216 52.9%
Black or African American alone, percent 2,044 2.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent 408 0.4% Asian alone, percent 25,141 24.1%
Chinese 11,593 11.1%
Filipino 4,393 4.2%
Asian Indian 3,355 3.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent 2,617 2.5% Two or More Races, percent 7,175 6.9%
Hispanic or Latino, percent 26,154 25.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 42,623 40.9% Language Population (5
years and over) Percentage
Percentage speak
English less than
“very well”
English only 55,177 56.8% N/A
Spanish 18,403 18.9% 54.4%
Indo-European Languages 7,019 7.2% 26.0%
Asian and Pacific Languages 15,546 16.0% 38.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-19 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-19 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S1601 Table 2 shows the language spoken at home data for San Mateo’s over the age of 5 years.

Findings
• 53 percent of the population is White, 25% of the population identify as Hispanic or Latino, and 24 percent Asian. Chinese, Filipino and Asian Indian constitute the major Asian groups in the City. • Approximately, 57 percent people speak only English at home. Spanish is the second most common language spoken in the city with 19 percent residents fluent in Spanish, of which 54 percent do not speak English very well. Asian and Pacific Island languages constitute about 16 percent of the population, of which 39 percent do not speak English very well.

4.2.1.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The City of San Mateo has a population of 104,333 according to the American Community Survey (ACS) 2019 5-year estimates. The working age population cohort (ages 20 to 64) represents the largest population segment in the City at more than 60 percent of the total population. San Mateo residents are highly educated, with nearly half (48 percent) of people aged 25 years or older holding at least a bachelor’s degree. Table 1 shows the racial compostion of the City. 2000 of 2271
28 4.2.1.2 EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITIES
Formerly called “Communities of Concern,” EPCs are Census tracts that have a significant concentration of underserved populations, such as households with low income and people of color.

A combination of additional factors helps define these areas, including Limited English proficiency households, seniors 75 years and older, zero-vehicle households, single parent households, people with a disability, and rent-burdened households. The EPCs were updated in 2021 and use ACS 2018 5-year estimates.9 Figure 3 shows the EPCs in the City of San Mateo.

Findings
• Areas of North Central, Shoreview and parts of Downtown San Mateo as EPCs. These areas are generally located between Delaware Street, Peninsula Avenue, 5th Avenue and Bay Trail.

4.2.1.3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES The Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) represent Census tracts that experience high levels of pollution and/or Census tracts that are federally recognized as tribal areas. The DAC designations were updated in 2022 to designate census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnvironScreen4.0 as disadvantaged.10 Figure 3 shows the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 top 25th percentile DAC extent in the City of San Mateo.

Findings
• Similar to the EPCs, DACs are also located in the North Central and Downtown San Mateo. 9 MTC Equity Priority Communities: https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equitymobility/equity-priority-communities accessed on September 12 , 2022 10 CalEnviroScreen is a screening methodology that can be used to help identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. 2001 of 2271
29 4.2.1.4 SS4A UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES CENSUS TRACTS
The SS4A program allocates grants to support local initiatives aimed at preventing roadway fatalities and severe injuries. In alignment with the Justice40 initiative, USDOT is actively working to tackle and rectify decades of inadequate investment in underserved communities. Currently, 25 percent of the total population is in Disadvantaged Census Tracts in San Mateo.

Figure 4 shows SS4A underserved communities.11
Findings
• Similar to the EPCs and DACs, North Central and Downtown neighborhood remain underserved communities with an addition of the Hillsdale neighborhood west of El Camino Real.

Table 3 provides the total number and the percentage of fatal or severe injury collisions in EPCs and SS4A communities.

Disadvantaged Area
Number
of Fatal or
Severe Injury
Collisions in
San Mateo
Number of Fatal or
Severe Injury Collisions
in Disadvantaged Area
% of Fatal or Severe
Injury Collisions in
Disadvantaged Area
Equity Priority Communities
89 26 29.2%
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Top
25%) 14 15.7%
SS4A Underserved
Communities 31 34.8%
Table 3: Proportion of Fatal or Severe Injury Collisions in Disadvantaged Areas Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc (2023)
11 USDOT. SS4A Underserved Communities. Accessed from https://www.arcgis.com/apps/ dashboards/99f9268777ff4218867ceedfabe58a3a
2002 of 2271
30 Figure 3: MTC Equity Priority Communities and CalEPA Disadvantaged Communities with Collision Overlay
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
∙þ35
∙þ82
∙þ92
ß/101
§¨¦280

FOSTER CITY BLVD

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD
SI LA
N
D
PKWY

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULA AVE

ALAMEDA DE LAS
PULGAS

PACIFIC BLVD

SARATOGA DR

RALSTON AVE
9TH AVE
ED
G

EWA T ERBLV D

B E ACH PARK BLVD

SHELL BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD COUNTY RD
M
A
R

NI ERS I S

LAND B LVD

S DELAWARE ST

W HIL LSDALE BLVD
S

H OREWAY RD

W PO PLAR AVE

DE ANZABLVD

S NORFOLK ST
V
NI TAG
E

PARK DR

SKYLINE
BLV D

J HART CLINTON DR

CHAT EAU DR
3RD AVE

PARROTT
DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

BUNKERHILL DR
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\Task 4 Collison and Roadway Analysis\_gis\D1_EPC Crash Overlay.mxd Date: 4/3/2024 Equity Priority Communities with
Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Overlay
L E G E N D [
City Boundary
Equity Priority Communities
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Top 25%
Collision Severity
! Fatal
! Severe Injury
0 0.5 1 Miles
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
∙þ35
∙þ92
ß/
§¨¦280

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULA AVE

ALAMEDA DE LAS
PULGAS

RALSTON AVE
9TH AVE

S DELAWARE ST

W HIL LSDALE BLVD

W PO PLAR AVE

DE ANZABLVD

SKYLINE
BLV D

J HART CLIN

CHAT EAU DR

PARROTT
DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

BUNKERHILL DR
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\Task 4 Collison and Roadway Analysis\_gis\D1_EPC Crash Overlay.mxd Date: 4/3/2024 E
Fatal/

L E G E N D
City Boundary
Equity Priority Communities
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Top 25%
Collision Severity
! Fatal
! Severe Injury
Source: MTC 2050 Plan Bay Area, Equity Priority Commnunities; CalEPA, SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
2003 of 2271
31 Figure 4: SS4A Underserved Communities with Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Overlay !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
∙þ35
∙þ82
∙þ92
ß/101
§¨¦280

FOSTER CITY BLVD

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD
SI LA
N
D
PKWY

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULA AVE

ALAMEDA DE LAS
PULGAS

PACIFIC BLVD

SARATOGA DR

RALSTON AVE
9TH AVE
ED

GEWA T ERBLV D

B E ACH PARK BLVD

SHELL BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD COUNTY RD
M
A
R

NI ERS I S

LAND B LVD

S DELAWARE ST

W HIL LSDALE BLVD
S

H OREWAY RD

W PO PLAR AVE

DE ANZABLVD

S NORFOLK ST
V
NI TAG
E

PARK DR

SKYLINE
BLV D

J HART CLINTON DR

CHAT EAU DR
3RD AVE

PARROTT
DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

BUNKERHILL DR
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\Task 4 Collison and Roadway Analysis\_gis\D2_SS4A Crash Overlay.mxd Date: 4/3/2024 SS4A Communities with Fatal/
Severe Injury Collision Overlay
L E G E N D [
City Boundary
SS4A Underserved Communities
Collision Severity
! Fatal
! Severe Injury
0 0.5 1 Miles
SMTC 2050 PlBAEitPiitCiti
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
∙þ35
∙þ92
ß
§¨¦280

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULA AVE

ALAMEDA DE LAS
PULGAS

RALSTON AVE
9TH AVE

S DELAWARE ST

W HIL LSDALE BLVD

W PO PLAR AVE

DE ANZABLVD

SKYLINE
BLV D

J HART CLIN

CHAT EAU DR

PARROTT
DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

BUNKERHILL DR
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\Task 4 Collison and Roadway Analysis\_gis\D2_SS4A Crash Overlay.mxd Date: 4/3/2024

L E G E N D
City Boundary
SS4A Underserved Communities
Collision Severity
! Fatal
! Severe Injury
Source: MTC 2050 Plan Bay Area, Equity Priority Commnunities; CalEPA, SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
2004 of 2271
32 Collision analysis identified collision patterns, trends, and high-priority intersections and roadways, and equity analysis informed the historically underserved areas within the City, with potential issues related to specific collision types and severities. These two pieces of information were used to determine focused neighborhoods in the City that warranted extra attention during community engagement activities.

The overview of engagement strategies is provided below, detailed information related to each of these strategies and their reach can be found in Appendix C.

4.2.2 PROJECT WEBPAGE
Kittelson collaborated closely with the City staff
to create a project webpage12, which was hosted
on the City’s website. This dedicated webpage
served as a one-stop shop for updates and
information related to the LRSP. The webpage
featured an array of valuable resources,
including an overview of the LRSP, details on
upcoming events, project updates, an interactive
web map, a story map, and access to relevant
documents.

4.2.2.1 INTERACTIVE MAP
The interactive map was utilized to get locationspecific feedback from communities throughout the city. A total of 507 comments were received
between early June 2023 through September
2023 after Labor Day, September 8, 2023. Of
the total comments, 57 percent (289) of the
comments were in focused neighborhoods.

Duplicate comments were removed during
the review. Figure 4 shows the location of
comments by user-defined type.

4.2.2.2 STORY MAP
Kittelson completed data analysis of collision
trends in the city and compiled examples of
safety countermeasures (or improvements) that
can address these collision related trends in the
Story Map13. A Story Map is an interactive webbased tool that provides information on the overview of LRSP, citywide collision patterns
and trends, preliminary data analysis findings,
countermeasures list, and a link directing users
to interactive map, shown in Figure 5.

4.2.3 PROJECT FLYERS AND

POSTERS
Kittelson identified the greatest safety
performance needs and historically underserved
communities in the city, also known as
focused neighborhoods, that required focused
community outreach – Downtown, Hillsdale, and
North Central. Kittelson placed 100 communityspecific flyers in English, Spanish, and simplified Chinese, selecting spots in these neighborhoods
strategically focusing on activity-centers, i.e.,
near the schools, transit stops, commercial and
retail centers/hubs, community centers, and
areas with high pedestrian movement.

4.2.4 POP-UP EVENTS
This LRSP was developed concurrently with
the ongoing 2024 Complete Streets Plan,
which organized a series of public engagement
events. Because safety is central to both plans’
recommendations, those public activities and
feedback inform locations, priorities, and input
for this LRSP. The 2024 Complete Streets
Plan project team conducted a series of popup events, of which the LRSP project team participated in two pop-up events (Figure 6).

These were conducted at the San Mateo Central
Park and San Mateo Farmers’ Market. At these
public engagement activities, City Staff and
project team members received input on what
infrastructure would best meet the needs of San
Mateo’s residents, business owners, workers, and
other visitors.

4.2.4.1 BUSINESS CARDS
Kittelson developed easy-to-carry business
cards for the participants that attended the
pop-up events. The business cards provided
a link and QR code to the project webpage.

The business cards were developed in two
languages, English and Spanish.
12 www.cityofsanmateo.org/SafetyPlan
13 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/11cb2a44f9aa4280948c0d2ec924d1b5 2005 of 2271
33 Figure 5: Screenshot of San Mateo LRSP Story Map

4.2.5 FINDINGS
Figure 7 shows the location of comments received on Interactive Map tool based on user-defined type. Most of these comments include speeding cars near schools and residential areas, intersections with limited access for vulnerable users, inadequate pedestrian crossings, poor visibility, and maintenance issues. Additionally, some comments are related to traffic congestion, illegal parking, and inadequate infrastructure for bikes. The residents suggested improvements at certain locations such as implementing speed bumps, adding stop signs or traffic lights, improving crosswalks, enhancing bike lanes, increasing enforcement, and narrowing or removal of traffic lanes.

Below is list of key themes of safety issues and
concerns from the pop-up events:

Red Light Running and Speeding:
• Red light running at intersections: 12th
Avenue/Hobart Ave/El Camino Real, 20th
Avenue & El Camino Real, and El Camino
Real corridor.
• Speeding on several streets in the City,
including El Camino Real, Tilton Avenue,
Palm Avenue, and 20th Avenue.

Pedestrian Safety:
• Need for pedestrian crossing signals, signal
heads, additional crosswalks, pedestrian
related infrastructure improvements near
schools and in higher pedestrian activity
areas.

Bike Safety:
• Lack of bike lane presence, bike
infrastructure, and bicycle lane connectivity.

School Zones:
• Speeding in school zones, safety concerns at
school pick-up/drop-off areas.
• Suggestions included reducing pedestrian
crossing lengths by adding curb extensions
at intersections.

Intersection Design:
• Need for stop signs and better visibility.

Traffic Calming Measures:
• Need for more speed humps and speed
cushions on various streets, including
Alameda de las Pulgas and Delaware Street.

Pavement Conditions:
• Presence of potholes on various streets,
including Poplar Avenue, El Camino Real, and
Pacific Blvd.
2006 of 2271
34 The findings from the data were informed and expanded using community engagement and feedback. For key themes identified above, if the data findings were supported by community feedback (for example, need for speed management on some city roadways), we addressed those key themes by identifying systemic treatments as discussed in Section 7.2. For site-specific comments from the community, if the data findings supported community feedback and experience, site-specific treatments were recommended at priority locations that address those factors identified, described in detail in Section 7.3. For key themes and comments from the community that were not informed by the data (for example, maintenance needs on city roadways), we were not able to assess if pavement conditions are associated with an increase in collisions. The City may consider monitoring this as part of their implementation of the LRSP. By incorporating findings from the data and listening directly to community needs, this LRSP reflects data-driven and community-informed desires to improve roadway safety performance in the City of San Mateo.

Figure 6: Pop-up Community Engagement
2007 of 2271
35 Figure 7: Comments Webmap from Community Engagement Activities ∙þ35
∙þ82
∙þ92
ß/101
§¨¦280

FOSTER CITY BLVD

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD
SI LA
N
D
PKWY

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULA AVE

ALAMEDA DE LAS
PULGAS

PACIFIC BLVD

SARATOGA DR

RALSTON AVE
ED

GEWA T ERBLV D

B E ACH PARK BLVD

SHELL BLVD

EL CAMINO REAL

OLD COUNTY RD
M
A
R

NI ERS I S

LAND B LVD

S DELAWARE ST

W HIL LSDALE BLVD
S

H OREWAY RD

W PO PLAR AVE

DE ANZABLVD

S NORFOLK ST
V
NI TAG
E

PARK DR

SKYLINE
BLV D

J HART CLINTON DR

CHAT EAU DR
3RD AVE

PARROTT
DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

BUNKERHILL DR
DD oo ww nn tt oo ww nn
NN oo rr tt hh
CC ee nn ttrr aa ll
HH ii ll ll ss dd aa ll ee
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\Task 2 Stakeholder and Community Engagement\gis\mxd\27516_InteractiveMapComments_v2.mxd Date: 12/29/2023 Interactive Map Comments
L E G E N D [
City Boundary
Focused Neighborhood
Bicycling
Walking
Driving
Transit
Other
Roadway Segment Comment
0 0.5 1 Miles
∙þ35

RALSTON AVE
DE A
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo L
Inte

L E G E N D
City Boundary
Focused Neighborhood
Bicycling
Walking
Driving
Transit
Other
Roadway Segment Comment
2008 of 2271
36 4.3 Citywide Safety Performance Analysis
Kittelson developed a collision database using the reported collision data from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. The data was cross-checked and supplemented with information from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), University of California Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), and City’s internal collision database.

Collisions on Caltrans-owned and operated roads such as US 101 and State Route 92 were excluded from the data, while those on at-grade facilities with direct interaction with the City’s roadway network, such as State Route 82, were included. Collisions reported at the ramp terminal intersections that are associated with grade-separated freeways and highways in the City are also included in the analysis database. Duplicate records were also identified and removed. The final dataset is comprised of 1,909 collisions from SWITRS/TIMS and 690 collisions from the City’s internal collision database.

The citywide roadway safety performance is summarized using findings from the following analyses:
• Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends, which identifies relevant collision factors such as collision types, primary collision factors, and users involved.
• Network Screening, which spatially locates collisions and identifies intersections and segments with the highest collision frequency and severity to determine locations where improvements may have the highest impact.
• Statewide Comparison, which compares local collision statistics with statewide data to identify areas for safety improvement.

4.3.1 CITYWIDE COLLISION PATTERNS AND TRENDS SUMMARY
This section describes collision patterns and trends for all reported collisions between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021. These statistics helped develop systemic and location-specific countermeasures for safety projects across the city. The following is a summary of key findings from all reported collisions:
2,599 collisions were reported (an
average of 519.8 per year), including
89 fatal or severe injury
collisions (an average of

17.8 per year).

Intersection collisions are
more frequent than roadway
collisions, representing 93% of
reported collisions and 92% of
fatal/severe injury collisions.
230 collisions (9% of reported) involved
pedestrians, including 31 fatal and
severe injury collisions
(34% of fatal and
severe injury).
144 collisions (6% of reported) involved
bicyclists, including 15 fatal and severe
injury collisions
(17% of fatal and
severe injury).

Sideswipe (26%), rear-end (22%), and
broadside (18%) collisions are the most
frequently cited
collision type.

Improper turning (26%), unsafe speed
(15%), and driving or bicycling
under the influence (14%)
are the most frequently cited
primary collision factors.

In this analysis, the project team focused on understanding the overall collision risk factors and primary contributing factors, with an emphasis on their relationship with fatal and severe injury collisions. This is because Caltrans Director’s Policy commits to Safe System Approach to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on California roadways.
2009 of 2271
37 Figure 8 and Table 4 summarize the reported collisions by severity in the City of San Mateo. Table 4 also shows a breakdown of City collisions by road users involved. 230 collisions involved pedestrians, 31 of which were fatal or severe injury collisions (1.2% of total collisions, but 35% of fatal and severe injury collisions citywide). Similarly, 144 collisions involved bicyclists, 15 of which were fatal and severe injury collisions (0.5% of total collisions, but 17% of fatal and severe injury collisions citywide).

Figure 8: Reported Collisions by Severity (2017-2021)
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, City of San Mateo, compiled by Kittelson (2023) 2,599

REPORTED

COLLISIONS
20%

COMPLAINT

OF PAIN
21%
OTHER

VISIBLE
56% INJURY

PROPERTY

DAMAGE ONLY
3%
SEVERE
INJURY
<1%
FATAL
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, City of San Mateo, compiled by Kittelson (2023) Table 4: Collision Severity of Reported Collisions by Road User Involved (2017-2021) Road Users
Involved
Fatal (% of
column)
Severe
Injury (% of
column)
Other
Visible
Injury (% of
column)
Complaint
of Pain (%
of column)
Property
Damage
Only (% of
column)
Total (% of
column)
PedestrianInvolved 4 (50%) 27 (33%) 106 (19%) 79 (15%) 14 (1%) 230 (9%) BicycleInvolved 2 (25%) 13 (16%) 81 (15%) 43 (8%) 5 (<1%) 144 (6%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
2 (25%) 42 (52%) 366 (66%) 396 (77%) 1,421 (99%) 2,227 (86%) Reported
Collisions 8 (100%) 81 (100%) 553 (100%) 517 (100%) 1,440 (100%) 2,599
(100%)
Severity Share
of Reported
Collisions
<1% 3% 21% 20% 55% 100%
2010 of 2271
38 Due to uncertainty in the reported locations of collisions, 1,159 out of 2,599 reported collisions were geolocated and analyzed when assessing collision location (essentially all non-PDO crashes).

Figure 9 shows the collision tree with fatal and injury collisions broken down by collision location (intersection/roadway segment) and road user involved (pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle). 91% of reported collisions and 92% of fatal and severe injury collisions occurred at an intersection. Of the 1,055 general collisions and 82 fatal/severe injury collisions related to intersections, over half took place at unsignalized intersections.
92% of fatal
and severe
injury collisions
occurred at an
intersection
82 fatal/severe
injury collisions
related to
intersections
91% of reported collisions
occurred at an intersection
2011 of 2271
39 TOTAL COLLISIONS
1,159
89 TOTAL COLLISIONS