San Mateo City Council
May 20, 2024

Stephen A. Finn
Principal and Founder
RE Management, LLC
160 Bovet Rd., Suite 408
San Mateo, CA 94402
San Mateo City Council
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
August 13, 2019

Re: General Plan Analysis of Borel Square / Hayward Park Station Area

Dear Mayor Papan and Honorable Members of the City Council:

As the owner of the Borel Square Shopping Center, I have been following the General Plan Update process with great interest. Borel Square, located at Bovet Road and S. El Camino Real, is an ideal site for redevelopment. The eight-acre site was built out in the 1960’s and largely reflects the design and planning preferences of a bygone er a. From the street, visitors must drive through a sea of parking to access retail , restaurants and services clustered in single-story strips located a significant distance from public streets and sidewalks. In connection with the General Plan Update, I have started to evaluate long -term options for revitalizing Borel Square, retained expert consultants to assist with analyzing potential redevelopment scenarios focused on housing and other uses, and I also plan to contact nearby pr operty owners to explore potential collaboration opportunities.

I understand that you will be deciding which areas of the City should be studied as “change areas” at the August 19th City Council meeting, and that Borel Square is included in “Study Area

3.” After reviewing the draft map with our team and looking forward to the alternatives process to come, I would like to offer the following thoughts for your consideration.

First, I am excited that the City is taking a fresh look at its existing land use goals and policies. Times have changed significantly. Over the past thirty years, the City’s population has grown, leadership at all levels of government has changed, and ne w best practices have emerged for development and urban planni ng. In order to cultivate a di verse and thriving economy and responsibly manage for the impacts of growth, we must consider how th ese and other important trends have impacted the way current and future generations will live, learn, work, play and thrive in San Mateo. I look forward to a more robust conversation around these topics as the City moves forward to the alternatives process.

Second, I look forward to collaborating with y our team and providing input on the future land use alternatives to be evaluated for Borel Square and the Hayward Park Station area. I believe there are positive opportunities available to strengthen the connection between Hayward Park and Borel Square, improve the streetscape along Bovet Road and 17th Avenue, and encourage greater walkability, bikeability, and use of public transit. I applaud the City’s goal of encouraging greater Mayor Papan and
Honorable Members
of the San Mateo City
Council
August 13, 2019

use of alternative modes of tr ansportation and also hope that you consider updating parking requirements to reflect the desired reduction in vehicle use.

Finally, I have some concerns about the size of Study Area 3, and respectfully request that you consider evaluating smaller study areas with in Study Area 3, which I believe may lead to better planning outcomes. Study Area 3 is consid erably larger than the other study areas and includes two Caltrain stations. As you know, the Hayward Park Station and Hillsdale Station are very different. While the area surrounding Hillsdale includes a regional shopping center, recently renovated retail, and new residential projects (such as Bay Meadows II), the area around Hayward Park largely consists of parkin g lots, office, retail, and indus trial uses and has experienced challenges in redevelopment due to restrictive zoning requirements.

Because these different constraints and opportu nities suggest the potential for different future policy and planning frameworks, and in or der to make the upcoming conversations more efficient and streamlined, I would respectfully request that the City evaluate a smaller study area that is just inclusive of the Borel Square/Haywa rd Park area north of State Route 92. State Route 92 provides a natural bor der between the distinct communi ties surrounding Hayward Park and Hillsdale Station. Enclosed is a map illustrating the proposed st udy area prepared by Taecker Planning & Design, which hopefully illustrates some of the potential opportunities for this area of San Mateo for consideration as part of the upcoming alternatives process. In addition to creating a separate study area for the properties north of State Route 92, the enclosed map proposes that Study Area 3 be extended slightly north to include large underutilized parking lots between Bovet Road and Borel Avenue that may be ripe for development.

Thank you for making the General Plan Update a priority and for thoughtfully considering the input you are receiving from the community.

-1-
April 15, 2022
Via Electronic Mail
Christina Horrisberger, Community Development Director
Zach Dahl, Deputy Community Development Director
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Hillsdale Shopping Center —Preferred Land Use Scenario Dear Ms. Horrisberger and Mr. Dahl,
We are writing on behalf of the Bohannon Development Company and our joint venture partner, Northwood Investments Corporation, the owners of the Hillsdale Shopping Center (the “Owners”) located at 60 31st Avenue in San Mateo, CA (the “Site”). Thank you for the opportunity to submit our preferred land use map for the City Council’s consideration on April 18, 2022.

While the City of San Mateo (the “City”) has been studying land use alternative scenarios for the Strive San Mateo General Plan Update process, we have been carefully considering the future of the Site, keeping in mind that the current changes in the retail market present special opportunities for the evolution of the Hillsdale Shopping Center and how it responds to the shifting needs of San Mateans and the Peninsula community at large. Both the General Plan Subcommittee and the Planning Commission recommended Mixed-Use High for the Site in recognition of this special opportunity for transit-oriented development in the heart of San Mateo.

While we have not established a set vision for the Site, we now intend to embark on a robust community engagement effort to help us plan for the future. We do know through our early listening that providing a mix of uses, including residential, retail and commercial spaces, would establish the appropriate land use framework with the necessary flexibility to create a special place that will meet market needs, exceed the community’s expectations, and protect the City’s fiscal health, all while respecting and blending with the edges adjacent to the existing neighborhoods.

Therefore, as you can see on the attached “Preferred Alternative” exhibit, we are proposing the Mixed-Use High designation for the parcels closest to the Hillsdale Caltrain Station and along El Camino Real, while proposing Mixed-Use Medium for the interior of the Site, with a Transitional Buffer zone to the adjacent neighborhood. We also would like to adjust thethe boundary of the Study Area to include parcel 042-121- 090 currently a portion of the Hillsdale Garden Apartments. The exclusion of this parcel, contiguous to the Hillsdale Mall parcel (South Block),creates a mid-block transition that we think hinders the flexibility necessary to plan for the site in the future. This site is -2-
currently occupied with aging housing stock that will be in need of investment in the coming years. Inclusion of this land in the study area will allow greater flexibility in how we answer the community’s call for addinghousing, especially affordable housing, in reimagining Hillsdale. Inclusion of this parcel, provides an opportunity to think holistically about the future of Hillsdale and avoids having awkward mid-block transitions that can be an impediment to good design and planning.

We believe that the unique size and location of the Site warrant a fresh approach by showing more intensity along El Camino Real and the Transit Corridor and stepping down the intensity toward the existing neighborhoods. This combination of Mixed-Use High and Mixed-Use Medium designations will allow for the greatest master planning flexibility that, in turn, will not over burden the City’s existing infrastructure and will protect San Mateo’s neighborhoods.

Importantly, this proposed combination provides for the flexibility necessary to achieve a viable and feasible plan for redevelopment of the Site that is deliverable to the marketplace, while also preserving its role as a place for San Mateo residents to gather, shop, and enjoy. Not only will this balance of uses allow us to create an ecosystem that minimizes impacts, but it will create a realistic opportunity to deliver both market-rate and affordable housing that will significantly contribute to the City’s housing needs.

We look forward to our ongoing collaboration with the City as it moves forward with the General Plan Update process.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
David Bohannon
Attachment 1: Preferred Land Use Map
cc: Drew Corbett, City Manager
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Vice Mayor
Eric Rodriguez, Council Member
Joe Goethals, Council Member
Amourence Lee, Council Member
Margaret Williams, Planning Commission Chair
John Ebneter, Planning Commissioner
Adam Nugent, Planning Commissioner
Seema Patel, Planning Commissioner

[1 of 1]

VIA EMAIL
2745 El Camino, LLC
5042 Wilshire Blvd #39799
Los Angeles, CA 90036
October 24, 2022
Zachary Dahl
Deputy Director
City of San Mateo
Community Development Department
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: 2745 S. El Camino, San Mateo (APN 039-351-070) - Development Capacity Dear Mr. Dahl:

As discussed, ownership is interested in redeveloping 2745 S. El Camino Real. This corner lot is ~36,000 sq.ft., located along the 28
th street themed intersection, directly across from the newly improved Caltrain station and one block from the Hillsdale Shopping Center. Assuming an 85’ height limit, a midrise project could comfortably include 165 apartments with 72 x 1-bedrooms (679 average sq.ft.) and 93 x 2-bedrooms (1,071 average sq.ft.). We’d like the draft housing element’ssites inventory to reflect this amount. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further at your convenience. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Yosef Tahbazof, Esq.

Principal
CC:

Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Christina Horrisberger








  








Nicholas Hamilton <[email protected]>
FW: Meeting Followup and Commentary on RWC Housing Element Nicholas Hamilton <[email protected]> Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 3:23 PM To: Nicholas Hamilton <[email protected]>
From: Jeremy Levine
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 9:31 PM
To: Manira Sandhir ; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia ; Zachary Dahl ; Diana Elrod - D.R. Elrod and Associates/Solutions for Affordable Housing
Cc: Evelyn Stivers
Subject: Meeting Followup and Commentary on RWC Housing Element Good evening Manira, Eloiza, Diana, and Zach--Manira and Eloiza, it was a pleasure to talk with you last week. Thank you for taking the time to help me better understand staff's perspective. We're all working to get San Mateo the best housing element possible, and I appreciate the opportunity to share HLC's perspective on what that looks like.

As we discussed at the end of our conversation, I want to help you understand why HLC endorsed Redwood City's housing element. By sharing info about RWC's housing element, I hope your team will get a clearer picture of what HLC hopes to see in San Mateo's housing element.

For starters, RWC is upzoning its downtown by an additional 20 du/ac. The area to be upzoned is quite a tiny portion of town, much smaller than HLC's original recommendations, but it is an area in which RWC--a city which has an approximately 75% greater per capita rate of housing development than San Mateo--has demonstrated significant capacity for new homes in the past. Despite its great recent track record, RWC is rezoning even further.

RWC also rezoned single-family neighborhoods along a number of dimensions to allow smaller units on smaller lots. And they cut parking requirements in half throughout the city. (Not just in the 1/2 mile around transit required by state law, but EVERYWHERE.)

It also really helps that RWC is donating city-owned land to support affordable homes. We are looking for subsidy of some form, land, money, or ideally both!

And the good policies continue. Redwood City is making big commitments to follow through on implementing its anti-displacement plan; streamline permit processing for 100% affordable housing developments; entirely eliminate a cap on new units in the downtown; and revise the city's affordable housing ordinance to remove city discretion over AH projects.

Fundamentally, RWC's housing element is nowhere near perfect from a pro-housing standpoint, but it commits to a number of significant policy changes that will have a beneficial impact when implemented. Even though Redwood City has an approximately 75% greater per capita rate of housing production than San Mateo, RWC is upzoning substantially in its downtown and pursuing a number of other ambitious production-oriented policies. In comparison, San Mateo's housing element commits to relatively few substantial policy changes beyond the base requirements of state law, yet it assumes that the rate of housing production will more than double.

As we discussed, HLC does not see theoretical upzoning in the general plan in the future equivalent to upzoning in the housing element today, as the housing element is a legally binding contract with the state and the general plan is, well, not. Considering its past track record of development and the constraints to housing present in the city, San Mateo may need to make commitments within the housing element to upzone opportunity sites in order to justify its site inventory. HLC has argued that the city in fact must rezone, but we are willing to wait and see what HCD requires.

However, I continue to believe that San Mateo staff should be prepared to undergo a potentially long period of housing element noncompliance if HCD finds that the city's opportunity sites cannot be justified under current zoning, which would require new rezonings and a time-consuming housing element EIR. HLC would have preferred that the city study the potential environmental impacts of upzoning earlier in this process so that the council would have had the option to rezone now if necessary, but the city did not take that prudent course of action at an earlier time, and so we are faced with the present high-risk circumstances. If possible, HLC wants to help the city satisfy HCD, but we are reluctant to support a housing plan that includes so few incentives for development on the proposed opportunity sites. We look forward to seeing the city's new draft at the end of the month, hopefully with more policies that we can support wholeheartedly.

All of this aside, I recognize that staff are working hard and trying your best, and some housing activists (including myself) have not always recognized your work appropriately. After our conversation, I have been urging other activists to work toward a more constructive, supportive relationship with San Mateo staff. Regardless of differences of opinion, thank you for the opportunity to work together on creating a great housing plan that meets the needs of all San Mateo residents.

Regards,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2905 El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.hlcsmc.org
650.242.1764

Facebook • Twitter • LinkedIn • Instagram • Become A Member! * 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.


1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
+LJOH\&-

[

6HQW
)ULGD\'HFHPEHU
30
7R
+RXVLQJ
&F
0D\KHZ7RP

[

$OL6DSLUPDQ

6XEMHFW
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW
$WWDFKPHQWV
+$&&RPPHQWVRQ6DQ0DWHR'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWGRF[ $SSHQGL[WR+$&6DQ
0DWHR+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQWV

SGI
'ŽŽĚĂĨƚĞƌŶŽŽŶʹƚƚĂĐŚĞĚĂƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐƚŽ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͛ƐĚƌĂĨƚ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶ͕ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚŽŶďĞŚĂůĨŽĨƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĂůŝƚŝŽŶ͘WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚƵƐŬŶŽǁŝĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚĂŶŬƐ͕Ͳ:,ŝŐůĞLJ 
:,ŝŐůĞLJ
WĂƌƚŶĞƌ




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

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

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

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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

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/housing- element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf). The list is a specific means of evaluating whether the City has adequately planned for development of housing for all income levels.

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

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1).

As explained below, the current draft prepared by San Mateo identifies a number of non- vacant 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 035-466-010, -070, -080, -090, -100, -110)

The City’s sites inventory lists several parcels that together make up the Bridgepointe Shopping Center, a popular regional mall described by owner CBRE as “one of the premier power centers in the Bay Area.” Together, the parcels comprising Bridgepointe account for 1,188 total housing units in the site inventory. Of these, 241 units would be for Very Low income residents, and 180 would be Low income residents.

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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

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

2. Hillsdale Mall
(APN 042-121-040, -060, -080; 039-490-050, -170; 039-353-010, -020, -030, - 040)

The site of the Hillsdale Shopping Center, including surrounding parking lots and buildings (listed as Consolidated Site X on the draft Housing Element), is projected to provide 912 lower income units towards the RHNA. The assumption is that 100% of the acreage will redevelop at 100% of the maximum density for the site: 50 dwelling units per acre.

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

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

Opened in November 2019, Hillsdale North Block has new stores, restaurants, a new multiscreen movie theater, and even a new upscale bowling alley. The remodeled structure ties into existing retail structures on the same parcel, including a two-story parking garage used to provide parking for the new retail and entertainment spaces, and a food court built over 31 st
Avenue, extending over to the Nordstrom’s building on the other side of 31st (in the older portion of the mall, which includes Nordstrom’s and Macy’s as anchor tenants). The food

2 Details on this project are available on the City Planning Department’s website at:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/47652/Hillsdale_Shopping_Center_Nort h_Block_Initial-Study--Mitigated-Negative-Declaration?bidId 3 HAC Appendix Tab 7. This January 2022 article also quotes the new co-owner of Hillsdale Mall as stating: “We are confident that Hillsdale Shopping Center will continue its meaningful presence in the city for years to come.” See also HAC Appendix Tab 8.

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

court/pedestrian bridge, remodeled as part of the Hillsdale North Block improvements, shows that the retail uses to the south of 31st Street also continue to be part of the owner’s long-range plans.

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

Meanwhile, the main parcel separates the other parcels from one another, rendering unclear which, if any, might realistically be developed for residential housing in the next eight years. Thriving retail, restaurant, and banking uses (Trader Joe’s, Old Navy, a Wells Fargo bank branch, several restaurants, and associated parking) are located on the parcels south of Hillsdale Boulevard, an area known as “Hillsdale South,” with leases signed, and expensive tenant improvements done, as recently as 2021.
4 A proper analysis under Government Code section 65583.2(g)(1) would preclude the City from making the required finding that this site is suitable, available, and realistic for affordable housing under 65583.2(g)(2), because existing uses are not likely to discontinue during the next eight years. A site of this size is also presumed to be insufficient to meet the needs for affordable housing, absent evidence of successful affordable housing developments of this size or special reason to believe that one would be successful here. Government Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(B). San Mateo shows neither.

4 These businesses are on APNs 039-490-050, and 042-121-040, -060, and -080, an area labeled as “Hillsdale South.” They are on the south side of West Hillsdale Boulevard from the main mall site on APN 039-490-170. Building permits indicate that $1.7 million in renovations was done in the 2009-2010 time frame when Trader Joe’s and other businesses were moving in; more recently, $150,000 of work was done on the interior in 2021, when Sleep Number opened a store there. BD-2021-279007; BD-2009-233895; BD-2009-34436; SG-2021-279679. Publicly available information shows that Sleep Number has a lease running into 2028. HAC Appendix Tab 10. Other building permits show substantial renovations and construction work done for the current tenants. When DSW (a shoe store) moved in, over $600,000 of improvements were done. BD-2011-240083, BD-2011-240152. When AT&T moved in next door to DSW, at 31 West Hillsdale Boulevard, over $1.8 million of construction was done; a Macaroni & Grill restaurant on the site was demolished and the AT&T building was constructed at the same location. BD-2016-260718, BD-2016-260255, BD-2017-263360. The AT&T construction was completed relatively recently: permits were signed-off and closed in 2018. It is not “likely” that these existing uses will discontinue in the next eight years.

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

3. The Atrium: 1900 South Norfolk Street
(APN 035-391-090)

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

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

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

5. The Elks and The Shriners – 229 W. 20
th 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. 20
th 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. 20
th Street is the statement on the site inventory that “Preliminary

5 In 2008, the 24 Hour Fitness substantially modified the building it occupies 2008 when it moved into a space formerly occupied by Albertson’s. It added locker rooms, a swimming pool, basketball courts, showers, and other tenant improvements at a cost exceeding $2.2 million. BD- 2007-230493; BD-2007-230029; BD-2008-230692.

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2).

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

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

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

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

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

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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

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

This site, consisting of twenty parcels, is claimed to accommodate 161 units of housing affordable to those with lower incomes. The only basis for including it appears to be the claim that there is “ownership interest in specific plan redevelopment,” which does not indicate that all of the parcels would be redeveloped as housing at the maximum density, or indicate who said what to whom, and when.
7 Meanwhile, and as discussed further in section B below, the draft Housing Element does not adequately analyze or demonstrate the realistic capacity of the site. Under section 65583.2(g)(1), for a nonvacant site like this, the city must “specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period.” The required analysis is currently missing. A realistic assessment of the current uses and market conditions would preclude listing the entire site at maximum density. Mollie Stone’s is the only full service grocery store in the surrounding area. For households in the southwestern portion of town (for example, everyone near Laurel Elementary School and south to the Belmont border), closing Mollie Stone’s would more than double their travel times to the nearest grocery, and extend them well beyond the one-mile used to define a “food desert” – a condition no one expects to develop in this well-resourced city. 8 Currently San Mateo’s land use pattern follows the predictable pattern: few, if any, households are more than one mile from a grocery. There is no reason to believe that the market need for grocery stores will make the need for Mollie Stone’s, or another grocery store, superfluous in this part of town. Particularly as San Mateo’s population grows, the need for grocery stores will increase, not diminish.

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

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

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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 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 City- owned 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 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.

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

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

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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. 4
th 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 examp le, 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.

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

indistinguishable from the “outliers” were nevertheless listed as accommodating the RHNA need at 100% of the maximum zoning capacity. For example:

x 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.
x 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. x 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 480 North Bayshore, a quarter-mile away, is subject to the same market

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.”).

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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:
x 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 25
th 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 less than 20% of the maximum residential density. Similarly, given that the $200+ million

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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.

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. The entire point of the housing inventory is to

11 The Fishmarket site at 1863 South Norfolk is another example of the City not taking the analysis to the required next level. After identifying a methodology to estimate yields (Government Code § 65583.2(c)(1), the City is then supposed to consider site conditions and make adjustments. Id. (c)(2). In the case of 1863 South Norfolk (the “Fish Market”; APN 035- 383-200), just across the street from Parkside Plaza and squeezed between South Norfolk and Seal Slough, the City would need to start with its “outlier” calculation. Indeed, in a development application last year, the site owner initially proposed 74 townhomes, along with public space concessions to try to seek a special use permit for the property. The request was for 21 units/acre on a 3.5 acre parcel, quite close to the 18.2 estimate for outliers.

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.

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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 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).

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.

Housing Element
December 16, 2022

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\15195239.2

APPENDIX TAB 1

APPENDIX TAB 2

APPENDIX TAB 3

APPENDIX TAB 4

APPENDIX TAB 5

APPENDIX TAB 6

APPENDIX TAB 7

APPENDIX TAB 8

APPENDIX TAB 9

APPENDIX TAB 10

APPENDIX TAB 11


1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
7XHVGD\-DQXDU\
$0
7R
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
(ORL]D0XULOOR*DUFLD
6XEMHFW
):
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW/HWWHU
$WWDFKPHQWV
6DQ0DWHR+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWB&RPPHQW/HWWHUB8&%HUNHOH\BSGI )ROORZ8S)ODJ
)ROORZXS
)ODJ6WDWXV
)ODJJHG



Sandra Belluomini 
AdministrativeTech|Housing
330W.20thAve.,SanMateo,CA94403









&ƌŽŵ͗ŶĚƌĞǁtŽĨĨŽƌĚ 
^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϮϭϬ͗ϮϴD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚŽŵŵĞŶƚ>ĞƚƚĞƌ

,ĞůůŽ͕

DLJŶĂŵĞŝƐŶĚƌĞǁtŽĨĨŽƌĚͲͲ/ĂŵĂŐƌĂĚƵĂƚĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚŝŶŝƚLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂƚhĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚĂĐŽŵŵĞŶƚ ůĞƚƚĞƌƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽΖƐĚƌĂĨƚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĞůĞŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞůĞƚƚĞƌǁĂƐǁƌŝƚƚĞŶďLJŵLJƐĞůĨĂŶĚƚŚƌĞĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŐƌĂĚƵĂƚĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶŝƚLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚWƵďůŝĐWŽůŝĐLJͲͲŵďĂ'ƵƉƚĂ͕DĂƌŝƐĂ ƐƉŝŶŽnjĂĂŶĚ^ĂŵƵĞů'ƌĞĞŶďĞƌŐ͘

WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞĂŶLJĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƉĞƌƐŽŶƐƚŽǁŚŽŵǁĞƐŚŽƵůĚƐĞŶĚƚŚĞůĞƚƚĞƌĨŽƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ 
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĂŶĚŚĂƉƉLJŚŽůŝĚĂLJƐ͕
ŶĚƌĞǁ

ͲͲ
ŶĚƌĞǁtŽĨĨŽƌĚ;ŚĞͬŚŝŵͿ
DĂƐƚĞƌŽĨŝƚLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐͲϮϬϮϰ
ŽůůĞŐĞŽĨ
ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĞƐŝŐŶͲhĞƌŬĞůĞLJ

City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave.

San Mateo, CA 94403
To the honorable San Mateo City Council,
We greatly appreciate this opportunity to offer feedback to the City of San Mateo on its draft housing element. We are graduate students in Public Policy and City Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, where we are studying housing policy.

We applaud the City of San Mateo for planning for 154% of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and the diligent work conducted to craft its housing element and provide protections for at-risk renters. However, in order to comply with state housing law, San Mateo must address the significant barrier that Measure Y poses to meeting its RHNA goals and fulfilling its obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).

The housing element must identify specific ways to mitigate Measure Y density restrictions in order to achieve the level of housing production required by the RHNA. Likewise, the city must plan to take substantive action to achieve the goals required by the AFFH mandate. Specifically, we believe that San Mateo’s housing element must further define how it will incorporate affordable housing into areas of significantly concentrated affluence, assess its site inventory for whether it improves or exacerbates AFFH goals, reduce the high percentage of planned low income housing units located on non-vacant sites, and generally ensure that its plan to fulfill AFFH requirements is realistic and complies with state law. By strengthening AFFH planning and moving beyond the constraints of Measure Y, the City of San Mateo can meet its RHNA goals and help ensure that San Mateo will be a vibrant, welcoming, and affordable city for current and future residents.

Why San Mateo Can and Must Ignore Measure Y
Since 1991, Measure Y has imposed a height restriction of 50 feet (four to five stories) and a density restriction of 50 dwelling units per acre on all new buildings within the City of San Mateo.

The restriction applies to every parcel of land in the city. On November 4th, 2020, San Mateans voted to reapprove Measure Y by a margin of 43 votes out of a total of 46,033 votes cast.

Policy advocates at the Greenbelt Alliance have argued that Measure Y is an act of “exclusionary zoning.” By severely limiting the height and density of multifamily buildings, the 1 ordinance renders most multifamily housing in the city financially infeasible. More importantly, these restrictions likely increase home prices in the few multifamily buildings that are viable; as a result, fewer low-income families can afford to live in San Mateo. 2 2 Muhammad Alameldin, David Garcia, “The Cost to Build New Housing Keeps Rising,” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, August 4, 2022, https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/cost-to-build-housing-legislation-2022/ 1 Teri Shore, “Loss: San Mateo Measure Y,” Greenbelt Alliance, November 4, 2020, https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-no-on-measure-y-to-provide-essential-homes-in-san-mateo/#:~:text=Measure%2 0Y%20is%20an%20example,to%20the%20three%20 Caltrain%20 stations Commendably, the Council acknowledges the long history of San Mateo’s exclusionary zoning practices in its draft housing element. Although not intended to discriminate, Measure Y is an extension of the legalized housing segregation which the Council is working to undo and repair.

Multifamily apartment buildings remain one of the few affordable housing options for low-income people of color and immigrants in San Mateo and the wider Bay Area. By making it all but 3 impossible to create new, multifamily housing units at an affordable price, Measure Y threatens San Mateo’s ability to create an equitable and inclusive city going forward.

More immediately, based on its existing site inventory, the City of San Mateo cannot fulfill its RHNA goals if it adheres to Measure Y. If the Council does not demonstrate that the city can realistically meet these goals, San Mateo will be out of compliance with state law.

A number of precedents confirm that the City of San Mateo must ignore an existing local ordinance if that ordinance prohibits a jurisdiction’s ability to comply with state law (seeUrban Habitat v. Pleasanton). Last November, HCD provided clear guidance to the City of Alameda that 4 its voter-enacted Measure A, which similarly limited density across all parcels, was “in conflict with state law and should be voided.” The City of Alameda has since submitted a draft housing5 element–deemed compliant by HCD–that ignores Measure A constraints and plans for higher-density housing than the ordinance would have allowed. 6 We are particularly concerned that the City of San Mateo cannot comply with state AFFH laws if the city adheres to Measure Y. In its review of Alameda’s Measure A, HCD found that the measure violated Government Code sections 8899.50 and 65583 because the density restrictions “deny fair housing choices and are fundamentally contrary to affirmatively furthering fair housing.” This decisive finding indicates that HCD will correctly identify Measure Y’s density restrictions as impediments to fair housing choice that violate state housing law. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the Council move to ignore Measure Y and plan for higher-density, multi-family housing in the final housing element.

We recognize that it is difficult for Councilmembers to ignore a measure approved by constituents. However, we remind the Council that according to the Community Input Survey it commissioned earlier this year, 63% of San Mateans support new, higher-density housing in the city’s downtown of up to 12 stories; while 68% support new housing of up to 8 stories. 7 7 True North Research, “Community Opinion Survey,” City of San Mateo, February 21, 2022, p. 12, https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/87282/San-Mateo-Community-Opinion-Survey-2022-Report 6 Ken Der, City’s Housing Element Deemed Compliant,” Alameda Post, September 7, 2022, https://alamedapost.com/news/citys-housing-element-deemed-compliant/ 5 Paul McDougall, “RE: City of Alameda Measure A Provisions and Housing Element Compliance,” Department of Housing and Community Development, November 29, 2021, p. 4, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/alaalamedacity-ta-112921.pdf 4 “Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton,” Public Advocates, November 30, 2022, https://www.publicadvocates.org/our-work/housing-justice/urban-habitat-v-city-pleasanton/ 3 Chair Cecilia Rouse, Jared Bernstein, Helen Knudsen, Jeffery Zhang, “Exclusionary Zoning: Its Effect on Racial Discrimination on the Housing Market,” The White House, June 17, 2021https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/ written-materials/2021/06/17/exclusionary-zoning-its-effect-on-racial-discrimination-in-the-housing-market/ San Mateo residents understand that the city needs higher-density housing in order to grow sustainably. To do so, San Mateo must move beyond Measure Y.

Site Analysis: Hillsdale Shopping Center
If the city upholds the exclusionary restrictions of Measure Y, some of its current housing sites in the draft element will simply not be feasible for development within the next eight years. The Hillsdale Shopping Center is an important example.

As the largest site in San Mateo’s inventory, Hillsdale is estimated to accommodate 1,996 units, comprising approximately 28% of the city’s total RHNA target. The housing element justifies this estimate by simply stating that the owner is interested in mixed-use redevelopment that maximizes residential units. It does not demonstrate an in-depth unit calculation as per several capacity factors suggested by HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook. As a result, the city has put forward an unrealistic estimate of the site’s capacity.

The draft housing element assumes that 100% of the available land at the Hillsdale site will become new homes at 100% of the zoned capacity. Recently, however, the site’s owner David 8 Bohannon invested $257 million to renovate 12.5 acres of the shopping center. This renovation, along with other factors detailed in the table below, significantly impacts realistic capacity calculations:
8 Jerimy Levine, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo, “San Mateo Housing Element Letter”, pg. 2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dclzoVUm5i_mjGauJof60bKplZxBc6dU/view

Most notably, the city must allow greater density than Measure Y currently permits in order for David Bohannon to even consider redeveloping the site for residential use. Thus far, he has stated that there is no timeline for redeveloping the site because the city has not indicated that it intends to lift Measure Y.
9 Fortunately, if the Council does plan for density beyond the constraints of Measure Y, the Hillsdale Shopping Center site has significant potential for affordable housing development as part of a transit-oriented district. Without such restrictions, the developer can distribute densities across the site as intended and realistically develop the units estimated in the element site inventory.

There are other similar sites in the inventory that are highly unlikely to be developed, such as the Bridgepointe Shopping Center, which recently renewed long term leases with several commercial tenants. These sites have been misidentified as opportunity sites for the inventory. A more 10 realistic capacity calculation which accounts for Measure Y’s constraints will considerably reduce their estimated potential units. Thus, the city must identify additional opportunity sites not currently listed in its inventory or suspend Measure Y to allow for higher-density housing on these existing sites.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
San Mateo’s housing element additionally misses critical opportunities to better comply with HCD’s AFFH requirements. The AFFH assessment, which according to HCD, must “include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction” has significant shortcomings. While the housing11 element does map racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, it does not map affluent racially segregated areas. This is a notable omission as the most residentially segregated population in San Mateo is non-hispanic white residents. In order to meet state requirements and 12 decrease residential segregation, the AFFH assessment must first effectively document patterns of residential segregation.

Beyond the assessment, the AFFH section fails to appropriately “identify and prioritize significant contributing factors” which “create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues,” as required by HCD. Currently, many of the noted contributing 13 factors simply state the characteristics of poverty and identity-driven disparities rather than city-controlled factors that cause or contribute to fair housing issues. For example, the element 13 Olmstead, Zachary
12 Adam Nuget, Commissioner Input Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. April 6, 2022, https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UCFi_6p3JvL5cw2GkcHgbkhcWNwk1Yl/view 11 Zachary Olmstead, AB 686 Summary of Requirements in Housing Element Law Government Code Section 8899.50, 65583(c)(5), 65583(c)(10), 65583.2(a). California Department of Housing and Community Development, 23 Apr. 2020, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/ab686_summaryhousi ngelementfinal_04222020.pdf
10 Jerimy Levine, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo, “San Mateo Housing Element Letter”, pg. 2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dclzoVUm5i_mjGauJof60bKplZxBc6dU/view 9 Curtis Driscoll, “Hillsdale Mall seeks New Zoning”, The Daily Journal, April 11, 2022 https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/hillsdale-mall-seeks-new-zoning/article_6ebb7f56-b971-11ec-b53a-0f92f5a9 aca1.html
states that “there are concentrations of the population living with a disability west of Highway 101 in the North Central
neighborhood,” a neighborhood that scores poorly on
environmental and economic opportunity indexes. This is simply a statement of the characteristics of disparities between residents with and without disabilities, and belongs in the fair housing assessment.

To effectively address these disparities and
not merely describe them, the housing element must first identify what planning and policy decisions led to these conditions.

San Mateo’s plan to respond to this assessment and address these contributing factors is limited in two fundamental ways.

First, no areas designated for affordable housing are located within San Mateo’s highest-opportunity neighborhoods. By contrast, significant affordable housing is planned for the city’s lowest-income neighborhoods. This imbalance will likely increase residential segregation. Additionally, according to HCD’s assessment, San Mateo’s draft housing element “relies upon non-vacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households.” This means that San
14 Mateo is relying on sites unlikely to be developed in the near term for much of its planned affordable housing development.

A Call to Action
San Mateo should take meaningful action by 2024 to overcome existing policy barriers to housing access. The city has an opportunity to work in coalition with neighboring jurisdictions to bolster significant regional goals to affirmatively further fair housing and rapidly increase housing production across the south Bay Area.

This should take the form of a two-pronged approach. First, San Mateo must deepen its AFFH efforts through strong policies that incorporate affordable housing into high-opportunity neighborhoods. It will be necessary for the city to do the following: 1) allow for more density in single-family zoned, high-opportunity neighborhoods; 2) increase the share of affordable housing planned for vacant sites and high-opportunity neighborhoods; 3) establish an overlay to prioritize affordable housing in high-opportunity areas; and 4) reduce overall fees on affordable housing development.

Second, the city must proactively address impediments caused by Measure Y through an ambitious legal and legislative strategy. By the close of 2023, the city should produce a detailed 14 McDougall, Paul. RE: City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element. California Department of Housing and Community Development, September 28, 2022,
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/89423/September-28-2022-HCD-Response-Letter.

study on the impacts of Measure Y and whether repeal of this ordinance is necessary for the city to actually permit the planned units in its housing element within the next eight years. If deemed necessary, the city should pursue a veto referendum to repeal Measure Y. Most importantly, this study should also ensure that a potential reversal meets AFFH and inclusionary housing objectives that benefit historically excluded communities and populations targeted by housing segregation and discrimination.

Such a strategy would require more immediate action as well: in the near-term, the city should suspend implementation of Measure Y and clarify city powers for the purposes of submitting a compliant housing element. The city should pursue expert legal advice and craft a robust policy agenda that can withstand potential legal challenges.

An Opportunity for San Mateo
The statewide housing element process provides the City Council of San Mateo with a tremendous opportunity to lead the south Bay Area in creating a more accessible and sustainable region. In aiming to exceed its RHNA goals, the Council has shown that it can both set an example for the wider region and impact residents beyond its boundaries. As the city’s element is currently drafted, however, these lofty goals will not materialize.

The Council must take clear action to ensure that San Mateo can achieve these urgently needed housing goals and fulfill its legal obligations to the state. We look forward to seeing how the Councilmembers respond to this opportunity.

Thank you for your consideration,
Andrew Wofford, Masters Candidate in City Planning, UC Berkeley Amba Gupta, Masters Candidate in City Planning, UC Berkeley Marisa Espinoza, Masters Candidate in Public Affairs, UC Berkeley Samuel Greenberg, Masters Candidate in Public Affairs, UC Berkeley CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – APRIL 26, 2020 TO NOVEMBER 7, 2022
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 4/26/22 1

COMMISSION MEMBERS
Margaret Williams, Chair
John Ebneter, Vice Chair
Adam Nugent
Seema Patel
Vacant
City of San Mateo
Regular Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
Tuesday, April 26, 2022
Remote 7:00 PM
Regular Meeting
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org

CALL TO ORDER
This meeting is being held under the provisions of State of California Bill AB361; in which Brown Act regulations are relaxed to allow members to remote in due to the Coronavirus Covid-19 health emergency.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
Remote: Vice-Chair Margaret Williams, Commissioners John Ebneter, Adam Nugent, and Seema Patel

Absent: None

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Approval
Approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Regular meeting of March 22, 2022.

Moved: Nugent, Seconded: Patel
Ayes: Williams, Ebneter, Nugent, Patel
Noes: None

Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.

PUBLIC HEARING

2. Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Housing Consultant Diana Elrod, Planning Manager Manira Sandhir and Deputy Director Zach Dahl did a presentation on the Draft Housing Element 2023-2031, including providing information on the Sites Inventory, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), other Housing Element Sections, and Goals, Policies, and Programs.

Planning Commissioners requested to provide discussion and feedback to help refine the Draft Housing Element.

Commissioner Questions:

The Commission asked questions of staff relating to the sites inventory methodology; definition of “preservation” of housing units, and whether executive office zoning allowed residential uses.

Public Comments:

Members of the public, Raayan Mohtashemi, Ken Abreu and Martin Wiggins addressed the Commission, raising concerns relating to sites inventory methodology; exploring more aggressive policies for funding and lowering cost of development; workforce needs, under the Carpenters Union, to build the housing; and Measure Y constraints.

Jordan Grimes expressed disappointment that the Housing Element Draft doesn’t promote housing inventory based on the sites inventory and realistic housing goals.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 4/26/22 2 Commissioner Comments:

Discussion ensued regarding the methodology used for the sites inventory, including the need to bolster the analysis to support the inclusion of each site; concerns about including Target site and recently established restaurant sites, inclusion of smaller sites and sites within 500 feet of freeways, a site under the County’s groundwater protection program; and concerns about anecdotal conversations regarding property owner intent for some of the proposed sites.

Commissioner Williams also provided comments relating to conserving and preserving existing housing stock.

Additional Commissioner comments focused on the AFFH narratives asking for significantly more history and background to analyze racially segregated concentrated areas of affluence, considering housing sites within the highest opportunity areas, addressing overcrowding and the history of disinvestment in certain areas, and prioritize addressing the history of segregation by analyzing city-controlled regulatory factors that has caused the situation.

Commissioners also provided comments on outdated, exclusionary CC&Rs and protecting/conserving existing housing stock in good repair.

At 11 pm there was a discussion among the Commissioners if they wanted to proceed with this item or continue to a date certain. The majority of the Commission favored a continuance.

The commission continued this item to a Special Planning Commission remote meeting on May 3, 2022 at 7 pm.

Moved: Nugent, Seconded: Ebneter
Ayes: Williams, Ebneter, Nugent, Patel
Noes: None

Absent: None

REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Planning Manager, Manira Sandhir provided updates on items for future Planning Commission meetings and provided information on Planning Commission handbook and upcoming trainings. She also provided a staff update related to the meeting being Assistant City Attorney Gabrielle Whelan’s last meeting, as she had accepted a role with another jurisdiction. Commissioner Patel confirmed she would be absent for the May 10, 2022, Planning Commission meeting.

Chair Williams confirmed she would be absent for the May 24, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting. There were no other reports from Chair, Commissioners or City Attorney.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:13 pm.

APPROVED BY:
___________________________________
Margaret Williams, Chair
SUBMITTED BY:
___________________________________
Mary Way, Administrative Assistant
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 5/3/22 1

COMMISSION MEMBERS
Margaret Williams, Chair
John Ebneter, Vice Chair
Adam Nugent
Seema Patel
vacant
City of San Mateo
Special Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
Tuesday, May 3, 2022
Remote 7:00 PM
Special Meeting
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org

CALL TO ORDER
This meeting is being held under the provisions of State of California Bill AB361; in which Brown Act regulations are relaxed to allow members to remote in due to the Coronavirus Covid-19 health emergency.

An announcement was made that attendees would not be able to watch a live feed of this meeting via Youtube due to technical issues but were able to see the meeting live via zoom and participate via zoom. It was confirmed through the City Attorney that this meeting could proceed as it met the Brown Act requirements.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
Remote: Chair Margaret Williams, Vice Chair John Ebneter, Adam Nugent, and Seema Patel

Absent: None

PUBLIC HEARING

1. Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element – CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 4.26.2022 Planning Manager, Manira Sandhir presented an overview of the past meeting, objectives for this meeting, and next steps. Feedback was requested on components of the Draft Housing Element 2023-2031 including Other Housing Elements Sections, and the Goals, Policies, and Programs including the action plan for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Policies and Programs (AFFH).

Commissioner Questions:

Commissioners had not questions of staff.

Public Comments:

Members of the public, Kalisha Webster, Senior Housing Advocate and Carol Eldridge with One San Mateo addressed the Commission, regarding supporting policies for accessible housing to address reasonable accommodation for physical and/or mental disabilities; and concerns regarding Measure Y imposed constraints, sites inventory methodology and exclusion of R1 (single-family) zoned neighborhoods.

Commissioners commented on the following items:

The Commission provided several comments relating to strengthening the Constraints Analysis and the Quantified Objectives. The Commission also provided extensive feedback on the Goals, Policies and Programs, including to strengthen the terminology and any non-committal language with firm targets and commitments such as for family housing, missing middle housing, looking at funding options such as vacancy taxes etc., expanding tenant protection, creating new goal to eliminate disparity and overcrowding, longer deed restrictions, special needs, housing, Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 5/3/22 2
achieving health and housing parity, address R1-zoned neighborhoods and provide parity of amenities, Bridgepoint condominiums preservation, u- zoning the entire city, and creating objective architectural goals.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 pm.

APPROVED BY:
___________________________________
Margaret Williams, Chair
SUBMITTED BY:
___________________________________
Mary Way, Administrative Assistant

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Amourence Lee
Joe Goethals
Eric Rodriguez

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Special Meeting Minutes
City Council
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
May 23, 2022
In Person and Remote 5:30 PM
Special Meeting

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call: Mayor Bonilla, Deputy Mayor Papan, Council Members: Lee, Goethals and Rodriguez

PUBLIC HEARING

1. Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Public Hearing
Zachary Dahl, Deputy Director, provided a presentation to Council which included an explanation of the methodology for estimating development potential for the sites inventory, which is expected to evolve and change. He provided an overview of the quantified objectives, and the public outreach and engagement process, and further explained how public participation helped influence the development of the Draft Housing Element.

He noted Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant, was participating remotely and would be available to answer questions as needed.

Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager, explained additional required components and goals, policies, and actions; she summarized public comments received to date, shared the Planning Commission perspective and reviewed the timeline for the process.

Council asked questions of staff including additional information on the sites inventory methodology, inquired about the consultant’s experience and thanked staff for their efforts on preparing the Draft Housing Element.

Public Comments – Tom Taber supported building more housing and fewer office buildings; Michael from Local 217 Foster City stated encouraged labor standards and well-paying jobs are needed; Ken Abreu from local chapter of the Sierra Club restated elements from submitted letter; Karen Herrel stated concern that there seems to be a desire for the Housing Element to fail and why there is still a push for R1 districts; Lisa Diaz Nash supported the proposed Housing Element; Jennifer Martinez read remarks from Carol Steinfeld noted the history of racial segregation through housing; Noelle Langmack concern that there is no rezoning required to achieve housing numbers; Michael Weinhauer stated trickle down housing does not work; Sean stated concern for green space and parks in the planning; Karyl Eldridge commented on historical racial issues; Jordan Grimes noted deficiencies with lack of rezoning in the element; Justin Alley, One San Mateo, noted the City is not following the law; and Jeremy Levine, Housing Leadership Council, noted two letters provided to the City with their recommendations.

Councilmembers complimented staff on the presentation and follow-up responses to questions, and provided individual comments, which included concerns with Commissioner use of their title when providing individual comments, review of the demographic trends narrative to ensure that historical segregation and displacement were appropriately reflected, the need for more affordable home ownership opportunities, the importance of planning for the housing needs of our ‘silver tsunami’ population and homeless population, the importance of keeping the Housing Element adoption on schedule to maintain funding opportunities and that staff should explore the feasibility of the City achieving a Pro Housing designation from the State.

Staff revisited various comments that were heard to confirm Council consensus on the topics raised, including evaluating minimum residential requirements in mixed-use zoning districts, prioritizing senior housing, evaluating 




 








parking standards for sites near transit, and exploring ways to support non-profits and faith-based organizations that want to produce affordable housing.

ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Rick Bonilla, Mayor Joan P. Diskin, Deputy City Clerk 




 








SUBMBBMBBMBBMITITITITTETETETEDDDD BYBYBYBY::::

Joanaaanaaanaaan PPPP. DiDiDiDiskkkkskskskiiiniininiin, DeDeDeDeppupuputtytyty CCCCitititityyy ClClClCleeeereeeeee k City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 11/07/2022 Page 1

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Amourence Lee
Joe Goethals
Eric Rodriguez

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Special Meeting Minutes
City Council
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
November 7, 2022
Council Chambers 5:30 PM
Special Meeting

CALL TO ORDER -
Roll Call

Present: Mayor Bonilla, Council Members: Lee, Goethals and Rodriguez

Deputy Mayor Papan arrived at 5:35 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION
Following the opportunity for public comment, there were no speakers, the City Council convened into Closed Session at 5:32 p.m. to consider:

1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, Workers' Compensation (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Name of claimant: William Davenport

The City Council reconvened at 5:43 p.m.

STUDY SESSION
Following the opportunity for public comment, there were no speakers, the City Council convened into Closed Session to consider:

2. Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Study Session
Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Housing Manager, provided a presentation on the history of the Housing Element effort.

Zachary Dahl, Deputy Director of Community Development, provided an overview of the 91 comments received, outlined the activity that needs to take place for the eight-year housing element cycle, and explained the next steps in the process. He requested direction on 13 comments called out regarding responses to the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s comment letter on the City’s Draft Housing Element.

Council asked questions of staff. Staff and Consultant Diana Elrod responded to questions. Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney, responded to question regarding exposure to lawsuit.

Public Comment – Ken Abreu expressed the need to deal with the housing crisis on a regional basis. Jeremy Levine stated this Council is not moving in a direction to make substantial changes. Karyl Eldridge, One San Mateo, commented on impact of non-dense housing on affordability. Mitch Speigle spoke of implementation issues. Jordan Grimes stated there are a myriad of issues with the staff report.

Council asked additional questions of staff.

The City Council convened to the Regular Meeting at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened to the Study Session at 10:41 p.m.

Further discussion ensued and staff felt confident in moving forward with Council recommendations. 







 







City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 11/07/2022 Page 2 ADJOURNMENT – After a moment of silence, the meeting adjourned in honor of Lory Lorimar Lawson, Margaret Donnellan, and Linda McCoy at 11:34 p.m.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Rick Bonilla, Mayor Patrice Olds, City Clerk 







 







SUBMITTED BY:

Patrice Olds
,
City Clerk
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/12/23 1

COMMISSION MEMBERS
Margaret Williams, Chair
John Ebneter, Vice Chair
Adam Nugent
Seema Patel
Martin Wiggins
City of San Mateo
Special Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
Thursday, January 12, 2023
Hybrid 6:00 PM
Special Meeting Adjourned
Main Library – Oak Room
55 W. 3rd Avenue
San Mateo CA 94402
www.cityofsanmateo.org

CALL TO ORDER
This meeting was held pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Orders which suspended certain requirements of the Brown Act. The meeting was open to in person and remote attendance.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

Present: Vice Chair John Ebneter, Commissioners Adam Nugent and Seema Patel

Absent: Chair Margaret Williams, Commissioner Martin Wiggins

PUBLIC HEARING

1. General Plan Amendment to Adopt the City of San Mateo's Housing Element for 2023-2031 Deputy Director, Zachary Dahl, Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager, Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, and Housing Consultant, Diana Elrod, presented an overview of the Housing Element.

Commissioner Questions:

Commissioners asked clarifying questions on California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and self-certification, HCD guidance, HCD review letter, data on units approved and not completed during the 5th Cycle Housing Element, overview of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, completion of permitted and rented Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), pipeline housing projects, status of the Concar Passage project, and programs that increase housing production. Commissioners also asked clarifying questions on the Builder's Remedy, Measure Y, legal ramifications of the Housing Element, statutory compliance, substantial evidence, litigation, Appendix E, Appendix B, effects of land and construction costs, the reclassification of housing from a Special Use to a Permitted Use, grants for state funding, funding and sites for affordable housing units, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements, feasibility of properties on the sites inventory, and realistic capacity estimates and methodology.

Public Comments:

Kenneth Do addressed the Commission with support for the Housing Element because there is housing for all income levels. The following public commenters addressed the Commission with concern about the Housing Element: Karyl Eldridge, Jennifer Martinez, Mitch Speigle, Jordan Grimes, Ali Sapirman, Kenneth Do, CJ Higley, Louise Duncalf, and Moises Villeda. Public commenters cited reasons for concern included the need to strengthen tenant protections, need for more housing funding, lack of compliance with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements, better address zoning constraints, long-term leases impacting redevelopment feasibility, substantial compliance with state law, sites inventory deficiencies, location of housing developments, and lack of labor standards.

Commissioner Comments:











 
 

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/12/23 2 Commissioners expressed concern for specific sites on the site inventory and their realistic capacity, need for more aggressive polices and programs, housing production estimates not realistic, lack of rezoning to increase housing opportunities, lack of compliance with AFFH requirements, need to plan for more affordable housing in high opportunity areas, and the revised Housing Element does not fully address HCD’s comments or meet all statutory requirements. Commissioners suggested adding policies to support living wages and labor standards and improve tenant displacement protections, include specific metrics and milestones in the programs, and increase incentives for housing development.

The Commission moved to recommend that the City Council decline to adopt the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element, based on the following findings:
a. The Sites Inventory does not include substantial evid ence to demonstrate realistic capacity and housing development feasibility for all of the identified opportunity sites; b. The Fair Housing Plan does not fully address all Affi rmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements; c. The Housing Element does not adequately address the Ci ty’s constraints to housing production necessary to meet its RHNA; and
d. The goals, policies and programs have not be en sufficiently updated to address HCD comments.

Moved: Nugent, Seconded: Patel
Ayes: None
Noes: Ebneter, Nugent, and Patel

Absent: Williams and Wiggins

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 pm.

APPROVED BY:
___________________________________
John Ebneter, Vice Chair
SUBMITTED BY:
___________________________________
Ashley Snodgrass, Administrative Assistant











 
 

City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 1/24/2023 Page 1

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Special Meeting Minutes
City Council
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org

January 24, 2023
City Hall Council Chambers 6:00 PM
Special Meeting
CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 p.m.

Roll Call

Present: Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, Council Members: Hedges, Loraine, and Newsom

CEREMONIAL

1. Human Trafficking Prevention Month – Proclamation - Ruth Robinson, Sisters Against Slavery, and Participant with San Mateo County Human Trafficking Initiative received the proclamation.

NEW BUSINESS

2. General Plan Amendment to Adopt the City of San Mateo's Housing Element for 2023-2031 Eloiza Murillo Garcia, Housing Manager, and Zach Dahl, Community Development Deputy Director, and Housing Consultant Diane Elrod provided a presentation on an overview of the Housing Element process and actions taken to address HCD comments from the first submittal that was provided. They reviewed changes to the plan and responses to the comments.

Council recessed from 6:55 pm to 7:00 pm.

Council asked additional questions of staff.

Public Comment (37) – in support of submitting the recommended housing plan or with suggestions to continue to modify it to provide housing. In Person (12): Ken Abreu, Sierra Club; Daniel Shefen; Edward Evans; Michael Ragan; Tom Lease; Karyl Eldridge; Ted McKinnon; Mitch Speigle; Jeff LaMont; Dennis Keane; Fernando Pena, SAMCAR; and Karim Sarrat, SAMCAR & SFR owners. Remote (25): Ali Sapirman; Rick Bonilla; Ronnie Eaton; Laurie Watanuki; Mareva Godfrey; Lisa Taner; Lisa Vande Voorde; Andrea; Martha Park; Robert Whitehair; Daniel Schorr; Frances Souza; Connie W.; George; Rick Sakuda; Robin Gage; Jordan Grimes; Jacqueline; Angelina Soldatos; Laurie; Rhovy Lyn Antonio; Paul Beaudreau; Peter Mandle; George; and Adam Alberti.

Council asked additional questions of staff. Discussion ensued including concern with the Builder’s Remedy; Planning Commission actions; continue to work with HCD; share and bring HCD requested modifications to Council as soon as possible; concern with fines and deadlines; and the importance of supporting this draft to keep moving forward. Overall consensus expressed was to approve the staff recommendation with the amendment Motion to Adopt a Resolution, as amended to include the supplemental sites, to approve a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element for the Sixth Housing Cycle (2023-2031) that is compliant with State law, provides a plan for at least 7,015 new housing units and affirmatively furthers fair housing, and determine that adoption of the Housing Element is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, based on the listed findings included in Attachment 3. Motion passed 5-0. 











City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 1/24/2023 Page 2 Moved: Hedges, Seconded: Diaz Nash
Ayes: Lee, Diaz Nash, Hedges, Loraine, and Newsom
Noes: None

Enactment: Resolution No. 11 (2023)
ADJOURNMENT –The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. following a moment of silence for those victims of gun violence in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Amourence Lee, Mayor Patrice Olds, City Clerk 











SUBMITTED BY:

Patrice Olds, City Clerk
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 4/17/2023 Page 1

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Regular Meeting Minutes
City Council Meeting
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
April 17, 2023
City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 PM
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER at 7:10 p.m.

Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call

Present: Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, Council Members: Hedges, Loraine and Newsom

CEREMONIAL

1. Fair Housing Month – Proclamation - Josie Fulton, Fair Housing Coordinator, received the proclamation

2. City of San Mateo – Volunteer Recognition – Denise Garcia, City Manager Management Analyst, recognized the following outstanding volunteers for going above and beyond and deserving of our gratitude: Randy Raphael, Walter Hu, Loren Coleman, Karrie Mitchell, and Kacey Seemiller-Mitchell

CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items, 3 through 24, were considered to be routine by the City Council. After the titles of the items were read by the Deputy City Clerk, the public was invited to comment and there were no speakers. Motion passed 5-0.

Moved: Newsom, Seconded: Loraine
Ayes: Lee, Diaz Nash, Hedges, Loraine, and Newsom
Noes: None

3. City Council Meeting Minutes - Approval
Approve the minutes of the special and regular meetings of April 3, 2023.

4. Measure S Oversight Committee Appointment Subcommittee – Appointment Recommendation Appoint to the Measure S Oversight Committee: William Yang and Karen Moen for a partial term from April 17, 2023 through June 10, 2026; Sandy Shepler for a partial term from April 17, 2023 through June 10, 2024; and Nick Atkeson for a full term commencing on June 10, 2023.

5. Senior Citizens Appointment Subcommittee – Appointment Recommendation Appoint Thomas Lease to the Senior Citizens Commission for a partial term from April 17, 2023 through June 10, 2025.

6. Library Board Appointment Subcommittee – Appointment Recommendation Appoint to the Library Board: Wendy McCall for a partial term from April 17, 2023 through June 10, 2024; Sheila Canzian for a partial term from April 17, 2023 through June 10, 2025; Richard Wysong for a full term beginning June 10, 2023. Place Meredith Nassihi and Marni Gerber on the eligibility list for one year, should another vacancy on the Library Board occur. 
















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 4/17/2023 Page 2

7. City Council Priority List – Adoption
Adopt the City Council Priority List for fiscal year 2023-24.

8. San Mateo County Exposition and Fair Association and the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department – Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement
Approve an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding with the San Mateo County Exposition and Fair Association and the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department related to payment for services provided by the City of San Mateo and the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department; and approve an agreement with the San Mateo County Exposition and Fair Association related to San Mateo Police Department-specific services; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements in substantially the form presented.

9. Planet Equity Group, LLC Professional Finance and Human Resources Services – Amendment Approve Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Planet Equity Group, LLC approving an assignment of the agreement from Planet Equity Group, LLC to Planet Professional, LLC for professional finance and human resources services; approve an increase of the budget for the agreement in the amount of $67,500.01 for a new agreement total of $167,500; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

10. Annual Investment Policy – Approval
Adopt a Resolution to approve the City of San Mateo 2023 Investment Policy.

Enactment: Resolution No. 38 (2023)

11. Department of Information Technology – Classification Updates Adopt a Resolution to approve: 1) the new classification of Customer Service Manager; 2) the job specification and salary range for the classification of Customer Service Manager; 3) the reclassification of the incumbent in the Technical Support Supervisor position to a Customer Service Manager; and 4) the elimination of the Technical Support Supervisor classification.

Enactment: Resolution No. 39 (2023)

12. Tree Pruning, Maintenance, and Emergency Removal Services Agreement – Amendment Approve Amendment No. 2 to the agreement with Peninsula Tree Care, Inc. for tree pruning, maintenance, and emergency removal services for an additional $100,000 for a new total agreement amount not to exceed amount of $350,000; and authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

13. California Board of State and Community Corrections Officer Wellness and Mental Health Program – Grant Appropriation
Adopt a Resolution to accept and appropriate $75,122.84 received from the California Board of State and Community Corrections Officer Wellness and Mental Health Program to the Police Grant Fund Budget for fiscal year 2022-23; and authorize the Chief of Police to expend the funds.

Enactment: Resolution No. 40 (2023)

14. AB 481 Annual Military Equipment Report – Approval
Approve the Annual Military Equipment Report per California Assembly Bill No. 481. 
















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 4/17/2023 Page 3

15. School Crossing Guards 2023-24 – Agreement
Approve an agreement with the San Mateo-Foster City School District for school crossing guards in the amount of $78,000 and authorize the Chief of Police to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

16. Police Duty Weapon Replacement – Agreements
Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternative purchasing procedure and to approve agreements with LC Action Police Supply for $110,092.18 and Stacatto 2011 for $115,201.61 for the procurement of replacement duty weapons for the San Mateo Police Department in an amount totaling $225,293.79; and authorize the Chief of Police to execute the agreements in substantially the form presented.

Enactment: Resolution No. 41 (2023)

17. County of San Mateo Human Services Agency – Access and Use Agreement Approve an agreement with the County of San Mateo’s Human Services Agency to allow two licenses to use the Clarity Human Services system network, a Homeless Management Information System, by the Police Department’s Homeless Outreach Team workers, and authorize the Chief of Police to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

18. City of Foster City Usage of Police Firing Range Facilities – Agreement Approve an agreement with the City of Foster City for use of the San Mateo Police Department firing range for an hourly rate of $65 with a term through June 30, 2026, and authorize the Chief of Police to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

19. City of San Bruno Usage of Police Firing Range Facilities – Agreement Approve an agreement with the City of San Bruno for use of the San Mateo Police Department firing range for an hourly rate of $65 with a term through June 30, 2026, and authorize the Chief of Police to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

20. Kingridge Sewer Line Improvement Mitigation Site Project – Amendment Approve an amendment to the agreement with H.T. Harvey and Associates for environmental engineering services for the Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvement Mitigation Site project at Laurelwood Park in an amount not to exceed $24,229, for a total agreement amount of $110,174; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

21. Coyote Point and Poplar Pump Stations Design Services – Amendment Approve Amendment No. 5 to the agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler for additional scope and services for the Coyote Point and Poplar Avenue Pump Stations project in an amount not to exceed $89,500 for a total agreement amount of $1,407,580; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

22. Downtown Parking Equipment Network Hosting and Materials – Amendment Approve Amendment No. 1 for professional services with IPS Group, Inc. to provide parking equipment network hosting and materials, increase the agreement amount by $100,000 for a revised agreement total of $400,000, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

23. Multihog Compact Multi-Purpose Sweeper – Purchase Contract Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternative purchasing procedure; and to approve a purchase contract with Municipal Maintenance Equipment, Inc. for the purchase of one (1) new Multihog CV 350 Compact 
















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 4/17/2023 Page 4 Multi-Purpose Sweeper in the amount of $173,912.04; establish a contingency reserve in the amount of $35,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the purchase contract in substantially the form presented.

Enactment: Resolution No. 42 (2023)

24. Assembly Bill 838 California Water Affordability and Infrastructure Transparency Act of 2023 - Letter of Support
Authorize the Mayor to send a letter of support from City Council regarding Assembly Bill 838 - California Water Affordability and Infrastructure Transparency Act of 2023.

PUBLIC COMMENT
In person (17): Speaking with concern for Mayor Lee’s actions and asking for consequences: Michael Weinhauer; Taso Zografos; Lisa Taner; Lisa Vande Voorde; Andrew Sevillia; Jeff Lamont; Mitch Speigle; Ronnie Eaton; Thomas Morgan; Maurine Killough; Virginia McIsaac; Owen Day; Chris Brousseau. Nancy Schneider spoke in support of Lee. Linda Bauld and Gerald Moreno spoke in support of trash pick-up and a ban on leaf blowers. Dave Cohen, Ethics San Mateo, stated a need to establish an ethics commission. Remote (10) speaking with concern for Mayor Lee’s actions: Richard Neve; Chris Cavigioli; and John Brook. Speaking of concern with the tenor and tone of the accusations: Vikas Maturi. Speaking in support of Mayor Lee: Dan Schonberg and Jordan Grimes.

Speaking with concern of the generator running
overnight at 1400 Fashion Island Boulevard: Stu Bruins; Willa Falk; Karen Moen; and Joyce.

OLD BUSINESS

25. Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element Study Session
Zach Dahl, Deputy Community Development Director, and Diana Elrod, Consultant, provided a presentation reviewing the background, work, meetings and public engagement since 2020. Staff requested direction on how to respond to the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD’s) second comment letter dated March 27, 2023 on the City’s Adopted Housing Element. Council asked questions of staff.

Public Comment – In person (1): Ted McKinnon stated the City of San Mateo has to properly hear HCD and take into account failure to overturn Measure Y. Remote (4): Michael Weinhauer commented that the HCD has way too much power and needs to be challenged; Jordan Grimes stated we do not have a compliant housing element right now, take Bridgepoint off of the inventory; Jennifer Martinez urged staff to move quickly and do what HCD is asking to be done; Vikas Maturi also urged to comply with housing element law.

Council recessed from 9:49 p.m. to 9:57 p.m.

Council deliberation ensued with consensus for staff to return with a study session concerning quasi-public sites for affordable housing, affordable housing overlay, updated sites inventory capacity, method for allowing smaller housing projects to be approved administratively, and potential parking standard reductions/modifications.

Council also expressed interest in hearing draft language of what Measure Y would look like in terms of the updated policy and programs and what elimination of the pre-app would look like in the development review process.

REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members reported on their various assignments and liaison roles. Newsom expressed concern with generator at 1400 Fashion Island Boulevard. Hedges suggested having study sessions regarding Life Science projects. Corbett informed that once all the community meetings regarding the December 31 st flood have
been completed, the item will return to Council.

















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 4/17/2023 Page 5 Diaz Nash had several items: First, she was in Sacramento to advance cause of permanent funding mechanism for affordable housing. Second, the 29th of April San Mateo celebrates National Library week with festivities and a dinner.

Finally, in response to all the public comments received tonight regarding the recent District Attorney’s report on the vote trading allegations, she requested to add an item to the next agenda to determine what can, or, should be done about the results of the report. It would be an opportunity to also have a conversation about strengthening the City’s code of conduct for Council and Boards and Commissions. There was a 3-2 consensus to do so.

ADJOURNMENT –The meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Amourence Lee, Mayor Patrice Olds, City Clerk 
















SUBMITTED BY:

Patrice Olds, City Clerk
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 6/5/2023 Page 1

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Regular Meeting Minutes
City Council Meeting
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org

June 5, 2023
City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 PM
Regular Meeting

CALL TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m.

Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call

Present: Deputy Mayor Diaz Nash, Counc il Members: Hedges, Loraine and Newsom

Absent: Mayor Lee due to family illness

CEREMONIAL

1. Immigrant Heritage Month – Proclamation - Megan Gosch, County of San Mateo Immigrant Services, received the proclamation.

2. Pride Month – Proclamation - Craig Weisner, County of San Mateo LGBTQ Commission, received the proclamation.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items, 3 through 4 and 6 through 26, were considered to be routine by the City Council. Items 5, 27, and 28 were removed to be considered separately. After the titles of the items were read by the Deputy City Clerk, the public was invited to comment and there were no speakers. Motion passed 4-0.

Moved: Hedges, Seconded: Newsom
Ayes: Diaz Nash, Hedges, Loraine, and Newsom
Noes: None

3. City Council Meeting Minutes - Approval
Approve the minutes of the special and regular meetings of May 15, 2023.

4. City Council 2023 Regular Meeting Calendar Update – Adoption Adopt the updated City Council regular meeting schedule to re-establish the regular City Council meeting originally scheduled for October 2, 2023.

6. Summer Camp Bus Transportation – Agreement
Approve an agreement with First Student, Inc. to provide bus transportation services for City of San Mateo summer camps from June 12, 2023 through August 11, 2023 for a contract amount of $118,272; establish a contingency reserve of 10%; and authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 6/5/2023 Page 2

7. Fiscal Year 2023-24 General Obligation Bond – Tax Rate Levy Adopt a Resolution to levy the property tax rate of $0.0057 per $100 of assessed value, equating to $5.70 per $100,000 assessed value), for the voter-approved General Obligation Bond annual debt service payment.

Enactment: Resolution No. 49 (2023)

8. Wastewater Treatment Plant Supply of Sodium Bisulfite – Change Order Approve Contract Change Order No. 1 with Univar Solutions USA, Inc., to increase the supply of sodium bisulfite by 20,000 gallons, for an amount not to exceed $32,340, for a total agreement amount of $355,734; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the change order in substantially the form presented.

9. Wastewater Treatment Plant Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite – Change Order Approve Contract Change Order No. 1 with Univar USA, Inc., to increase the supply of sodium hypochlorite by 20,000 gallons for an amount not to exceed $32,704, for a total agreement amount of $523,254; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the change order in substantially the form presented.

10. Wastewater Treatment Plant Supply of Chemicals – Contracts Award chemical supply contracts to: 1) Hasa, Inc. to supply sodium hypochlorite in the amount of $957,027; 2) Univar Solutions USA, Inc. to supply sodium bisulfite in the amount of $404,517; and 3) Kemira Water Solutions, Inc. for the supply of ferric chloride in the amount of $312,212; establish 10% contingency reserves for each contract; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the contracts in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amounts.

11. Wastewater Treatment Plant Supply of Liquid Emulsion Polymer – Contract Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternative purchasing procedure to award a contract to SNF Polydyne for the supply of liquid emulsion polymer in the amount of $405,613; establish a 10% contingency reserve; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the contract in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amount.

Enactment: Resolution No. 50 (2023)

12. Wastewater Treatment Plant Immediate Action Projects, Package III – Amendment Approve Amendment No. 5 to the professional services agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. to provide engineering services during construction for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Immediate Action Projects Package III Project and increase the budget by $422,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,521,495; increase the contingency reserve by an amount of $42,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amount.

13. Hillsdale Caltrain Station Bicycle Access Gap Closure Project – Amendment Adopt a Resolution to authorize an appropriation in the amount of $93,948 of Measure A funds to the Hillsdale Caltrain Station Bicycle Access Gap Closure project; amend the agreement with Bellecci & Associates, Inc. for the Hillsdale Caltrain Station Bicycle Access Gap Closure project to increase the agreement amount by $93,948 for a new total not to exceed $246,948; increase the contingency amount by $88,255 for new contingency total of $98,255; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amount.

Enactment: Resolution No. 51 (2023)

















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 6/5/2023 Page 3

14. California Transportation Commission Local Streets and Roads – Project List Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopt a Resolution to submit a list of projects proposed to be funded with the Road Repair and Rehabilitation Account, Senate Bill 1 funding, to the California Transportation Commission for fiscal year 2023-24.

Enactment: Resolution No. 52 (2023)

15. On-Call Professional Consultant Services – Amendments Approve Amendment No. 2 to extend the term of individual on-call professional consultant services agreements for no additional cost with Wilsey Ham, HDR Engineering, Inc., and Bellecci & Associates until December 31, 2025; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute future no-cost amendments.

16. Citywide Street Reconstruction Phase 4 – Agreement and Budget Transfer Adopt a Resolution to authorize a budget transfer from Citywide Street Reconstruction Package 1 to Citywide Street Reconstruction Package 3 in the amount of $410,000; affirm a requested bid relief from Ghilotti Bros, Inc.; approve an agreement with McGuire and Hester for the Citywide Street Reconstruction Phase 4 Project in the amount of $6,259,358; establish a contingency reserve in the amount of $630,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amount.

Enactment: Resolution No. 53 (2023)

17. Citywide Street Rehabilitation Package 5B – Agreement Approve an agreement with MNS Engineers, Inc. for design services in an amount not to exceed $585,000; establish a contingency reserve of $58,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and approve amendments within the contingency amount.

18. Bermuda Drive Bridge Replacement Project Pacific Gas & Electric – Grant of Easement Adopt a Resolution to grant an Easement Deed to Pacific Gas & Electric and authorize the City Manager to execute the Easement Deed.

Enactment: Resolution No. 54 (2023)

19. State of California Department of Transportation Delegated Maintenance Agreement – Amendment Adopt a Resolution approving Amendment No. 4 to the Delegated Maintenance Agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation for maintenance of State Highways in the City of San Mateo to reduce the scope of the City’s maintenance responsibilities within Caltrans’s right-of-way along State Route 92 and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

Enactment: Resolution No. 55 (2023)

20. Fleet Maintenance Services – Amendment
Approve Amendment No. 5 to extend the agreement with First Vehicles Services, Inc. for year four (4) of five (5) optional one-year extensions for fleet maintenance services in the amount of $898,343 for a new agreement total of $6,963,517.81; include $200,000 for additional compensation for services that exceed the base level established in the agreement; establish a contingency reserve in the amount of $100,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amount.
















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 6/5/2023 Page 4

21. Workers' Compensation Program Third Party Administration – Agreement Award an agreement to LWP Claims Solutions, Inc. for third party administration of the City's self-insured workers' compensation program for a three-year term in the amount of $740,907 with an option to extend it for additional two years in the amount of $530,194 (for a total amount of $1,271,101), and authorize the Human Resources Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

22. California State Library Parks Pass Grant – Budget Appropriation Adopt a Resolution to approve a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $44,634 for a grant awarded by the California State Library to the San Mateo Public Library to support the State Parks Are For Everyone! program.

Enactment: Resolution No. 56 (2023)

23. California Library Literacy Services – Budget Appropriation Adopt a Resolution to approve a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $55,092 for a grant awarded by the California State Library to the San Mateo Public Library to support the Project Read Literacy Program.

Enactment: Resolution No. 57 (2023)

24. Minimum Wage Enforcement Services – Notice to Extend Agreement Approve a notice to extend the agreement with City of San Jose's Office of Equality Assurance for minimum wage ordinance enforcement services in the amount of $30,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the notice in substantially the form presented.

25. San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District (SFPTMD) Formation – Approval Adopt a Resolution granting consent to the City of Burlingame to form the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District (SFPTMD) and include the City of San Mateo within the boundaries of the district.

Enactment: Resolution No. 58 (2023)

26. Interim City Manager – Appointment
Adopt a Resolution to approve the appointment of Christina Horrisberger as the Interim City Manager.

Enactment: Resolution No. 59 (2023)

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

5. Senior Transportation "Get Around" Program – Agreement Council Member Hedges pulled this item to provide comments on the Get Around Ride program stating disabled under the age of 65 should be included in the program.

Public Comment – Rick Bonilla supports Rich Hedges suggestion. Mike said he supports this item but believes it is underfunded.

Motion to Approve an agreement with Serra Yellow Cab of Daly City Inc. for the Senior Transportation “Get Around” program up to the amount of $150,000 for fiscal year 2023-24, with an option for the City to extend the agreement for fiscal year 2024-2025 for up to $150,000 for a potential contract total of $300,000; and authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented. Motion passed 4-0. 















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 6/5/2023 Page 5

Moved: Hedges, Seconded: Newsom
Ayes: Diaz Nash, Hedges, Loraine, and Newsom
Noes: None

27. Letter of Apology – Council Approval
Council Member Loraine pulled this item and proposed to continue this item to the next Council meeting to rework the language as upon consideration he felt it may be too punitive.

Public Comment – Tom Lease expressed this letter should be coming from Mayor Lee and not a Council subcommittee. Cliff Robbins stated this letter is factually accurate and is not punitive; it is a long necessary and needed apology and it should be coming from the Mayor. Nicole Fernandez stated the letter is not punitive; and is disappointed for the request to soften the language and she requested the Council act tonight. Seema Patel supports issuing a broader apology noting the actions of all of the Council led to the actions on December 12, 2023. Owen Day remarked that Nash’s and Newsom’s actions were also wrong as well as Lee; apology letter necessary as the community needs to move forward. Dave Cohen, Ethics San Mateo, encouraged action should be taken on Mayor Lee. Michael Weinhauer commented the letter as proposed is not too punitive but rather is not nearly strong enough and should come from Mayor Lee.

Council discussion ensued.

Motion to approve a letter of apology to four members of the community for impacts related to the selection of the Mayor and the appointment of the fifth Councilmember in December 2022. Motion passed 4-0.

Moved: Newsom, Seconded: Hedges
Ayes: Diaz Nash, Hedges, Loraine, and Newsom
Noes: None

28. 100 N. Humboldt St. Property Owner Appeal – Statement of Decision Council Member Loraine pulled this item to allow more public comment on the issue.

Public Comment –

In person: Seema Patel stated the property owner did not submit any evidence that shifted the unsafe conditions of the property burden to the tenant and maintain the red tag ordinance as it is written. Organized presentation – One San Mateo: Jennifer Martinez, Imelda Navarro, Justin Alley, and Karyl Eldridge are opposed to the decision to grant the landlord the appeal citing this gives landlords more unfair advantage over tenants, especially those who are underserved. Kiana Simmons, Housing Leadership Council, stated the red tag ordinance was followed and should be enforced. Rick Bonilla declared upholding the appeal was the wrong decision - trust the staff; due process was the right to appeal for the landlord and asked Council to reverse the decision. Todd Blair stated this is not a court room and is not the proper venue, stated support for the landlord, and Code Enforcement is being weaponized. Rohin Ghosh, Tenants Together, stated tenant laws are only as good as the enforcement supporting them. Strict stated enforcement is needed, otherwise this invites harassment of tenants by landowners. Claire Mack stated uphold the appeal. Owen Day expressed the City Council should have held the landlord accountable as it was an open and shut case. Trina Pierce stated in her defense she had a lot of evidence and that Code Enforcement cherry picked information. Gina Papan, Attorney for Pierce, declared in the determination of liability; staff failed to consider the overwhelming evidence and opined that the Statement of Decision could show more more specific. Joanne Bennett stated that Pierce is not a slumlord. Noelia Corzo informed she respects Trina’s history in the neighborhood, but nothing explains a hole in the roof for so long and accountability is important. Marvin Hendrix cited there are bad tenants. Andrew Lomano stated to uphold the appeal and move on. Trina Pierce is not a slumlord.

















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 6/5/2023 Page 6

Remote: Cathy Baird requested to reverse the decision upholding the appeal. Dave Cohen does not support landlords who do not keep up the property. Ted McKinnon, One San Mateo, spoke about the intent of the red tag ordinance. Emily Morris stated that the 100 Humboldt tenants were her neighbors and were kind and she is deeply concerned about what will happen to tenants who complain about poor living conditions. Alexis Lewis stated do not impose this fee on Trina. 1650****663 (caller) commented Code Enforcement should start from scratch and uphold the appeal. Paul Cobanega inquired how do we protect tenants and how can we be better at helping a displaced family; should reverse the decision. Jean Saffo stated everything was fine and then the tenants moved in and tore the house up. Jordan Grimes said to reverse the decision. Rick Sakuda declared let’s just move on.

Council discussion ensued with additional questions of City Attorney Prasanna Rasiah noting the decision was done, and the item before them is to approve the Statement of Decision regarding the action taken at the June 5, 2023 public hearing.

Motion to Adopt a Statement of Decision granting the property owner’s appeal related to permanent relocation benefits to a tenant household who resided at 100 N. Humboldt Street. Motion passed 4-0.

Moved: Hedges, Seconded: Newsom
Ayes: Diaz Nash, Hedges, Loraine, and Newsom
Noes: None

Council recessed from 8:52 p.m. to 8:58 p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Organized Presentation from multiple neighborhoods affected by the December – January flooding requesting the critical need to dredge the lagoon before the next cycle of storms, noting it has been forty years since it was dredged and it should be done every 15 years, and get the funding now: Danielle Cwirko-Godycki, Rich Kranz, Mike Dillon, Mareva Godfrey, Michelle Michelle Cwirko-Godycki, Amy Jusell, Thomas Morgan, Susan Manheimer, and Valerie Oblath.

Anna Kuhre stated that the Heritage Alliance group wants to designate Baywood as an Historical District through the National Registry and most of the residents are not interested in historical designation for Baywood. Richard Delaney is against making an historical district. Jay Kuhre objects to registration of Baywood as a National Historic district. Shawn Fahrenbruch is against historic district designation for Baywood. Dustin Chase expressed the gas leaf blower ban is the right thing to do; use the electric tool instead. Kasey Schuh commented on the two school safety issues saying it is a community safety issue. Andrew Lomano directed attention to the San Mateo flag and pointed out the city seal shows the lagoon water; we need to protect it. Rick Sakuda advised the $8 fee will barely cover annual lagoon maintenance. External and internal funding need to be looked at.

PUBLIC HEARING

29. Sewer Rate Increase for Fiscal Years 2023-24 to 2027-28 – Ordinance Introduction Matt Fabry, Deputy Director of Public Works, provided a presentation on the proposed sewer rate increase noting that this public hearing is Proposition 218 Hearing to determine if a majority protest exists. He outlined the history of sewer rate increases, the schedule and next steps. Council asked questions of staff.

The Deputy Mayor opened the Public Hearing and invited any other protests to be delivered to the City Clerk before this hearing is closed.

Public Comment – Sandra Dillon commented the notice was confusing noting the public does not understand all of this. Danielle Cwirko-Godycki said the pamphlet was very confusing. Susan Manheimer stated this is an equity issue and asked are we being double billed.

















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 6/5/2023 Page 7

After public comment, the Mayor closed the public hearing and asked the Clerk if a majority protest exists.

The Clerk stated that all of the written protests to the proposed increase in the sewer rates for Fiscal Years 2023- 24 to 2027-28, there were 27,103 notices mailed to Property Owners on the tax roll and a majority would require one more than have that number or 13,552. The number of valid protests received is20. Based on that, it is clear that a majority of owners have not protested the fee increase and the Council is free to take action to increase or otherwise modify the fee.

Motion to introduce an ordinance to establish maximum sewer rates effective August 1, 2023 through June 30, 2028 pursuant to San Mateo Municipal Code Section 3.54.030 “Sewer Service Charges.” Motion passed 3-1.

Moved: Loraine, Seconded: Newsom
Ayes: Diaz Nash, Loraine, and Newsom
Noes: Hedges

30. Proposed 2023-24 Budget and 2023-28 Capital Improvement Program – Review Rich Lee, Finance Director, provided a presentation on the first of two public hearings on the 2023-24 budget and 2023-28 capital improvement program. Council asked questions of staff. Public Comment – there were no speakers. Mr. Lee explained he reports quarterly to Council regarding the budget to keep them informed and noted the formal adoption of the budget would be at the second Public Hearing at the June 20, 2023 City Council meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

31. 2023-2031 Housing Element Study Session
Zachary Dahl, Community Development Deputy Director, provided a presentation on the background of the Housing Element, HCD Housing Element letter overview, updated sites inventory methodology and capacity, Housing Element Policy updates and the next steps and tentative schedule. Council asked questions of staff.

Public Comment – Owen Day recommended to strive to complete an overly compliant housing element. Adam Klafter stated put Measure Y back on the ballot, put the density where it makes sense, we can achieve a vibrant housing here. Thomas Morgan spoke to base density. Ken Abreu expressed that housing is in crisis, crisis requires strong new bold action. Ted McKinnon commended staff on progress since the last study session and requested staff to please modify the tentative schedule to include Planning Commission involvement. Mitch Speigle suggested analyzing the compounding effect around R4 zoning for increased density. Jordan Grimes is concerned with the pipeline estimates.

Council recessed from 11:37 p.m. to 11:41 p.m.

Council asked additional questions of staff. Council comments and deliberation ensued with comments regarding adding a Planning Commission review to the Housing Element schedule, and concern with no parking within ½ mile of transit. Council was concerned with the timing constraints of adding a Planning Commission to this letter response.

Council by consensus, committed to completing the General Plan update process in 2024, put an updated Measure Y ballot initiative on the November 2024 election, have a backup plan if Measure Y ballot measure does not pass, eliminate the pre-application requirement for housing projects, update the Sites inventory methodology, consider a program for a quasi-public overlay or code amendment in 2025-26, increase the Administrative Approval threshold to 25 units, reduce parking requirements for housing projects to align with the State Density Bonus law, and maintain the current schedule for updating the Housing Element.

















City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 6/5/2023 Page 8

REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members reported on their various assignments and liaison roles. Council was in favor of investigating an outside organization to look into future tenant relocation issues and also interested in expanding the Senior Get-Around program.

CLOSED SESSION
Following the opportunity for public comment, there were no speakers, the City Council convened into Closed Session at 12:45 p.m. to consider:

32. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) – City Manager Compensation City designated representative: Mayor Amourence Lee
Unrepresented Employee: City Manager
ADJOURNMENT – Following a moment of silence, and prior to convening into Closed Session, the City Council read into the record an adjournment in memory of Library Board Trustee Don Hill and recognized his many contributions to the community, especially his focus on education. The meeting adjourned at 1:03 a.m.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Amourence Lee, Mayor Martin McTaggart, Deputy City Clerk 
















SUBMITTED
BY:

Martin McTaggart
,
Deputy
City Clerk
STABLE

RESIDENTIAL
STABLE

RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE

BUILDINGS
OFFICE
OFFICE

SAFEWAY

CALTRAIN
FOCAL
POINT
GATE
BOREL
SQUARE
FOCAL
POINT
1/4 MILE
FROM

CALTRAIN
1/2
MILE

HAYWARD
PARK

CALTRAIN

STATION

HAYWARD PARK /

BOREL SQUARE

POTENTIAL

STUDY AREA

STABLE USES
(not likely to change)
.
. Moderate-/High-Intensity

LOW-INTENSITY USES
(redevelopment opportunity)
.
. Retail & Office
.
. Industrial & Service Comm’l
27TH/BOVET CONNECTION
.
. Activity & Improvements

FOCAL POINT
.
. Activity & Identity
0’ 200’
August 12, 2019
/dzK&^EDd
KϮϬϯϭ ,Kh^/E'
>
D
Ed
ƉƉĞŶĚŝdž,Ͳ&
/d/KE>KDDhE/dzKhdZ
,K>>d
Z>Ed/s/d/
^
d,/^ ^
d/KEt^
dKd,/^WW
E/y&K>>Kt/E'd,
Z&d,Kh^/E'
>
D
Ed
^hD/dd
dK,/E:h>zϮϬϮϮ͘

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Housing Policies
Virtual Workshop
Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2021 from 6-8 p.m.

More info at: www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023 Take a quick survey!
Visit our web page or use your phone
camera to scan the QR code
¿Cómo se ve afectado por la falta de
viviendas asequibles en la Ciudad de San
Mateo? ¿Qué tipos de vivienda cree usted
que necesitamos más? ¡Estamos creando
un plan de vivienda a largo plazo y
queremos oir de usted!
Responda a una encuesta rápida o únase a
un taller en línea el
Martes, 2 de Noviembre de 2021.

Más información en:
“Why are our housing
prices so high, and what
can we do about it?”
“What types of
housing do we
need more of?”
“Where should new
housing be built?”
Contact the Housing Division:

[email protected]
(650) 522-7229
Learn about current affordable housing
and first-time home buyer programs at:
www.cityofsanmateo.org/Housing
www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023
¡Tome una encuesta rápida!
Visite nuestra página web o use la cámara de su
teléfono para escanear el código QR


City of San Mateo
Housing Plan

What can we do about the high cost of housing in San Mateo? How can we create housing that is more affordable while ensuring San Mateo is a great place to live? The City of San Mateo is working on its 8-year housing plan, also known as the Housing Element 2023-2031, that provides a roadmap to address housing needs of our community members.

Your input will help us prepare our Housing Element update, which will become part of the City’s General Plan. Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts. This information will remain confidential. THANK YOU!

WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY OF SAN
MATEO? Select all that apply
___I live here
___I work here
___I own a business here
___I own property here
___I am a visitor or patronize San Mateo businesses
___I am a leader/representative of an organization

IF YOU LIVE IN SAN MATEO, WHAT IS YOUR ZIP CODE?
____________

WHAT IS YOUR RACE OR ETHNICITY?
___White
___Asian
___Latino/Hispanic
___Black/African American
___Pacific Islander
___Mixed or Other

WHAT IS YOUR AGE GROUP?
___0-20 years
___20-35 years
___35-50 years
___50-65 years
___65+ years

GIVEN THAT THERE IS LIMITED LAND AVAILABLE, WHAT DO

YOU THINK ARE BEST STRATEGIES TO MANAGE
PRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING? Please select up to three
___Redeveloping existing properties that have potential for more housing.
___Create accessory units on existing single-family properties. ___Convert existing single-family houses into duplexes. ___Increase the allowable density in areas that are close to transit.
___Allow taller developments.
___Other (please describe)_____________________________ ___________________________________________________

HOW DOES THE CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION IN SAN
MATEO AFFECT YOU OR PEOPLE YOU KNOW?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

HOW CAN WE MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE?
Please select up to three

___Financial assistance programs for people who cannot afford housing.
___Public funding to construct affordable housing.
___Encourage the private sector to construct more affordable housing.
___Encourage conversion of single-family units to duplexes. ___Help homeowners add rentable units (ADUs).
___Build affordable housing near transit and jobs.
___Help homeless people find housing.
___Other (please describe)___________________________
_________________________________________________

ARE THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT HOUSING
YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE? _______________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING IN SAN MATEO:
www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023

WOULD YOU LIKE TO JOIN OUR MAILING LIST TO KEEP
CURRENT ON EVENTS?
Email address:_______________________________________

Version November 17, 2021



City of San Mateo
Plan de Vivienda

¿Qué podemos hacer con el alto costo de la vivienda en San Mateo? ¿Cómo podemos crear viviendas que sean más asequibles y al mismo tiempo garantizar que San Mateo sea un gran lugar para vivir? La Ciudad de San Mateo está trabajando en su plan de vivienda de 8 años, también conocido como Elemento de Vivienda 2023-2031, que proporciona un camino para abordar las necesidades de vivienda de los miembros de nuestra comunidad.

Su opinión nos ayudará a preparar nuestra actualización del Elemento de Vivienda, que se convertirá en parte del Plan General de la Ciudad. Le pedimos de favor que tome unos minutos para compartir lo que piensa. Esta información se mantendrá confidencial. ¡GRACIAS!

¿CUAL ES SU RELACION CON LA CIUDAD DE SAN MATEO?
Seleccione todas las que apliquen
___ Aquí vivo
___ Aquí trabajo
___ Soy propietario de un negocio aquí
___ Soy propietario de una casa aquí
___ Soy visitante o patrocino negocios de San Mateo
___ Soy un líder/representante de una organización

SI USTED VIVE EN SAN MATEO, ¿CUÁL ES SU CÓDIGO
POSTAL? ____________

¿CUÁL ES SU RAZA O ETNICIDAD?
___Blanco
___Asiático
___Latino/Hispano
___Negro/Afroamericano
___Nativo de Hawái o de otras islas del Pacífico
___2 o más razas u Otro

¿CUÁL ES SU GRUPO DE EDAD?
___0-20 Años
___20-35 Años
___35-50 Años
___50-65 Años
___65+ Años

DADO QUE HAY POCOS TERRENOS DISPONIBLES, ¿CUÁLES
ESTRATEGIAS PRODUCIRÍAN MÁS VIVIENDAS NUEVAS?
Seleccione hasta tres
___Reconstruir propiedades existentes con más viviendas. ___ Crear casitas adicionales en terrenos de casas individuales. ___ Convertir casas individuales en dúplex.
___ Aumentar la cantidad de viviendas permitidas en áreas cercanas a transporte público.
___ Permitir edificios más altos
___Otro (Describa)_____________________________________ ____________________________________________________

¿CÓMO LE AFECTA A USTED O A LAS PERSONAS QUE
CONOCE LA SITUACIÓN ACTUAL DE LA VIVIENDA EN SAN
MATEO?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

¿COMO PODEMOS HACER QUE LAS VIVIENDAS SEAN MAS
ECONÓMICAS? Seleccione hasta tres

___Asistencia financiera para personas que no pueden pagar vivienda.
___Financiamiento público para construir viviendas económicas. ___Fomentar que el sector privado construya viviendas
económicas.
___Fomentar la conversión de casas individuales a dúplex. ___Ayudar a los dueños de casas individuales a agregar casitas para alquilar en sus terrenos.
___Construir viviendas económicas cerca de transporte público y centros de trabajo.
___Ayudar a las personas sin hogar a encontrar vivienda. ___Otro (Describa) ___________________________________
____________________________________________________

¿TIENE ALGUNA OTRA IDEA SOBRE LA VIVIENDA QUE LE
GUSTARÍA COMPARTIR? ______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

MAS INFORMACIÓN:
www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023

¿LE GUSTARÍA UNIRSE A NUESTRA LISTA DE CORREO
PARA MANTENERSE AL DÍA SOBRE LOS EVENTOS?
Dirección de correo electrónico:___________________________ 

Version November 17, 2021

Share Your Thoughts on Draft Housing Element

The City has released the Draft Housing Element, its plan for how the City of San Mateo can accommodate at least 7,000 new homes over the next 8 years. It establishes goals, policies and programs to help address the City’s current and future housing needs. The 30-day public review period is open from April 6 through May 6, 2022. The Draft Housing Element is available for public review at City Hall and online at
www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023

Send written comments with subject line “Housing Element” x By email to: [email protected]
x By mail to: Planning Manager, City of San Mateo, Planning Division, 330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403
x Online: on our Draft Housing Element website

Attend an upcoming public hearing:
x Planning Commission – Tuesday, April 26 at 7 p.m.
x City Council – Monday, May 16 at 7 p.m.

The plan is guided by over a year of technical analysis and community engagement efforts and articulates five goals to shape policy and programs moving forward:
x Production: Facilitate the production of new housing, especially affordable housing. x Preservation: Preserve existing housing that is affordable to lower- and middle-income residents.
x Protection: Protect current residents to prevent displacement. x Promotion: Promote community engagement and public outreach. x Fair Housing: Ensure fair housing laws proactively protect residents.

For more information on the Draft Housing Element and to make a comment, please visit our Draft Housing Element at
www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023

San Mateo is also updating its General Plan, which will guide how the City will change over the next 20 years. Upcoming milestones include a City Council meeting to review the input received so far and provide direction on the preferred land use and circulation scenario. The meeting can be accessed online and is scheduled for 7:00 pm, April 18, 2022. More information at: strivesanmateo.org

CComparta sus pensamientos sobre el plan preliminar de elemento de vivienda

La Ciudad ha publicado el Plan Preliminar del proyecto Elemento de Vivienda, el plan sobre cómo la Ciudad de San Mateo puede acomodar al menos 7,000 casas nuevas en los próximos 8 años. Establece metas, políticas y programas para ayudar a abordar las necesidades de vivienda actuales y futuras de la Ciudad. El período de revisión pública de 30 días está abierto del 6 de Abril al 6 de Mayo de 2022. El Proyecto de Elemento de Vivienda está disponible para revisión pública en el Ayuntamiento y en línea en
www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023

Enviar comentarios escritos con la línea de asunto "Elemento de vivienda" x Por correo electrónico a: [email protected]
x Por correo a: Gerente de Planificación, Ciudad de San Mateo, División de Planificación, 330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403
x En línea: en nuestro sitio web Draft Housing Element

Asista a una próxima audiencia pública:
x Comisión de Planificación – Martes, 26 de Abril a las 7 p.m. x El Consejo Municipal – Lunes, 16 de Mayo a las 7 p.m.

El plan está guiado por más de un año de análisis técnico y esfuerzos de participación comunitaria y articula cinco objetivos para dar forma a las políticas y programas en el futuro:
x Producción: Facilitar la producción de vivienda nueva, especialmente vivienda asequible.
x Preservación: Preservar la vivienda existente que sea asequible para los residentes de ingresos bajos y medios.
x Protección: Proteger a los residentes actuales para evitar el desplazamiento. x Promoción: Promover la participación de la comunidad y la divulgación pública. x Vivienda justa: Garantizar que las leyes de vivienda justa protejan proactivamente a los residentes.

Para obtener más información sobre el Proyecto de Elemento de Vivienda y cómo hacer un
comentario, visite nuestro Borrador de Elemento de Vivienda en www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023

San Mateo también está actualizando su Plan General, que guiará cómo cambiará la Ciudad en los próximos 20 años. Los próximos hitos incluyen una reunión del Concejo Municipal para revisar los aportes recibidos hasta ahora y proporcionar orientación sobre el escenario preferido de uso y circulación de la tierra. La Reunión es accesible en línea y está programada para las 7:00 pm del 18 de Abril de 2022.

Más información en: www.strivesanmateo.org

Draft Housing Element: more information and make a comment at:

Proyecto Elemento de Vivienda: más información y hacer un comentario en:
www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023

Draft Housing Element: more information and make a comment at:

Proyecto Elemento de Vivienda: más información y hacer un comentario en:
www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023

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

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):

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. H- C-14)
HCD itself describes this as a “conservative” approach. (Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook
2, 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:
x 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.
x 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. x 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/community- development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf

x 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

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])

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

December 6, 2023

Mr. Thomas B. Mayhew
Mr. Charles J. Higley
Farella Braun and Martell
One Bush Street, Ste. 900
San Francisco, CA 94104

RE: Comment Letter on City of San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element

Dear Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Higley:

The City is in receipt of your letter dated November 16, 2023, on the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element 2023- 2031. We have reviewed your letter and would like to provide some information and clarification on the issues that were raised.

The letter discussed the City’s Housing Element and the analysis of housing development trends and asserted that the City changed the timeframe of recent housing development from 2017-2022 to 2019-present in order to hide less than favorable results. In fact, this change was made to better reflect projects being proposed and built under the City’s updated Inclusionary Policy, updated State Density Bonus provisions, various other new state housing laws as well as the economic changes brought on in the post-pandemic era, which has seen a large downturn in commercial and office development, with a corresponding increase in housing development. This change was made to be responsive to HCD comments and to align with HCD-accepted approaches contained in other Bay Area jurisdiction housing elements that have received certif ication. It can also be reasonably assumed that these conditions will continue throughout this Housing Cycle an d is a more appropriate approach to predict housing development trends in San Mateo.

In recent years, the City has not received any significant development proposals for commercial-only development. Most projects involve a residential component or are residential-only projects. Specifically, within the last four years (since 2019), out of the 24 major development applications that are under review or already approved, only two applications (8%) had no residential component. This represents a significant trend of converting excess commercial properties into mixed-use or residential uses consistent with the region and is expected to continue or accelerate in the future. More importantly, locally within San Mateo, the City’s Sites Inventory includes a substantial buffer beyond the allocated units under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) with the anticipated adoption of the City’s Gene ral Plan Update. The General Plan Update is addressed under Policy H1.20 in the Housing Element and would significantly increase allowable densities on approximately 1,200 parcels (over 560 acres) around the City from 50 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 99 du/ac or 130 du/ac.

General Plan Update adoption is anticipated beginning of 2024, with rezonings planned for 2025 and 2026.

In addition, the November 16
th letter cited the following six non-residential projects as examples that the City has overstated the likelihood of housing redevelopment on sites zoned for commercial and office uses:

CITY OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7000

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

1. 2164 Palm Ave: A new private tennis court building on a small lot in the C4 - Service Commercial District.

Housing is not compatible with the service commercial/light industrial uses allowed in the C4 District.

2. 3125 Clearview Way: Allowance of a food truck court on an existing parking lot of an existing office building (auxiliary to an existing use and not considered a redevelopment project).

3. Hillsdale Mall: Conversion of approximately 37,600 square feet of existing retail space in a very large shopping mall complex into office uses (not considered a redevelopment project).

4. 1050 S. Amphlett: Pre-application for a new self-storage building on a smaller, very narrow, lot directly adjacent to Highway 101 in the C4 - Service Commercial District.

5. 922 S. Claremont: Pre-application for a new self-storage building in the M1 - Manufacturing District.

Housing is not allowed in the M1 District.

6. 2 West 3rd/El Camino: Pre-application for a new three-story office building on a former gas station site.

Aside from number 6, none of these projects are considered a major redevelopment project and two of them would not even be considered a development project. Overall, as discussed above, these projects are in locations not very suitable for housing and are not that comparable to the mix sites included on the Sites Inventory. The sixth project, which would be considered a smaller redevelopment project at three stories and 20,000 square feet, is a recently submitted pre-application for a new office building on a former gas station site that is challenging to develop (it has been vacant for many years). This project is in the very early stages of development, and the final size and mix of uses may change. And to reflect this recen t proposal, the property is no longer on the City’s Sites Inventory.

For more accurate and reflective new development examples, here is a list of projects that are currently under review or recently approved that are located in commercial or office zones, significantly exceed the 90% realistic capacity being used in the Housing Element and have active existing uses that will be discontinued or incorporated into the new development. These projects, which have significant residential components, are much more representative of the new development that we are antici pating and working to facilitate over the next eight years.

Project Applic. Units Density (% of base) Zoning
477 E. Hillsdale Blvd. (Hillsdale Inn) Multi-Family PA22-021 230 150% C2 Block 21 (500 E. 3rd Ave.) Mixed-Use PA21-063 111 150% CBD/S 616 S. B Street, Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use PA22-037 48 150% C1/R5 477 9th Avenue, Mixed-Use PA22-047 120 150% E2
1855 S. Norfolk St., Multi-Family PA22-099 260 150% C1
Block 20 (500 E. 4th Ave.) Mixed-Use PA23-003 86 150% CBD/S Post + Beam (668 E. 3rd Ave.) Mixed-Use PA23-025 69 138% CBD/S 1919 O'Farrell Street Multi-Family PA20-037 49 135% E1/R4 Hayward Park Station (401 Concar Dr.) Multi-Family PA21-033 191 136% TOD Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use PA23-012 71 122% CBD/R

Finally, your letter raised concerns that the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) projections are too ambitious and suggested including 2018 permitting data in the average estimate, which would lower the annual target to 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

around 50 ADU permits. However, the City has already issued permits for 90 ADUs in 2023, which significantly exceeds the annual target of 55 ADU permits issued. Thus, the City appears to be on pace to meet or exceed its target of 440 ADU permits during this housing cycle, and is clear evidence that our estimated production is conservative and defensible. Our Housing Element policies also commit to tracking and monitoring the development of ADUs over this housing cycle should there be any change to this trend.

We hope that this information helps to address some of your concerns. As evidenced from the discussion above, the City is committed to achieving a certified Housing Element that meets, if not exceeds, its RHNA and AFFH commitments. If you have any questions or would like to further discuss, you can reach me at (650) 522-7207 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Interim Community Development Director