Att 11 - Appendix G - Public Review Period — San Mateo City Council, May 20, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

APPENDIX G

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
APPENDIX G | PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Public Review Period
- 1st Public Review Period Comments R eceived – April 6, 2022 to May 6, 2022 - 2nd Public Review Period Comments Received – December 30, 2022 to January 9, 2023 - Comments Received Post 2nd Public Review Period - January 10, 2023 to July 25, 2023 - 3rd Public Review Period Comments Received - July 26, 2023 to time of submittal

From:

To:

Subject: Housing Element Draft Plan. (HEDP)
Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 3:59:49 PM
Attachments: image574731.png
Ms Sandhir:

I have reviewed the email of the HEDP and have several questions and areas of concern.

Firstly, why has the issue of current substantial vacancy rate in existing housing not being discussed or publicized. I have asked numerous officials including your office and the responses all seem to be “ I’m not aware of the current figure.” Nice evasion. Is there even any discussion or concerns relating to our declining population and technological changes allowing remote work and population shifts.

Secondly of the five items you wish to address, four relate to subsidized housing in one form or another and the fifth is “education “ of housing issues. There is not one mention of how these changes will affect the quality of life in our city and how the impacted neighborhoods may change. There are many thousands of families whose primary net worth is represented by the value of their home. They have saved for a lifetime to enjoy the amenities of life in San Mateo. To the extent that these changes will affect many of these families, are their concerns not even worth some consideration and discussion?
Many of us hear anecdotally of significant vacancy factors in market rate housing. For rent signs are ubiquitous throughout San Mateo. I believe that an honest discussion of how much housing and affordable housing is truly needed before we blatantly accept an arbitrary mandate from the state . The first obligation of the city council should be to address the legitimate needs and concerns of the residents of San Mateo with the equal fervor that it devotes to implementing the state housing creation mandate.

John Monfredini
Sent from my iPad
John Monfredini

1 From: Susan Shankle
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 3:08 PM
To: Housing
Subject: Housing Element
Hello,

The plan as written looks good, lots of good suggestions and goals. A few comments:

• What are we doing about water supply? Every new house and apartment is going to have sink taps, showers, dishwashers, toilets, and some with garden hoses. We are in a severe drought, and climate change suggests that might only get worse.

• How can we turn all those empty office buildings into housing? We know about the liabilities and zoning issues. But it’s silly to talk about building more buildings when we have so many already in place, some practically new or even unfinished. They all are fitted with plumbing and electricity, and many have full cafeteria facilities. Put your imaginations to work and envision these spaces as potential housing for homeless and low‐income San Mateans.

• Re: the homeless, are you working with existing entities that are already expert and experienced in these issues? Such as LifeMoves? https://www.lifemoves.org/

• What about rising sea levels? Is it wise to embark on a huge housing plan on sea‐level land next to the Bay? Do we want to look like Hong Kong? It’s a fabulous city but do we really want to duplicate that?

• Along with all these plans has to be education. We are lucky to have a diverse population of citizens from all over the world. People need to be educated about how to live in a crowded Bayside region: water use, recycling, transportation, parking, conservation, wildlands protection, environmental stewardship, the list goes on. If I was moving to an unfamiliar state or country, I would need to find out what my responsibilities would be, and how I could participate, support and respect the existing environment and animal life. Volunteers would be good for this, and cheap!

• A lot is said about how hard it is to build and do business here because of all the regulations, especially environmental.

They exist for a reason. We have clean air and water and a high quality of life, compared to many parts of the world. We want to keep it that way. Don’t back down or weaken those protections.

Thank you,
Susan Shankle
30‐year San Mateo Resident
Lifetime Bay Area Resident

1 From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:02 PM
To: Housing
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft Housing Element Feedback Form

Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

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

First Name Bob
Last Name Stine
Email Address
Comment on 2023‐2031
Draft Housing Element
What consideration has been given to the additional needs for water that would accrue with the planned additional building of residential units?

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

 SharePoint  Search this library   LL
 New   Upload   Edit in grid view  Share  Copy link  Sync  Down  Name  Modified
Original (move here after redaction) April 7
Redacted April 7
4-6-22 Monfredini.msg April 6
4-6-22 Zane.msg April 7
Docum s on Draft HE
From: Housing <[email protected]> on behalf of Housing Sent on: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 10:45:22 PM
To: -
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From:

Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 3:39 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

I realize that there is some type of state mandate that requires counties to establish more housing in each of our CA counties. What I do not understand is the lack of obvious concern that California has experienced an alarming drought for years. The seriousness of this water shortage has an effect on our water usage. Considering the amount of new homes, this represents a huge increase in the use of water in a myriad amount of ways. Additionally, there seems to be a rational neglect for the demands of food and home supplies, quality schools, and teachers to staff those schools. There are significant shortages now in these areas, and yet, home building continues. I believe this is both irrational and irresponsible.

Without being caustic, I think the myopic vision of these home planners will result in insurmountable, adverse challenges in our future. Surely, someone on your committees realizes this.

Maureen Zane
76 year old resident of San Mateo
 Share  Copy link  Download     4 / 4
  

Subject: San Mateo’s Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element
From:

To:
cc:

April 20, 2022
To whom it may concern:

The Campaign for Fair Housing Elements is a coalition dedicated to ensuring that every city in California produces a Housing Element which complies with the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s requirements. We have reviewed San Mateo’s Draft Housing Element as of April 10 1 . We previously sent in a letter reviewing San Mateo’s Housing Element process and Draft Adequate Sites List as of January 14; this letter is posted at the City’s website 2 .

It is discouraging that the city has failed to address the issues previously raised. Furthermore, the city’s draft policies do not address the city’s constraints, and do not meet HCD’s requirements 3 that programs include specific action steps, specific timeframes, and specific, measurable outcomes. Lastly, there is evidence that some sites on the inventory list will not be developed.

Previously Identified Issues Still Outstanding
The following issues identified in our previous letter have not been addressed. ● On page H-6 of the draft, the ADU numbers are still overestimated. Pages H-33 through H-34 justify this by stating that “The State now allows jurisdictions to count projected development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on prior years’ production averages”. However, the state specifically recommends counting trends since 2018, when ADU laws were liberalized. 4 The city does not provide sufficient explanation to justify exceeding the safe harbor estimates. 480 are estimated; past production justifies an estimate of 344.
● On the same page, the nominal capacity of about 10.9k remains unrealistic. As shown in our February letter, previous production trends indicate a realistic capacity of only 908 units, far short of the realistic capacity needed to achieve the City’s RHNA floor of 7,015 units.
4 Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook,
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/sites_in ventory_memo_final06102020.pdf , page 31.
3 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml 2 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/87035/Additional-Correspondence-as-of-2-11-22 , pages 1-10.
1 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/87532/San-Mateo-2023-2031-Housing-Element-- -DRAFT

● On page H-28, the city continues to incorrectly average residential project densities by project , failing to account for differences in project acreage. The expected density should be 43 du/ac, not 60 du/ac.
● On pages H-28 through H-31, the city uses the same incorrect averaging method for mixed-use developments, on a variety of levels. The expected density of mixed-use projects should be 29 du/ac, not 48 du/ac. (Excluding projects already on the Adequate Sites List, expected density is an alarmingly low 1.7 du/ac!) ● On pages H-40 through H-41, the city makes no mention of surveying property owners to determine whether or not they plan to redevelop their properties.

Participating in county-wide listening sessions with builders does not solve this problem.
● In Appendix C 5 , the details of the site inventory are still incorrect. Spot-checking APN 035‐466‐010, the city is still using maximum capacity, rather than realistic capacity, to figure site capacity, at least for some sites. Spot-checking APN 032‐292‐080, the city is still using sites under a half-acre for lower-income RHNA without justification, in violation of HCD’s guidelines.
● Also in Appendix C, the site inventory lists 131, 139, and 149 Kingston as “Pending project”, despite the relevant project having been withdrawn in August of 2021. 6 This is not an exhaustive inventory of incorrectly listed sites.

Inadequate “Missing Middle” Program
HCD’s “Building Blocks” website states:

Each jurisdiction must identify specific programs in its housing element that will allow it to implement the stated policies and achieve the stated goals and objectives. Programs must include specific action steps the locality will take to implement its policies and achieve its goals and objectives. Programs must also include a specific timeframe for implementation, identify the agencies or officials responsible for implementation, describe the jurisdiction’s specific role in implementation, and (whenever possible) identify specific, measurable outcomes.

Section 5.3 (page H-47) of the draft says that one of the programs is:

Support the production of more missing middle housing. (Policies H1.4, H1.11 and H1.13 )
Policy H1.4 (page H-59) concerns ADU development, policy H1.11 (page H-60) is to adopt an SB 9 ordinance (which would merely adhere to state law), and policy H1.13’s targets (same page) read:
6 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4004/Monte-Diablo-North-Kingston-SPAR 5 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/87528/APPENDIX-C---Housing-Resources Evaluate sites that have potential for Missing Middle development. Research and evaluate policies and code amendments to allow for Missing Middle housing under SB 10 and schedule for City Council consideration.

The research and evaluation of policies to allow for Missing Middle housing should be done now, not later. missingmiddlehousing.org provides useful specifications for missing-middle housing.

For example, consider a front-loaded side-by-side duplex 7 . It’s illegal to build in San Mateo’s R-2 zone 8 because of insufficient off-street parking; the design provides two stalls, but San Mateo requires four. (Municipal code §27.64.160.)
Next, consider a front-loaded stacked duplex 9 . It’s illegal to build in San Mateo’s R-2 zone because of insufficient off-street parking; the design provides two stalls, but San Mateo requires four. (Municipal code §27.64.160.) It’s also too narrow; the lot is forty-five feet wide, but San Mateo requires fifty feet. (Municipal code §27.18.040.) Then consider an alley-loaded townhouse 10 . It’s illegal to build in San Mateo’s R-3 zone (the lowest-density zone which is supposed to support townhouses) because the front setback is insufficient; the design has ten feet, but needs fifteen. (Municipal code §27.22.070.) It’s also too small; the parcel size is 2750 square feet, but it needs four or five thousand, depending on which area of the city it’s in. (Municipal code §27.22.040.) Identifying the portions of the city’s code which prohibit missing-middle housing–parking mandates and minimum lot sizes–does not require a years-long research process. These are constraints, and the city’s programs should focus on removing them.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Site Locations
As noted in our previous letter, no sites in the city’s inventory fall into the “Highest Resource” TCAC Opportunity Area designation, and it appears that the sites predominantly fall into areas where three or four racial groups mix.

Air Quality Issues
The California Air Resources Board has published an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook 11 that considers the risks of poor air quality on sensitive receptors such as homes, daycares, etc, and 11 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf
10 https://missingmiddlehousing.com/types/townhouse#idealized 9 https://missingmiddlehousing.com/types/duplex-stacked#idealized 8 https://sanmateo.ca.us.open.law/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/27.20 (All zoning laws evaluated as of April 10, 2022.)
7 https://missingmiddlehousing.com/types/duplex-side-by-side#idealized recommends against locating these uses within five hundred feet of a roadway that averages in excess of 100,000 vehicles/day. This standard was cited by the City at least once, as background 12 for a General Plan update in 2009. As far back as 2001, the City identified 13 Highway 92 (east of Delaware) and Highway 101, as routes exceeding this threshold. Current Caltrans data 14 shows that Highway 92 east of El Camino exceeds 100,000 vehicles per day.

Specifically, the Caltrans data shows that Highway 101 daily vehicle counts range from 253,100 to 264,600 15 , as it moves through San Mateo city limits. AB 686 and related legislation would discourage locating housing - certainly affordable housing - in areas subject to high air pollution, which is a burden disproportionately borne by disadvantaged communities. A number of sites are within five hundred feet of Highway 101 and Highway 92 east of El Camino, totalling 2,396 units (21.9% of total) and 925 affordable units. Compliance with AB686 suggests the following sites should not be included in the inventory:

Address APN Total Units Affordable Units
1900 S. Norfolk St 035-391-090 245 99
2000 Winward Dr 035-610-030 160 24
1820 Gateway Drive 035-443-030 177 72
1800 Gateway Drive 035-430-060
1850 NORFOLK ST 035-381-020 332 134
1826 NORFOLK ST 035-381-030
19 KINGSTON ST 033-191-040 59 24
25 KINGSTON ST 033-191-060
3 KINGSTON ST 033-191-070
1017 3RD AVE 033-134-100 32 13
1015 3RD AVE 033-134-110
245 HUMBOLDT ST 033-134-240
1900 FASHION ISLAND 035-466-060 461 186
2260 BRIDGEPOINTE PKWY 035-466-070 97 39
2270 BRIDGEPOINTE PKWY 035-466-080 42 17
15 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census/traffic-volumes/2017/route-101 14 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census/traffic-volumes/2017/route-92-98 13 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/5126/7-Mobility-and-Access 12 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/5229/Appendix-C-Air-Quality-Analysis 3012 BRIDGEPOINTE PKWY 035-466-090 82 33
[NO ADDRESS] 035-466-110 89 36
1863 NORFOLK ST 035-383-200 105 53
1670 AMPHLETT BLVD 035-241-240 173 71
1700 AMPHLETT BLVD 035-241-250 122 49
1720 AMPHLETT BLVD 035-241-260 138 56
145 Kingston 033-171-040 35 0
139 Kingston 033-171-050
131 Kingston 033-171-060
1218 Monte Diablo 033-171-180
480 N Bayshore Blvd 033-081-280 47 19
Evidence On Specific Sites
Hillsdale Mall
Hillsdale Mall (41 Hillsdale Boulevard) is identified in the Site Inventory as a 39.91 acre parcel with potential for a total 1,995 units, 808 of which are affordable (40.5%). HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook states that sites larger than 10 acres cannot be considered feasible for affordable housing without one of the following factors 16 :
a) an analysis demonstrating that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period with an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site, or
b) evidence that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing such as developer interest, proposed specific-plan development, potential for subdivision, the jurisdiction’s role or track record in facilitating lot splits, or other information that can demonstrate feasibility of the site for development. The housing element should include programs promoting, incentivizing, and supporting lot splits and/or large lot development, or
c) a development affordable to lower income households has been proposed and approved for development on the site.

San Mateo’s Housing Element states on page H-31 that “The City has a demonstrated track record of large site development, typically completed in phases, that includes affordable 16 Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, page 17.
residential development. Station Park Green (12 acres), Concar Passage (14.5 acres), and Bay Meadows (175 acres) are examples of approved large development projects that include substantial numbers of affordable units.“ Of these sites, Concar Passage was not completed during the previous planning period; in fact, no site work has even begun. For the two projects that were completed during the prior planning period, each one contains substantially less affordable housing: 97 units for Station Park Green and 98 for Bay Meadows (the portion of the master plan that was actually completed during the last cycle) 17 . Furthermore, the City’s report contains no information about the availability of the Hillsdale Mall site, and contains no information about a specific development affordable to lower income households that has been approved for the site. As such, the City has not demonstrated that this site should be considered for affordable housing, and certainly not to the tune of 808 units, or 40% of the total.

The estimated affordability of the project is not justified by the analysis provided.

If the City were to reasonably extrapolate from their track record of large site development, they would note that their percentage of affordable units delivered is much lower than 40% - closer to 10%. This would suggest that Hillsdale Mall could more reasonably expect 202 affordable units.

They would also note that Station Park Green took 15 years to move from planning to completion, and Bay Meadows took 30 years. Hillsdale could reasonably be expected to land somewhere in between these two durations and so only about a third of the units would reasonably be delivered in the 6th cycle - 67 units.

The Hillsdale Mall site also includes, among the 40 total acres, approximately 11 acres that were recently redeveloped and re-opened in late 2019. Records show the owner obtained a $240 million dollar construction loan for this work 18 . It is not reasonable to assume that this investment would be demolished to make way for housing. HCD’s guidance states 19 that for non-vacant sites, existing uses must be considered:

For example, an analysis might describe an identified site as being developed with a 1960’s strip commercial center with few tenants and expiring leases and, therefore, a good candidate for redevelopment, versus a site containing a newly opened retail center, an active Home Depot, the only grocery store in the city, etc. that is unlikely to be available for residential development within the planning period.

Therefore, this 11-acre portion should be excluded from the site inventory. When the overall site is thus reduced by 27%, the affordable unit count would proportionally drop - from a realistic 67 units delivered in the next cycle down to 49.
1900 S. Norfolk St
The City’s inventory describes this as a 1983 Class-B office building, and assigns it 245 units over 8.18 acres at 30 units per acre (including 99 affordable units). However, a cursory review 19 Site Inventory Guidebook, page 25.
18 https://pe-insights.com/news/2022/01/05/northwood-investors-paid-257m-to-purchase-an-interest-in-ma ll-asset/
17 Compiled City data through 2020, RHNA annual reporting of the assessor’s map reveals that the site is a “U” shape, wrapping around a PG&E substation with another corner carved off. This unconventional shape will reduce its effective density.

Moreover, it contains an easement in PG&E’s favor running across the site that further encumbers its development. As mentioned above, it is also within 500’ of the intersection of Highway 101 and SR-92. These constraints, taken together, make this site unlikely to be developed.
2208 Bridgepoint Parkway
The City’s inventory describes this as a vacant restaurant site, and assigns it 5 units over 0.37 acres at 13.5 units per acre. As a small site there are no affordable units. However, this site is not vacant; a restaurant, Lazy Dog Restaurant & Bar, is under construction and is slated to open in early May 20 . It is unlikely this brand new use will be discontinued in the next 8 years. 2210 Bridgepoint Parkway
The City’s inventory describes this as a Hallmark retail store, and assigns it 5 units over 0.33 acres at 15.2 units per acre. As a small site there are no affordable units. This site is currently under construction and will open as a restaurant, California Fish Grill 21 . It is unlikely this brand new use will be discontinued in the next 8 years.
1900 Fashion Island Blvd
This site is owned by Target and it has come to our attention that James Tucker, Senior Director for Real Estate, has submitted a letter indicating that Target has no plans to change the use of their store in San Mateo. They also explained that the owners of the individual sites that comprise Bridgepoint Shopping Center are under an agreement governing the use of the sites.

They did not share details, but explained that generally agreements of this type for shopping center do provide owners with site controls as to site design and uses. 71-77 Bovet Road
This site is currently developed as the “Borel Square” shopping center. It is our understanding that the owner is interested in developing but that the tenants do not wish to leave. The owner has offered “buyouts” to the tenants to break their leases but to date they have all refused. We understand the CVS and 24 Hour Fitness have long term (30 year) leases and at least one other tenant has 7 years remaining on their lease with an option to extend for another 10 years at market rate. Given the tenant opposition to discontinuing their uses, it seems unlikely this site will be developed within the next 8 years.

Please address the issues raised our original letter in order to identify enough sites and commit to an appropriate program of rezoning and constraint removal in a manner that is consistent with 21 https://www.cafishgrill.com/pages/san-mateo
20 https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/lazy-dog-restaurant-opening-in-san-mateo/article_7a53bf46- 9b7a-11ec-9577-33f27fd5aefd.html
your duty to affirmatively further fair housing and such that the actual capacity of the Sites Inventory over the next eight years meets or exceeds your RHNA.

The housing crisis is a regional problem, and our cities must work together to solve it. Thank you for your time and consideration,

Campaign for Fair Housing Elements

Peninsula for Everyone

1 From: Housing
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 9:02 AM
To:

Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 9:25 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

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

First Name David
Last Name Karp
Email Address
Comment on 2023‐2031
Draft Housing Element
Typical developer slop.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

1 From: Housing
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 2:55 PM
To:

Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:57 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

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

First Name Kailun
Last Name Wu
Email Address
Comment on 2023‐2031
Draft Housing Element
Hello San Mateo city planners,

A little bit about myself: I first moved here in 2015 and then bought a house in Hillsdale in 2019. I'm married and work full time. I do not speak on behalf of any political organization or government.

To me San Mateo is unique. It's connected to SF and South Bay, ocean and redwood forests. Perfect weather all year.

Diverse population. The downtown is a rare walkable gem.

Strong economy. Most cities in the world would dream of these resources.

And yet I know how impossible it is for younger generations to buy a home. I feel it. Everyone in an open house knows it.

There’s simply not much available within budget on Redfin. I’m deeply worried that the city is becoming too exclusive and rich so I started followin
g the city planning meetings. The new

2 general plan is very encouraging and I hope we all work together to keep the momentum.

My thoughts on the housing elements:

1. Re-zone for medium density or missing middle wherever possible. We should model after Germany and Netherlands. 4- 6 stories will be both dense and not too towering.

2. Re-zone for mixed use blocks. Make homes close to offices and groceries and restaurants and vice versa so that residents don't have to drive (because of the distance). Otherwise people will again reach for cars and cause congestion, making it even harder to up-zone.

3. Encourage the city to connect to the majority of people who aren’t in the public hearings. Most people aren't aware of city planning and are too tired from work, from school, from parenting. Yet they are the silent majority who will be impacted.

Every idea is flawed and implementation is flawed too. But stagnation will only make our city more exclusive and
unsustainable. Thank you so much for your hard work. San Mateo with more new homes will only match and strengthen our values. The current and future generations will live in what we choose to zone build.

Regards,
Kai

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
April 26, 2022
City of San Mateo City Council
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

Subject: San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element - Draft
Dear Mayor Bonilla and Members of the San Mateo City Council and Planning Commission, The Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the Draft San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element.

The overall draft Housing Element (HE) is a good start, but more focused and stronger policies and programs are needed to have a reasonable expectation of meeting the RHNA number of 7,015 new housing units, particularly for affordable units.

Reaching the RHNA unit goal will require major changes in the speed of development in San Mateo. In order to reach the goal of 7,015 new units from 2023-2031, the city must add almost 900 new units each year. That is roughly the equivalent of building a new Concar Passage each year1. This will be infeasible unless a major effort is made to streamline and accelerate housing development. And, of course, it is important that new development also be thoughtfully designed to accomplish all the other General Plan goals of open space, quality of neighborhoods, etc. The HE Housing Plan (p.H-55 to H-74) needs to demonstrate a significant change to current policies and programs in order to realistically be able to reach the goal. This will not be easy, as the new RHNA goals are well above the rate of new housing added over the last few decades2. But it must be done if we are to adequately address the housing crisis in the region and leave the city well positioned for future generations to prosper.

The HE rightly points out that the housing problem is a regional one and that each city needs to meet or exceed its goal if the housing crisis, particularly for affordable housing, is to be solved. The lack of affordable housing on the Peninsula is a significant contributor to environmental degradation as workers must commute long distances by car, emitting GHG as well as other pollutants. It also leads to sprawl as more development is done in areas that were open space or agricultural land.

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~
in the Bay Area. Listed below are the most important goals, policies and programs in the draft HE that need to be retained and strengthened in the final HE.

1. The HE aims for a 56% buffer above the RHNA. This is a minimum, but perhaps a higher number should be considered as the ability to actually build out housing has proven, over time, to be very difficult.

2. Increasing affordable housing is emphasized in the draft HE and that is good. But the “buffers” for affordable housing levels are only 14%, 55% and 37%, while the buffer for market rate housing is 87%. The percentage buffer for affordable units should be at least as high as the buffer for market units since affordable units are needed more and are harder to develop. The affordable housing should be more strongly focused on low, very low and extremely low-income housing, as these are where the largest needs are and where the lack of inventory is the largest.

The very poor jobs/housing fit3 in the Peninsula can best be addressed with a focus on more affordable housing. As noted in the HE draft4, the lack of affordable housing was one of the major concerns expressed by the public.

3. Funding that can be used to support affordable housing is a fundamental need and more must be done to obtain funding. Affordable housing has to be subsidized and a lack of funding will limit the ability to build the needed affordable housing, particularly for low and very low-income units. This could include establishing or increasing: Vacancy Tax, Commercial Linkage Fees, and Transfer Tax. It is particularly important that funding focus on repairing the legacy of discrimination in housing for groups like African Americans. The following policies and programs should be strengthened to accomplish this goal:
a. H 1.2 - Utilize Public Funding for Low/Moderate Income Housing b. H 1.3 - Increase Below Market Rate Unit Production through Density Bonus/Community Benefits Programs
c. H 1.18 – Fee Schedule Review
d. H 3.3 - Evaluate Housing Revenue Sources
e. H 5.1.1 - Adjust the City's Below Market Rate (inclusionary) program to provide larger density bonuses, and/or increased city support in exchange for affordable units that address the needs of residents with disproportionate housing needs f. H 5.1.2 - Participate in a regional down payment assistance program with affirmative marketing to households with disproportionate housing needs including persons with disabilities, single parents, and Hispanic households
g. H 5.1.3 - Support the design of a regional forgivable loan program for homeowners to construct an ADU that is held affordable for extremely low-income households for 15 years

4. In addition to increased funding for affordable units, the HE should prioritize policies and programs that reduce costs and streamline the processes for affordable units. The following policies and programs should be strengthened to accomplish this need:

3 Jobs/Housing Fit: Jobs/housing fit means that the majority of homes within the city are affordable to the majority of employees who work in the city, and conversely, the jobs in the city pay enough to cover the cost of housing in the city. Without an adequate jobs/housing fit, businesses find it difficult to hire and retain lower-income employees.
4 Page H-43

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~
a. H 1.6 - Streamline Housing Application Review
b. H 1.8 - Adopt Objective Design Standards
c. H 1.9 - Create Minimum Densities for Mixed-Use Residential Projects d. H 1.10 - Establish By-Right Housing Designation for Prior Housing Sites e. H 1.12 - Encourage Residential Uses within Housing Overlay

5. Almost the entire city, including R1 areas, will need to contribute to the increased housing through such mechanisms as expanded Missing Middle Units (duplex, triplex and fourplex) and ADUs and, possibly, new mechanisms enabling multi-unit housing on properties with a Residential Neighborhood General Plan land use designation, which generally covers single-family neighborhoods. Increased density should be focused within half mile of transit to align with Climate Action Plan goals for greenhouse gas reductions.

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

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

Even more priority should be placed on these efforts. The following policies and programs should be strengthened to accomplish this need:

a. H 1.4 - Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units Development with streamlined approvals, development subsidies, or low or zero interest loans for construction cost b. H1 11 Consider how Opportunity Housing can be useful to create new housing in R1 neighborhoods within 1/2 mile of the transit corridors
c. H1-13- Encourage Development of Missing Middle Housing especially within a half mile of transit.
d. Include overlay zoning, in the General Plan, for “15-minute Neighborhoods” allowing insertion of small new neighborhood retail nodes with Green Streets network 7 to create walkable bikeable neighborhoods, with the daily amenities, to reduce auto trips and create healthier walkable neighborhoods, convenient for all ages including kids and seniors.

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~

5. Climate Change is real. 8No mention is made of how housing, particularly new housing, needs to be located so as to be resilient to climate change. Sea levels are predictably going to rise more swiftly in the coming decades, according to the California Ocean Protection Council. 9 Wildfires are also predicted to become an increased threat with the continued drought and encroachment into the forested hill areas of our city. The increased risks of sea level rise (SLR) near the Bay and wildfires in the hilly areas needs to be factored into identifying areas for higher density and more affordable housing.

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

Respectfully submitted,

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

Cc: James Eggers
Executive Director
Loma Prieta Chapter Sierra Club

Gladwyn d’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Loma Prieta Chapter Sierra Club

8 Ocean Protection Council- Sea Level Rise Guidance: The rate at which sea levels will rise can help inform the planning and implementation timelines of state and local adaptation efforts. Understanding the speed at which sea level is rising can provide context for planning decisions and establish thresholds for action… https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf

1 From: Housing
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 9:17 AM
To:

Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 11:22 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

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

First Name Larry
Last Name Garnick
Email Address
Comment on 2023‐2031
Draft Housing Element
I am a single family home owner at and have
been a resident of San Mateo for 30 years. I believe San Mateo is already too congested and the City should not pursue a plan for population or housing growth. The City’s proposed growth plans are frightening.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

1 From: Housing
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 9:16 AM
To:

Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 1:20 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

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

First Name John
Last Name Tastor
Email Address
Comment on 2023‐2031
Draft Housing Element
It appears thatthe 25th Avenue corridor between El Camino and Hacienda has been eliminated. The Study Zone did
include the First Presbyterian church parking lot on the NW corner of 25th & Hacienda. There is strong interest in our congregation to build approximately 70 low-income Senior Apartments on this parcel as well as 190 West 25th. We would appreciate consideration of these parcels as potential sites for residential development.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

1 From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 11:33 AM
To:

Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Administrative Tech| Housing
330 W. 20th Ave., San Ma
teo, CA 94403
650‐522‐7239|

From: [email protected] <noreply
@civicplus.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 11:19 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

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

First Name Annonymous
Last Name Annonymous
Email Address
Comment on 2023‐2031
Draft Housing Element
Hello,

I want to show my support for a Housing Element that respects the single family home neighborhoods in the the City of San Mateo. As a long time resident and voter, the collected voice

2 should be heard. We said yes to measure Y and we do not want our single family neighborhoods zoning changed. I moved to San Mateo to live in a quiet neighborhood and scrounged and saved to realize the dream of owning a home. I feel your Planning Commissioners are not listening to the voice of the community and clearly have their own agenda and are out of touch. It does not go unnoticed that your two newest
commissioners are more interested in proceeding on their own agenda than do what is best for all areas of San Mateo. I think the Planning Commission need to listen to real people and stop taking their lead from developers and their own misguided a
gendas.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

1 From:

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 3:23 PM
To:

Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Nicky,
A comment for housing element to add.

Mary

Begin forwarded message:

From:

Date: April 28, 2022 at 2:15:03 PM PDT
To:

Subject: FW: Planning Commission Regular Meeting

City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650‐522‐7042 |

From: Chris Conway
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 10:54 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo
) <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission Regular Meeting

My inquiry to the San Mateo City Council is how was the selection of Diana Elrod as San Mateo’s consultant in the Planning Commission Regular meeting 04.26.22 determined and who made the selection? I would like to know what this consultant to San Mateo is being paid for work and why a consultant as left leaning as this person (they/them) was selected. It seems they/them is a fellow Columbia University alumnus like one of our very own council people (gender neutral to avoid offending anyone). This person’s views can easily be seen by reviewing who they/them advocate for.

Also, a request went out for more feedback on Housing Element and development within our city. Why does the city council continue to ask for more feedback when they do not listen to anyone unless they share their same progressive housing policies? It is much too late to try to spin this entire process as anything less than fair, honest and transparent. It is a complete sham to those who actually follow this convoluted procedure and actually know who our council members actually are and what they support.

Sad to see what the city council of San Mateo has turned into what it has done to divide our city into sections based on race and wealth. The racial undertones of comments by the city council, contributors and consultants are enough to anger many residents who have lived in and contributed much more to

2 this city than all of you. Stop ruining San Mateo, you had no part in creating or developing this city to what it is today.

Time to set policy in front of voters instead of behind your screens. End this very undemocratic process of conducting council meetings via Zoom. Face your constituents, or are you too timid to do that.

Chris Conway
San Mateo, Ca.

1 From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 4:02 PM
To:

Subject: FW: Housing Element Comment

From: Thomas Morgan II
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:18 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Comment

The screenshot below is the problem with simply upzoning and the loss of local control, it simply drives up the cost of the land, after shelling out the asking price I am not sure how the new owner will make an already tight project pencil out.

Thank you,

Thomas Morgan

1 From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 4:03 PM
To:

Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:15 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

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

First Name Ellen
Last Name Wang
Email Address
Comment on 2023‐2031
Draft Housing Element
Slow Growth is the key.

None of us knows what the future will bring.

Take an Objective look at housing from a multi-view approach.

California population is decreasing.

Coronavirus and technology has provided opportunities for workers to work from anywhere with no need to live near their old job site.

Dense housing has a Negative Impact on schools, police, recreation.

I do not want to walk by half-vacant high-rise housing or office buildings that block the sun.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

1 From: Housing
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 8:27 AM
To:

Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 8:11 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

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

First Name T
Last Name S
Email Address
Comment on 2023‐2031
Draft Housing Element
“While some people voiced their interest in up zoning single- family neighborhoods or eliminating them altogether, other homeowners want to protect them and are concerned with the future of investments they have made.”

I’d like to better understand who wants to re-zone or—more worrying—eliminate single-family housing here. “Upzoning” is an adorable word for “kicking people out of their homes to cram more people onto the land.” Are these people even San Mateo residents? The “no more housing” ship has sailed, so it’s not with any one’s energy to complain about more building; please, then, focus on sites that can be updated and REALISTICALLY adapted to include more housing. This would, therefore, include locations closer to mass transit.

Building on Campus Drive sounds like a nightmare to me, because public transportation is currently miserable in that area, and the 92/West Hillsdale interchan
ge can be horrific

2 traffic-wise. If building must be done there, then the public transportation issue ALSO has to be addressed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

1 From: Housing
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 4:58 PM
To:

Subject: FW: Housing Element
Attachments: Attachment A City of San Mateo Housing Element Comments for Developmental Disabilities

12.21.21.pdf; San Mateo Draft Housing Element Comments.pdf; Attachment B City of San Mateo Housing Element Comments for Developmental Disabilities 2.10.22.pdf

From: Kalisha Webster
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 3:21 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: Jan Stokley
Subject: Housing Element

Please find attached Housing Choices' comments on the City of San Mateo 2023‐2031 Housing Element Draft including Attachments A & B. We hope that the city will make meaningful changes to the analysis of housing needs of people with developmental disabilities and Fair Housing Assessment, as well as, further develop policies and programs which will meet the needs of Extremely Low Income households and increase housing accessibility for people with developmental disabilities in the next draft.

Thank you,

We have moved! Please note the new office address!
This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521. This e-mail is confidential and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail message from your computer.

May 6, 2022
Planning Manager and City Council
City of San Mateo, Planning Division
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
[email protected]
Re: Comments on the Draft Housing Element
Thank you for sharing this early draft of the Housing Element with the public. On behalf of San Mateo’s more than 800 residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Housing Choices is grateful for the opportunity to comment before it is sent to HCD. We also appreciate the work that the City of San Mateo has done to engage with Housing Choices throughout the community engagement process and consider the programs and policies that we have recommended as best practices for inclusion of people of all abilities in the city’s future housing plans. However, we have concerns that the assessment of the housing needs of the San Mateo population with developmental disabilities in the draft Housing Element is very superficial and does not provide enough analysis to support meaningful inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in the city’s housing plans. We also ask that the city immediately update the obsolete and derogatory language used to describe developmental disabilities as including mild to severe “mental retardation” on page H-A-55 of Appendix A-Needs Analysis and instead use the standard term “intellectual disability”.

About Housing Choices
Housing Choices is a housing organization funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center to support people with developmental disabilities to be fully integrated in San Mateo’s affordable housing supply. We provide housing navigation services for both individuals and families. We also partner with affordable housing developers to make inclusive housing commitments for people with disabilities in their housing projects. At these projects we provide onsite housing retention services. A San Mateo example of this highly successful model is the new Kiku Crossing where 8 of the 225 units will include a preference for people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from Housing Choices’ coordinated supportive services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center. The Golden Gate Regional Center has contracted with 1 Housing Choices to provide the San Mateo planning staff and Housing Element consultants with an assessment of the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities, as required by SB 812. In addition, 21 Elements has facilitated Housing Choices’ involvement of people with developmental disabilities in the planning process through its Equity Advisory Group.

Incomplete Assessment of Housing Needs of People with Developmental Disabilities On December 2, 2021, Housing Choices submitted an assessment of the housing needs of San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities (Attachment 1) which followed HCD guidance for a complete analysis of special housing needs groups, including:
● A quantification of the total number of persons and households in the special housing needs group, including tenure (rental or ownership), where possible. ● A quantification and qualitative description of the need (including a description of the potential housing problems faced by the special needs groups), a description of any existing resources or programs, and an assessment of unmet needs. ● Identification of potential program or policy options and resources to address the need After receiving feedback on our comments from City staff Housing Choices submitted revised comments on February 10, 2022 (Attachment 2).

As discussed below, San Mateo’s draft does not incorporate any of the Housing Choices’ data and analysis, does not meaningfully discuss the potential housing problems, unmet needs or best practices for inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in integrated and least restrictive housing settings in the community. We believe that the inclusion of these missing elements would demonstrate that the city has a clear understanding of the accessibility needs of people with developmental disabilities and how they differ from other disability types.

Furthermore it would help the city to create more meaningful programs and policies to meet the housing needs of residents with developmental disabilities as required by Housing Element law.

Underestimation of the San Mateo Population with Developmental Disabilities The draft analysis undercounts the population of San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities by using outdated demographic data reported by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) as of 2020 rather than the more current data from DDS as of September 2021 provided in Housing Choices comments. On page H-A-56 of Appendix A- Needs Analysis, Table 12 states that there are 500 individuals age 18+ and 277 individuals under age 18 with developmental disabilities living in San Mateo based on Department of Developmental Services 2020 data of consumer counts by zip code for a total of 777 San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities. However, based on data reported by DDS by zip code as of September 2021 for zip codes 94401, 94402 and 94403 (provided to us by the City of San Mateo planning staff) there were 531 individuals age 18+and 304 individuals under age 18 with developmental disabilities living in San Mateo for a total of 835 San Mateo residents with 2 developmental disabilities. This represents an increase of 58 total residents or 7% of the population.

In contrast, on page H-A-57, Table 13 reports a total population of 784 San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities. This is most likely attributable to an error in the reporting of individuals living in Foster/ Family Homes and Other living arrangements which are both reported by DDS as <11 but in Table 13 are both reported as 10.

Failure to Provide Data Establishing Trends Creating a Greater Need for Housing As mentioned above, Table 13 does report the population of San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities by residence however, because it fails to report residence type for adults separately from that of children and because it omits a comparison to data reported in the 2015 Housing Element important trends about the changing housing needs of San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities is missing from this analysis. When looking at the residence type of only adults aged 18+ we see that the greatest housing provider for adults with developmental disabilities in the City of San Mateo is licensed care facilities (including Community and Intermediate Care Facilities). As of 2021 50% of all adults with developmental disabilities in the City of San Mateo are housing in licensed care facilities, significantly higher than the 32% of adults across all San Mateo County jurisdictions. Yet, when comparing this data to what was last reported in the 2015 Housing Element we find that despite an overall increase in the total population there has been a net decrease in the number of adults with developmental disabilities transitioning into licensed care facilities or into their own apartment with supportive services during this time period.

The decrease of adults transitioning into licensed care facilities reflects data from DDS, and which was reported in Housing Choices comments to city staff, that San Mateo County has experienced a loss of 5% of its supply of community care facilities, a large number of which are located in the City of San Mateo. Data on increased life spans of people with developmental disabilities, which is also omitted from the Housing Element, compounds the loss of supply by increasing turnover of beds available in the remaining licensed care facilities. Coupled with the decline in adults living in their own apartments with supportive services, this data demonstrates that the city must do more to meet the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities by increasing access to integrated affordable housing to prevent them from falling into homelessness or being displaced after the death of a parental home provider.

Other data which Housing Choices’ comments reported on which are vital to an understanding of the barriers to housing access for this special needs population that were omitted from the Housing Element analysis are:

1. Continuing increases in the diagnosis of autism affecting growth of the population of San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities (21% increase from 2013-2021) beyond that of the general population (6% increase from 2010-2020)

2. Decreases in age groups 42-61 despite increases in all other age groups including 62+ which Housing Choices attributes to greater risk of displacement from the home 3 community among this age group upon the death or infirmity of the parent who was providing housing
Lack of Meaningful Analysis of Strategies to Increase Housing Access for People with Developmental Disabilities
The Housing Element acknowledges the significance of the transition from the family home for an adult with a developmental disability including the increased risk of displacement or homelessness when a parent caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. There are also basic descriptions of the alternative housing options available to people with developmental disabilities including:
● Living independently in conventional housing
● Group living (including different levels of care and support) However, there is no further analysis of the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities beyond a single sentence on page H-A-55 which states “Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income and live with family members. By not including information, provided by Housing Choices, on best practices for inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in conventional affordable housing, the city is unable to create meaningful strategies to increase housing accessibility for this population needed to decrease the risk of displacement or homelessness when their family home is no longer an option. These best practices to increase accessibility include:
● Integration in typical affordable housing in order to affirmatively further fair housing for a group that has historically experienced no alternatives to segregated living and to counter the loss of supply of licensed care facilities
● Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center should be encouraged. These fully funded coordinated services are often as essential to a person with a developmental disability as a physically modified unit is to a person with a mobility, vision, or hearing impairment and provide a supported pathway for people with developmental disabilities to apply for and retain an affordable apartment
● A mix of unit sizes set-aside at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners, or have children.
● Location near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities.
● Deeply affordable housing is needed, targeting incomes not more than 30% of Area Median Income and taking advantage of Housing Authority Project Based Vouchers or HUD 811 Project Rental Assistance when available to create housing opportunities for those who cannot meet minimum income requirements for units priced at 30% of Area Median Income.
4 ‘Without this complete analysis of the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities any programs or policies aimed at increasing “accessible units” will be discriminatory in nature as they apply only to people with physical disabilities needing physically modified units and not to people of other abilities who may require services to increase housing access. This is most evident on page H-A-54 of Appendix A where accessible units are defined as designed to “offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence” but makes no mention of the supportive services needed by people with other types of disabilities including developmental and mental health disorders. This model of housing combined with supportive services has been shown to be incredibly effective in helping individuals with developmental disabilities find and retain housing, and is equally as important to a person with a developmental disability as the physical design of a building is to a person with a physical disability. This also puts the city at risk of not meeting HCD’s AFFH guidance to promote fair housing choice and access to opportunity to support integration for a historically segregated population. Per HCD guidance, “For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing.” HCD defines fair housing choice as:
● Actual choice, which means the existence of realistic housing options ● Protected choice, which means housing that can be accessed without discrimination; and
● Enabled choice, which means realistic access to sufficient information regarding options so that any choice is informed.

Need to Clarify How Programs and Policies Will Increase Housing Access For People with Developmental Disabilities
We want to thank planning staff and the consultant who developed this draft for acknowledging the need for affordable housing to increase housing access for people with disabilities. This is especially important for those whose sole source of income is from disability benefits such as Supplemental Security Income, which in 2022 has a maximum monthly payment of $1,040, well below minimum income requirements for even the Extremely Low Income housing (30% of AMI) available in San Mateo. The lack of housing priced to be affordable to people of Extremely Low Income does not only affect people with disabilities. According to the draft Housing Element,

12.7% of all San Mateo households fall under the Extremely Low Income limits which represents the second largest lower income group in the city, exceeded only by Low Income households. And Figure 13 on page H-A-25 of Appendix A- Needs Analysis shows that Extremely Low Income renters are the second largest proportion of San Mateo Renters exceeded only by Above Moderate Income.

According to the HCD’s APR dashboard between 2015-2020 San Mateo met less than 15% of its Very Low Income RHNA target (of which half are supposed to ELI). In order to address this shortfall, the 2023-2031 draft housing element identified Policy 5.2.3: “Prioritize city funding proposals for city funded affordable housing that are committed to serving hard to serve residents (e.g., extremely low income, special needs, on site services)”. We strongly encourage 5 the city to go further in its commitment to meeting the need for more units of Extremely Low Income housing by including proposals for city-owned land and land dedicated to affordable housing under the inclusionary program to this Policy.

Secondly, people with developmental disabilities not only need deeply affordable housing, they also need housing that is coordinated with onsite supportive services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center. In order to specifically address the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities, San Mateo must clarify their definition of accessible/visitable units as referenced in Policies 5.1.1 and most importantly 5.2.2 Incentivize developers through direct subsidies, fee waivers, and/or density bonuses, to increase accessibility requirements beyond the federal requirement of 5% for subsidized developments. Currently, federal accessibility requirements only address the housing needs of people with physical disabilities. Housing Choices is extremely supportive of Policy 5.2.2 but asks that the city include incentivizing inclusion of units set aside for people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated on-site supportive services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center to help them stay stably housed so that we do not continue to see decreases in the number of adults able to transition into their own apartment.

Failure to Follow HCD Guidance for AFFH
Guidance from HCD for AFFH also recommends that jurisdictions complete an intersectional analysis of housing needs for people with disabilities as “there are significant disparities by race within the population with disabilities”. While there is data provided on the housing cost burden of all San Mateo residents by race in the Assessment of Fair Housing there is no intersectional analysis which shows the compounding effects of being a person of color with a disability as compared to a person of color without a disability or a white person with a disability. This is a significant component of Housing Choices’ recommendations for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, and yet is omitted from the city’s draft.

Noncompliance with HCD Guidance for Completing an Assessment of Fair Housing In response to the passage of AB 686, HCD released the AFFH Data Viewer to support the outreach and engagement jurisdictions are required to complete as part of their Assessment of Fair Housing. HCD explicitly states in their AFFH guidance that the Assessment of Fair Housing should include local data and knowledge defined as “any locally gathered and available information, such as a survey with a reasonable statistical validity or usefulness for identifying contributing factors, policies, and actions.” On page H-D-11 of Appendix D- Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Narrative it is stated that a survey was administered to support the Fair Housing Assessment which received 150 responses. In a city with a population of over 100,000 residents this low of a response rate seems to indicate that the city did not complete the type of robust, targeted engagement required by HCD in administering the survey.

Reporting of data from the assessment also does not clearly show demographics of who was surveyed to show the number of residents from special needs groups that are most likely to face 6 fair housing issues such as BIPOC populations, people with disabilities, female-headed households, the unhoused and others. For instance on page H-D-29 when discussing disparities specific to the disability community it is stated that “Of residents with a disability responding to the residents’ survey, 30% said that their home does not meet the needs of their household member.” However, there is no indication of how many of the 150 respondents indicated having a disability so it is not evident to the reader of this document if 25% is equivalent to 5, 10 or 40 responses. Nor is it clear if only people with physical disabilities were surveyed or this included people with other types of disabilities.

There also appears to be an over reliance on data from the AFFH data viewer in the Fair Housing Assessment. For instance on page H-D-14 there is an explanation of the different agencies to which Fair Housing Complaints can be reported including HUD, DFEH and local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. This section also explains that state Fair Housing Law covers protected classes beyond that of federal Fair Housing Law. Yet, demographics of Fair Housing complaints are only reported for HUD which received only 57 complaints for San Mateo County from 2017-2021. Whereas, data from Project Sentinel shows that they investigated nearly 300 Fair Housing discrimination cases in San Mateo County from 2015-2020. This does not include reports made to any of the other agencies listed. This would indicate that the draft housing element severely underestimates the number of Fair Housing complaints made in San Mateo County and City of San Mateo, and therefore cannot accurately gauge how well the city is doing in addressing Fair Housing issues.

We urge you to review the attached comments we submitted on December 2, 2021 and February 10, 2022 and make changes to the San Mateo Housing Element so that it meaningfully addresses the housing needs of its residents with developmental disabilities.

Sincerely,
Kalisha Webster
Senior Housing Advocate
Email
Cell
7 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SUBMISSION FOR

Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people with developmental disabilities are entitled to receive community-based services that allow them to live in the least restrictive community setting. This shift to de-institutionalization has led to the closure of the most restrictive segregated settings and to the requirement that local jurisdictions in their Housing Elements assess and plan specifically for the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Regional Center in order to live in their home community.

Demographic and Other Trends Affecting the Housing Needs of People with Developmental Disabilities
The City of San Mateo Population with Developmental Disabilities Grew by 12% Since the Last Housing Element and Accounts for 21% of the County’s Total Population with Developmental Disabilities. The City of San Mateo is home to 835 people with developmental disabilities (Table __). This represents an increase of 12% over the 2013 population of 746 reported in the City’s 2015 Housing Element and reflects a much higher growth rate than the general population. In addition, the City’s population with developmental disabilities accounts for 21% of the total County population with developmental disabilities, although the city’s total population is only 14% of the County’s total population.

Table ___ Comparison of the 2021 City and County Populations with Developmental Disabilities Age City of San Mateo County of San Mateo City of San Mateo as % of County
Under age 18 304 1169 26%
18 and older 531 2764 19%
Total 835 3933 21%
Source: The City of San Mateo data is based on zip code level data for zip codes 94401, 94402, and 94403 published by the California Department of Developmental Services as of September 30, 2021. County level data is published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 30, 2021. Both sources exclude children from birth to the third birthday because approximately 75% of this age group is found not eligible for continuing lifelong services on their third birthday.

Decline in Living Arrangements for Adults with Developmental Disabilities Outside the Family Home.

Of the City’s total population with developmental disabilities, 531 (64%) are adults and 304 (36%) are 1 under age 18 (Table __). Assessing the housing needs of adults with developmental disabilities is of particular importance because as they age the adults will require a residential option outside the family home, whereas the family home is the preferred living option for children with developmental disabilities. In 2021, 505 City of San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities lived in the family home compared to 389 in 2013 as reported in the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element. This 30% increase in reliance on the family home is 2.5 times greater than the City’s 12% increase in the developmental disabilities population during that same period. Increased reliance on the family home is primarily explained by overall growth in the population with developmental disabilities coupled with significant declines in opportunities for the City’s adults with developmental disabilities to live either in licensed care facilities (11% decline) or in affordable housing with supportive services (11% decline). (Table __.) As adults with developmental disabilities age, they need opportunities to live outside the family home both because of the aging of their family caregivers and also because many adults with developmental disabilities would like to live in their own apartment with supportive services.

Table ___ Changes in Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities Living Arrangements
2013
Number
2021
Number
2021
Percent of Total Adults % Change Since 2013
Total (children & adults) in
the Family Home 389 505 -- 30%
Adults In the family home
Not reported-- see
note 201 38% --
Own apartment with
supportive services 64 52 10% -11%
Licensed Facilities 294 265 50% -11%
Other (including homeless) 7 13 2% .8%
Total Adults
Not reported--see
note 531 100% --
Note: The 2013 data are reported in the 2015 Housing Element, which failed to separately count those under 18 and those 18 and older, making it difficult to estimate changes in the significance of the family home as a residential setting specifically for adults. The 2021 data are published at the zip code level by the California Department of Developmental Services as of September 30, 2021. These data assume that occupants of licensed facilities are 18 and older which is generally true, but if incorrect this assumption would tend to understate, not overstate, the need for other housing options for adults with developmental disabilities.

Increase of Autism Diagnosis Reflected in Increase in Adults in their 20s and 30s. Growth in the City of San Mateo’s population with developmental disabilities since the 2015 Housing Element correlates with a significant annual increase in the diagnosis of autism that began in the mid-1980s and did not level out until after 2015. The cumulative impact of this trend is already seen in the growth in the San Mateo County population age 18 to 41 with developmental disabilities and will continue into the future. This trend has significant implications for housing needs among City of San Mateo adults with developmental disabilities during the period of the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element. 2 Table __ Changes in Age Distribution of Adult Population in San Mateo County Age 2015 Number 2021 Number % Change
18 to 31 1023 1189 16%
32 to 41 397 457 15%
41 to 52 382 335 -12%
52 to 61 385 348 -10%
62 plus 327 435 33%
Total adults 2514 2764 10%
Source: County level data is published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 30, 2021 and as of September 30, 2015.

Longer Life Spans. Between September 2015 and June 2021, the California Department of Developmental Services reports that the number of San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 33% (Table __). This is not due to migration of senior citizens with developmental disabilities to San Mateo County, but rather to well-documented gains in life span among people with developmental disabilities. With longer life expectancy, more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members with whom a growing number of City of San Mateo adults with developmental disabilities now live because of the lack of other residential options.

Longer life spans will also slow the pace of resident turnover in the county’s limited supply of licensed care facilities, which will further reduce opportunities for the growing population of people with developmental disabilities to secure housing outside the family home.

Decline in Licensed Care Facilities. The California Department of Developmental Services reports that between September 2015 and June 2021, San Mateo County lost 5% of its supply of licensed care facilities for people with developmental disabilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities), thereby increasing the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services funded by the Regional Center. This trend is mirrored in the 11% decline in the number of City of San Mateo adults able to live in licensed care homes between 2013 and 2021 (Table __). The reduced role of licensed care facilities demonstrates the need for the City’s Housing Element to plan for affordable housing that includes people with developmental disabilities so that adults with developmental disabilities are not forced out of the county when they lose the security of their parent’s home.

Displacement. The California Department of Developmental Services has documented a 12% decline in the age group 42 to 51 and a 10% decline in the age group 52 to 61 in San Mateo County between September 2015 and June 2021. (Table __). In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to homelessness or displacement from the county because of the lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly parent caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with 3 developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years in living in the City of San Mateo.

Higher Rates of Physical Disabilities. People with developmental disabilities are more likely than the general population to have an accompanying physical disability. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities have limited mobility, and 13% have a vision or hearing impairment. The need for an accessible unit coupled with the need for coordinated supportive services compounds the housing barriers faced by those with co-occurring intellectual and physical disabilities.

Ineligibility for Many Affordable Rental Units. Some adults with developmental disabilities depend on monthly income of under $1,000 from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, pricing them out of even the limited number of Extremely Low Income affordable housing units in the City of San Mateo. Those with employment tend to work part-time in the lowest paid jobs and also struggle to income-qualify for many of the affordable housing units for rent in the City of San Mateo.

Transit-Dependent. Most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car and rely on public transit as a means to integration in the larger community.

Best Practices for Inclusion of People with Developmental Disabilities in Typical Affordable Housing
As demonstrated by a growing number of inclusive affordable housing developments in neighboring jurisdictions, the City of San Mateo can meet the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities by adopting policies and programs to promote their inclusion with coordinated services in typical affordable housing. The following considerations should guide the City of San Mateo in this pursuit:
● Integration in typical affordable housing is a priority in order to affirmatively further fair housing for a group that has historically experienced no alternatives to segregated living and also to counter the displacement of adults with developmental disabilities out of San Mateo County. ● Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center should be encouraged. These fully funded coordinated services provide a supported pathway for people with developmental disabilities to apply for and retain an affordable apartment and are often as essential to a person with a developmental disability as a physically modified unit is to a person with a mobility, vision, or hearing impairment. ● A mix of unit sizes at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners, or have children. ● Location near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities.
● Deeply affordable housing is needed, targeting incomes not more than 30% of Area Median Income and taking advantage of Housing Authority Project Based Vouchers or HUD 811 Project 4 Rental Assistance when available to create housing opportunities for those who cannot meet minimum income requirements for units priced at 30% of Area Median Income.

Policy and Program Recommendations
The City of San Mateo has a responsibility not simply to assess the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities but also to create policy, zoning, program and other changes that make it more feasible for affordable housing developers to include people with developmental disabilities in their housing in coordination with the supportive services available from the Golden Gate Regional Center. The City’s 2015 Housing Element identified a need for housing for an additional 30 to 87 people with developmental disabilities, but the number of adults with developmental disabilities living in their own apartment actually declined by 11% since the last Housing Element, even as the population grew by 12%. The City’s lack of progress in meeting the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities since the last Housing Element demonstrates the need for policies and programs that specifically incentivize inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in affordable housing with coordinated services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center.
● Establish and monitor a quantitative goal. Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from affordable housing. A goal of 150 new Extremely Low-Income housing units for City of San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs population.

Sample Language: The City of San Mateo shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 150 new Extremely Low Income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by Golden Gate Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing.
● Target City-Owned Land, Land Dedicated to Affordable Housing under the Inclusionary Ordinance and City Housing Funds to Meet City-Specific Priorities. City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing in lieu of providing affordable units under the inclusionary ordinance, and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible in high-cost City of San Mateo. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive requests for proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additional points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of City of San Mateo residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs--for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of extremely low income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center.
5 Sample Language: In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the city’s inclusionary ordinance or city housing funds, the City of San Mateo shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a greater number of extremely low-income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Golden Gate Regional Center. ● Offer Developers a Range of Affordability Options Under the Inclusionary Ordinance. Most adults with developmental disabilities have incomes too low to satisfy minimum income requirements for the Low Income units currently offered under the city’s inclusionary ordinance and are effectively excluded from this housing option. California law (AB 1505, the “Palmer Fix”) explicitly allows cities to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances that address a range of income levels from moderate-income to extremely low-income. The City should take advantage of this authority to make its ordinance more responsive to local needs by offering developers of market rate housing a menu of options for including affordable units, for example, by setting a higher percentage of units priced at moderate income and a lower percentage of units set at extremely low income. Such a menu would address a broader range of City of San Mateo housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement.

Sample Language: The City of San Mateo shall revise its inclusionary housing ordinance to offer developers a menu of options for achieving affordability, adjusting the percentage of units required to be affordable depending on the degree of affordability achieved (moderate-income, low income, very low income, and extremely low income). ● Reduce Parking Requirements for People with Developmental and Other Disabilities. Adults with developmental disabilities have reduced parking needs because they rarely have a driver's license or own a car. This may also be true of other categories of people with disabilities. The City should revise its ordinances to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental disabilities to .5 space for each affordable studio or 1 bedroom unit and 1 space for an affordable 2 bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction should be considered for physically accessible units required to be included in affordable housing.

Sample Language: The City shall encourage the inclusion of people with developmental and other disabilities in affordable housing by recognizing their transit dependence and establishing lower parking ratios for units targeted to people with developmental and other disabilities than would otherwise be required for affordable housing.
● Local Density Bonus Concessions. The state density bonus law currently provides additional density for housing projects that include at least 10% of the units for disabled veterans, transition-age foster youth, and homeless persons at the very low income level. Above and beyond the density bonus guidelines mandated by state law, the City should add the same incentives when at least 10% of the units are subject to preference for people with 6 developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Sample Language: In implementing the California density bonus statute, the City shall provide for the same density bonus, incentives, or concessions for housing projects that include at least 10% of the units for people with developmental disabilities at the very low-income level as are available to projects that include at least 10% of the units for disabled veterans, transition-age foster youth, and homeless persons at the very low-income level.

Affirmative Marketing of Physically Accessible Units: Developers are allowed to affirmatively market accessible units to disability-serving organizations in San Mateo County (i.e. Golden Gate Regional Center, Housing Choices Coalition for Person with Developmental Disabilities, Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities and others) but rarely take this step.

Affirmative marketing is particularly needed by people with developmental disabilities who, because of cognitive, communication and social impairment, may rely on housing navigation services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center to learn about and apply for affordable housing.

Sample Language: As a condition of the disposition of any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the city’s inclusionary ordinance, the award of city financing, any density bonus concessions, or land use exceptions or waivers for any affordable housing project, the City shall require that the housing developer implement an affirmative marketing plan for physically accessible units which, among other measures, provides disability-serving organizations adequate prior notice of the availability of the accessible units and a process for supporting people with qualifying disabilities to apply. ● Extremely Low-Income Accessory Dwelling Units. As part of a larger plan to increase the supply of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the City should consider creating a forgivable loan program for homeowners who build ADUs and rent them for at least 15 years at Extremely Low Income rent levels to people with developmental disabilities.

Sample Language: Subject to funding availability, the City shall devise a program of financing for Accessory Dwelling Units subject to rent restrictions for at least 15 years at Extremely Low-Income rent levels to people with developmental disabilities who would benefit from coordinated housing support and other services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center. ● Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Not only is disability the highest-ranked source of Fair Housing complaints, a growing body of San Mateo County data indicates that Black, Indigenous and other People of Color (BIPOC) with disabilities experience higher rates of housing discrimination and severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities or whites with disabilities. Currently the City of San Mateo offers its residents exceptional employment, educational and social opportunities but the severe shortfall of Extremely Low Income units means that BIPOC--particularly those with disabilities--are too often excluded from enjoying 7 those community assets. Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce Extremely Low Income units that will overcome such disparities. Policies that lead to increased production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as city staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in the City of San Mateo and decrease displacement and homelessnessness for the most at-risk City of San Mateo residents.

Sample Language: The City of San Mateo's plans to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for Black, Indigenous and other People of Color, particularly those with disabilities, shall include policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies. 8 1

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SUBMISSION FOR

CITY OF SAN MATEO HOUSING ELEMENT
Introduction to Developmental Disabilities
People with developmental disabilities have a disability that emerged before age 18, is expected to be lifelong, and is of sufficient severity to require a coordinated program of services and support in order to live successfully in the community. Developmental disabilities include intellectual disability, autism, Down syndrome, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and other disabling conditions similar in their functional impact to an intellectual disability. Under California’s Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people with developmental disabilities are entitled to receive community-based services that allow them to live in the least restrictive community setting. This shift to de-institutionalization has led to the closure of the most restrictive segregated settings and to the requirement that local jurisdictions in their Housing Elements assess and plan specifically for the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Regional Center in order to live in their home community.

Table ___ Comparison of the 2021 City and County Populations with Developmental Disabilities Age City of San Mateo County of San Mateo City of San Mateo as % of County
Under age 18 304 1169 26%
18 and older 531 2764 19%
Total 835 3933 21%
Source: The City of San Mateo data is based on zip code level data for zip codes 94401, 94402, and 94403 published by the California Department of Developmental Services as of September 2021. County level data is published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021. Both sources exclude children from birth to the third birthday because approximately 75% of this age group is found not eligible for continuing lifelong services on their third birthday.

2 Decline in Living Arrangements for Adults with Developmental Disabilities Outside the Family Home.

Of the City’s total population with developmental disabilities, 531 (64%) are adults and 304 (36%) are under age 18 (Table __). Assessing the housing needs of adults with developmental disabilities is of particular importance because as they age the adults will require a residential option outside the family home, whereas the family home is the preferred living option for children with developmental disabilities. In 2021, 505 City of San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities lived in the family home compared to 389 in 2013 as reported in the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element. This 30% increase in reliance on the family home is 2.5 times greater than the City’s 12% increase in the developmental disabilities population during that same period. Increased reliance on the family home is primarily explained by overall growth in the population with developmental disabilities coupled with significant declines in opportunities for the City’s adults with developmental disabilities to live either in licensed care facilities (10% decline) or in affordable housing with supportive services (19% decline). (Table __.) As adults with developmental disabilities age, they need opportunities to live outside the family home both because of the aging of their family caregivers and also because many adults with developmental disabilities would like to live in their own apartment with supportive services.

Table ___ Changes in Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities Living Arrangements
2013
Number
2021
Number
2021
Percent of Total Adults % Change Since 2013
Total (children & adults) in
the Family Home 389 505 -- 30%
Adults In the family home
Not reported-- see
note 201 38% --
Own apartment with
supportive services 64 52 10% -19%
Licensed Facilities 294 265 50% -10%
Other (including homeless) 7 13 2% 86%
Total Adults
Not reported--see
note 531 100% --
Note: The 2013 data are reported in the 2015 Housing Element, which failed to separately count those under 18 and those 18 and older, making it difficult to estimate changes in the significance of the family home as a residential setting specifically for adults. The 2021 data are published at the zip code level by the California Department of Developmental Services as of September 2021. These data assume that occupants of licensed facilities are 18 and older which is generally true, but if incorrect this assumption would tend to understate the need for other housing options for adults with developmental disabilities.

3 trend has significant implications for housing needs among City of San Mateo adults with developmental disabilities during the period of the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element.

Table __ Changes in Age Distribution of Adult Population in San Mateo County Age 2015 Number 2021 Number % Change
18 to 31 1023 1189 16%
32 to 41 397 457 15%
41 to 52 382 335 -12%
52 to 61 385 348 -10%
62 plus 327 435 33%
Total adults 2514 2764 10%
Source: County level data is published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 30, 2021 and as of September 30, 2015.

4 Displacement. The California Department of Developmental Services has documented a 12% decline in the age group 42 to 51 and a 10% decline in the age group 52 to 61 in San Mateo County between September 2015 and June 2021. (Table __). In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to homelessness or displacement from the county because of the lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when a parent caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years in living in the City of San Mateo.

Transit-Dependent. Most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car and rely on public transit as a means to integration in the larger community.

5 apartment and are often as essential to a person with a developmental disability as a physically modified unit is to a person with a mobility, vision, or hearing impairment. ● A mix of unit sizes at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners, or have children. ● Location near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities.
● Deeply affordable housing is needed, targeting incomes not more than 30% of Area Median Income and taking advantage of Housing Authority Project Based Vouchers or HUD 811 Project Rental Assistance when available to create housing opportunities for those who cannot meet minimum income requirements for units priced at 30% of Area Median Income.

Policy and Program Recommendations
The City of San Mateo has a responsibility not simply to assess the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities but also to create policy, zoning, program and other changes that make it more feasible for affordable housing developers to include people with developmental disabilities in their housing in coordination with the supportive services available from the Golden Gate Regional Center. The City’s 2015 Housing Element identified a need for housing for an additional 30 to 87 people with developmental disabilities, but the number of adults with developmental disabilities living in their own apartment actually declined by 11% since the last Housing Element, even as the population grew by 12%. The City’s lack of progress in meeting the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities since the last Housing Element demonstrates the need for policies and programs that specifically incentivize inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in affordable housing with coordinated services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center.
● Establish and monitor a quantitative goal. Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from affordable housing. Since its last Housing Element, the City of San Mateo facilitated land acquisition and provided city funding for one affordable housing project with a commitment to make 8 of the 225 apartments subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities (Kiku Crossing). A goal of 100 new Extremely Low-Income housing units for City of San Mateo residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs population.

Sample Language: The City of San Mateo shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 100 new Extremely Low Income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by Golden Gate Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing.

● Target City-Owned Land, Land Dedicated to Affordable Housing under the Inclusionary Ordinance and City Housing Funds to Meet City-Specific Priorities. City-owned land, land

6 dedicated to affordable housing in lieu of providing affordable units under the inclusionary ordinance, and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible in high-cost City of San Mateo. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive requests for proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additional points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of City of San Mateo residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs--for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of extremely low income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Sample Language: In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the city’s inclusionary ordinance or city housing funds, the City of San Mateo shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a greater number of extremely low-income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Golden Gate Regional Center.

● Offer Developers Additional Alternatives Under the Inclusionary Ordinance. Most adults with developmental disabilities and other special needs groups on fixed incomes, are unable to satisfy minimum income requirements for the Lower Income units currently required under the city’s inclusionary ordinance. California law (AB 1505, the “Palmer Fix”) explicitly allows cities to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances that address a range of income levels from moderate- income to extremely low-income. The City should take advantage of this authority to make its ordinance more responsive to local needs by offering developers of market rate housing an alternative means of compliance with the city’s BMR program if deeper levels of affordability are targeted, such as by allowing a lower percentage of units to be set aside if they are affordable to Extremely Low Income households. This same alternative can be extended to projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center. Such a menu would address a broader range of City of San Mateo housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement.

Sample Language: The City of San Mateo shall revise its inclusionary housing ordinance to offer developers an alternative means of compliance with the BMR program, to consider an applicant’s request to lower the percentage of set-aside units in projects which include extremely low income units or units for residents requiring specialized services (such as people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center) in

7 connection with its review of the planning application for the project and may reject or accept the request in its sole discretion.

● Reduce Parking Requirements for People with Developmental and Other Disabilities. Adults with developmental disabilities have reduced parking needs because they rarely have a driver's license or own a car. This may also be true of other categories of people with disabilities. The City should revise its ordinances to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental disabilities to .5 space for each affordable studio or 1 bedroom unit and 1 space for an affordable 2 bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction should be considered for physically accessible units required to be included in affordable housing.

● Local Density Bonus Priorities. The state density bonus law incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level. But in counties like San Mateo County, with the highest Area Median Income in the state, these incentives reward the targeting of income levels that effectively exclude the many people with disabilities and seniors living on fixed incomes well below the Very Low Income target. The City of San Mateo should create additional local incentives to the state density bonus law to reward the production of more housing for City of San Mateo residents who do not benefit from the Low and Very Low Income units produced under the state density bonus law--for example, projects with a percentage of Extremely Low Income units and/or projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Sample Language: In addition to implementing the California density bonus statute, the City shall provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, or concessions for housing projects that include a percentage of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level and/or target special needs populations, such as people with disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Affirmative marketing is particularly needed by people with developmental disabilities who, because of cognitive, communication and social impairment, may rely on housing navigation

8 services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center to learn about and apply for affordable housing.

● Extremely Low-Income Accessory Dwelling Units. As part of a larger plan to increase the supply of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the City should consider creating a financing program for homeowners who build ADUs and rent them for at least 15 years at Extremely Low Income rent levels or that are subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Sample Language: Subject to funding availability, the City shall devise a program of financing for Accessory Dwelling Units subject to rent restrictions for at least 15 years at Extremely Low- Income rent levels and/or target special needs populations, such as people with disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center. ● Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Not only is disability the highest-ranked source of Fair Housing complaints, a growing body of San Mateo County data indicates that Black, Indigenous and other People of Color (BIPOC) with disabilities experience higher rates of housing discrimination and severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities or whites with disabilities. Currently the City of San Mateo offers its residents exceptional employment, educational and social opportunities but the City’s severe shortfall of Extremely Low Income units means that BIPOC--particularly those with disabilities--are too often excluded from enjoying those community assets. Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce Extremely Low Income units that will overcome such disparities. Policies that lead to increased production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as city staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in the City of San Mateo and decrease displacement and homelessnessness for the most at-risk City of San Mateo residents.

9 1
From: Housing
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 4:59 PM
To: y
Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element

From: Jennifer Martinez
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 1:06 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc:

Subject: San Mateo Housing Element

May 4, 2022

Dear Mayor Bonilla and San Mateo City Council Members,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a response to the 2022 Draft Housing Element. My letter focuses on the goal to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

State law requires that each community study patterns of racial segregation and concentrated affluence, identify the conditions that have contributed to these patterns, and plan for specific programs that will address these patterns.

First, San Mateo’s Housing Element fails to sufficiently study this problem. While the neighborhoods where people of color live have been analyzed, the neighborhoods with high concentrations of white residents have not been studied. By failing to analyze the underlying conditions of these neighborhoods (exclusionary zoning, the history of racial covenants, etc.), the Housing Element also fails to propose policies and programs that will change those conditions and address the racial segregation that those neighborhoods are also experiencing.

This is an egregious omission that flies in the face of affirmatively furthering fair housing to reduce segregation and create equal housing and opportunity access, regardless of race or ability.

Second, without adequate analysis, the Housing Element does not provide adequate solutions - by geography as is required by HCD guidelines - to meet the scale, depth, and nuance of the problem. Many of the proposed programs amount to “more marketing” in low-income neighborhoods. The programs and policy solutions should include approaches that address the underlying conditions of racial segregation, such as  change the zoning of R-1 neighborhoods to allow for more density,  pair investment strategies in under-invested areas with stronger anti-displacement measures to ensure low-income residents reap the benefits of neighborhood improvements,  improve access to reliable, affordable transportation and access to high-quality schools

Third, the minimal AFFH analysis that does exist states that “there is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher-resourced areas of the city.” Yet the Housing Element fails to propose housing sites, let alone affordable housing sites, in the high resource neighborhoods in the city. Again, those neighborhoods are left out of the equation and off the table in terms of being part of the solution to the city’s segregation problems.

While much work has been done to create the current Housing Element, it falls short of state guidelines as well as the hopes and aspirations we should have for San Mateo. There is no reason why the burden of the housing crisis we face in our communities should continue to fall on low-income people and people of color,

2 while the windfall benefits of increased home values accrue to a largely-white, wealthier part of our community.

Far from natural segregation, this is the outcome of decades of policies designed to favor some people over others, and we can choose differently. Now is the time to change this pattern of segregation and unequal benefits and burdens and create a different future for the next generations.

Respectfully,

Jennifer Martinez
Resident, San Mateo
1 From: Housing
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:30 AM
To:

Subject: FW: Housing Element response by Social Action Ministry Attachments: SAM_Housing Element Letter_Final.pdf

From: Mike Heagerty < >
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 7:26 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element response by Social Action Ministry

Attached is the Social Action Ministry's response to the draft Housing Element. Thank you for your consideration.

Mike Heagerty

All people deserve respect, justice and opportunity

April 29, 2022

City Council Members: Rick Bonilla, Mayor; Diane Papan, Deputy Member; Joe Goethals, Council Member; Amourence Lee, Council Member; Eric Rodriguez, Council Member Planning Manager
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

RE: Draft Housing Element

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for reaching out to the community regarding the Draft Housing Element outlining the process and review for expanding housing within our community over the next eight years. The Social Action Ministry (SAM) group at St. Matthew Catholic Church in San Mateo is concerned about the availability of affordable housing in our community.

SAM encourages our City leaders to focus on affordable housing for those members of our community in the very low- and low-income categories of median income for San Mateo County, identified in the Housing Element, many of whom are working in essential services and/or underemployed. We believe too much of our new housing construction has focused on the highest income earners of our region.

Your draft Housing Element correctly identifies the loss of affordability covenants on developments within the City of San Mateo that could potentially create a loss of affordable units, rather than an increase, during a time when the housing shortage is so acute. We need to push strong planning and allow zoning flexibility to convert under-utilized commercial projects for affordable residential developments. Our community is blessed with diversity from many walks of life, and we do not wish it to be only a home for the elite. Shelter and housing are a human right, and this is the time to focus on those who are the most shelter-insecure in our community as housing pressures become more amplified than anytime in our lives.

We appreciate your efforts and consideration of our position. We look forward to the results of your City Council meeting on May 16, 2022.

Sincerely,

Social Action Ministry
of St. Matthew Catholic Church

All people deserve respect, justice and opportunity

Selected SAM members residing in San Mateo:

María del Carmen Muñoz

Anne A. Fariss

Michael Heagerty

John H. Love II

Vilma Sanchez

Susan Wilbur

1 From: Housing
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:31 AM
To:

Subject: FW: San Mateo draft housing element/Comments from One San Mateo

From: Planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 5:08 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>;

Subject: FW: San Mateo draft housing element/Comments from One San Mateo

From: Eldridge, Karyl >
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 3:28 PM
To:

Cc: Planning <[email protected]>; housi [email protected];

Subject: San Mateo draft housing element/Comments from One San Mateo

Dear Mayor Bonilla and Members of the San Mateo City Council,

This letter is submitted on behalf of One San Mateo to provide feedback in relation to the draft housing element for the City of San Mateo. One San Mateo is a community group formed in 2017 to work toward creating a city that is responsive to the needs of all. We strive to increase racial and economic equity, primarily through our advocacy for affordable housing and renter protections. We believe that safe and stable housing is fundamental to human dignity and well-being and essential to the health and sustainability of the overall community.

In reviewing the housing element, the core interest of One San Mateo has been to evaluate its effectiveness in upholding the mandates of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. These mandates require cities to work proactively to reverse historical patterns of segregation and foster integrated communities. Our comments are offered from the perspective of these AFFH goals.

HOUSING NEEDS AND THE RISK OF DISPLACEMENT

Misleading metric. Preventing the displacement of existing residents is central to the fulfillment of AFFH, as is made clear by the AFFH guidance memo issued by HCD in April of 2021. As it currently stands, the needs analysis in the draft housing element contains metrics that seriously downplay the risk of displacement in San Mateo. One such metric appears as follows: “According to research from the University of California, Berkeley, 0.0% of households in San Mateo live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement ...” Regardless of the source, offering this as a meaningful metric of the displacement threat in San Mateo is extremely misleading. Elsewhere in the needs analysis, the northeast section of San Mateo, particularly the area south of Poplar Avenue, is said to be characterized by high poverty, concentrations of cost burdened households, and overcrowding. The existence of high levels of cost burden and overcrowding are clear predictors of

2 displacement. Furthermore, the needs analysis reveals that the North Central and downtown neighborhoods are “At Risk of Becoming Exclusive” or “Becoming Exclusive.” Looming exclusion necessarily translates into a threat of displacement. Thus, we maintain that this 0.0% statistic taken from UC Berkeley only serves to cloud the gravity of the displacement threat and underplay the need for aggressive action to prevent it. The credibility of the analysis would be strengthened if this statistic were removed.

Jobs-housing fit. The discussion of the increasing jobs-housing ratio does not go far enough toward exposing the growing pressures on lower-income residents and the displacement risk associated with this. While the rising jobs- housing ratio reflects the growing imbalance between jobs and housing, it does nothing to measure the relationship between affordability levels of the housing and the income levels of San Mateo residents. According to the needs analysis, “83.6% of permits issued in San Mateo were for above moderate-income housing, 6.2% were for moderate-income housing, and 10.1% were for low- or very low-income housing ...” Since many of the new jobs created over this period were low-wage, this signals a growing shortage of housing for residents at the lower end of the income scale. This, in turn, creates a risk of displacement. The needs analysis, particularly its assessment of displacement risk, would be strengthened by introducing a discussion of jobs-housing fit, a metric specifically designed to measure the number of low-wage workers within the city and the number of homes that are affordable to them.

MISSING CONSTRAINTS

Measure Y. The April 2021 guidance memo from HCD contains a list of zoning and land use barriers that includes an entry that reads: “Voter initiatives that restrict multi-family developments, rezoning to higher density, height limits, or similar measures that limit housing choices.” In discussing constraints, the draft housing element makes passing mention of Measure Y, the voter initiative that creates a limit on height and density for new buildings in San Mateo through 2030. However, the perfunctory character of this treatment dramatically understates the importance of Measure Y in restricting the development of new homes at all levels of affordability. Three years ago the city council considered an increase in the Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement to 20 percent. The economic consultants hired by the city ultimately concluded that it was infeasible, given the height and density limits imposed by Measure Y. This is but one illustration of how Measure Y operates to put a chokehold on the creation of housing, including affordable housing. A far more robust discussion of Measure Y is called for in the consideration of constraints.

R-1 zoning. The guidance memo from HCD states the following: “In addition to identifying and analyzing racially and ethnically concentrated areas of property, an analysis should also consider concentrated areas of affluence ... to guide meaningful goals and actions to address fair housing issues.” In the City of San Mateo, at least 70 percent of the land zoned for housing is R-1, and many of these R-1 neighborhoods are populated primarily by affluent whites. The draft housing element fails to discuss this reality, its causes, and the profound implications of R-1 zoning for segregating the community and perpetuating inequality.

SITES INVENTORY AND R-1 ZONING

One San Mateo’s strongest objection to the draft housing element is the fact that none of the sites are located in the highest opportunity areas. More specifically, we take issue with the fact that the housing plan takes a complete “hands-off” approach to neighborhoods zoned R-1. R-1 zoning is, by its very nature, exclusionary. First introduced in the wake of a 1917 Supreme Court decision that banned explicitly racist zoning, its very intent was to accomplish exclusion by other means. Also, the majority of R-1 neighborhoods in San Mateo were developed with racial covenants in their founding documents, barring all but whites from living within their borders. By protecting these neighborhoods from any meaningful densification, the housing element locks this history into place. It not only fails to reverse historical segregation, it entrenches it. Furthermore, this “hands-off” approach to R-1 is a missed opportunity, a huge and tragic one, since it prevents these neighborhood from unleashing their ability to address the community’s urgent housing need.

POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND AFFH
3 Funding for those most at risk. The housing element includes a variety of policies giving priority to the lowest income members of the community, including those with special needs. Since these are the residents hardest to serve and most at risk of displacement, this prioritization is important for the achievement of AFFH goals. However, what is urgently needed is funding to create additional numbers of affordable units for these vulnerable populations. Thus the city is urged to include in its action plan the creation of a new funding source for affordable housing, coupled with the prioritization of units for VLI and ELI and for those with special needs.

Remove the Measure Y constraint. Measure Y is a significant barrier in the effort to create new housing, including affordable housing. The housing element should incorporate a commitment by the city to initiate a community process resulting in a new ballot measure to remove this constraint.

Increase the BMR. San Mateo’s Below-Market-Rate Program has been a powerful mechanism for generating affordable homes. As previously stated, the city council considered such an increase of the BMR in recent years, but the height-and-density limits of Measure Y (Measure P at the time) were found to render it infeasible. We encourage the city to include in its action plan an increase in the BMR, to be passed by council immediately in the wake of overturning Measure Y.

Transform exclusive neighborhoods into inclusive ones. As indicated above, there is currently no affordable housing located in the highest opportunity areas. This is clearly inconsistent with AFFH goals. The city should make the changes necessary to facilitate the meaningful densification of R-1 neighborhoods, thereby disabling a decades-old enforcer of segregation and enabling the transformation of exclusive neighborhoods into inclusive ones.

Protect tenants from displacement. In the housing element chart for Programs and Policies, Policy H3.4 includes an enumeration of tenant protections to be enacted during Cycle 6, many of which are currently being worked on. However, this list is muddled and insufficiently robust. Considering that this is an 8-year cycle, the list should include policies other than those currently under consideration. We suggest that this entry be revised to include the following:

 Expand tenant protections under AB 1482: Extend just cause provisions to the first year of tenancy, require documentation prior to remodel, expand relocation assistance for all no-fault evictions, provide first right of return for renovation and demolition.

 Create new resources for emergency rental assistance.

 Investigate adoption of a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act.

This last item, referred to as COPA, creates an opening for community nonprofits to purchase multi-family buildings when they first come on the market, providing an opportunity to preserve the affordability of the units and keep the tenants from being displaced.

Rent registry. Policy H3.6 currently reads “Explore rent registry.” Elsewhere in the housing element draft, it says that in response to community input, a decision was made to “Adopt a rent registry.” Thus the word “Explore” should be changed to “Adopt.” Furthermore, the rent registry should also be listed in the AFFH chart, as is the case with Policy H3.4. A rent registry tracks whether existing renter protections are being complied with and functions as a powerful vehicle to prevent displacement.

The creation of this housing element provides an opportunity to chart a course toward a brighter future for San Mateo in which inclusion is at the forefront, disparities are overcome, and the needs of all San Mateo residents are taken into full account. One San Mateo encourages incorporation of the changes described above so that it will fulfill its potential for doing so.

Sincerely,
4 Karyl Eldridge
Vice Chair of One San Mateo

*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

San Mateo Housing Element-Sandy’s notes
At Risk Units/Preservation
Humboldt House
Why is expiration of Humboldt House (2041!) included in this Housing Element? See Table 9 policy H2.2 (page H-62) and Table 12 H5.3.3 (page H-72). Perhaps this got carried over from prior HE which required agreement extension for that planning period (accomplished in 2021).

Table 13 page H-75 remove Humboldt House 9 units under Preservation Belmont Building
Section 3.3 page H-22 – the units were converted from commercial office to residential. Funds not used for acquisition, just construction. Although property is owned by private entity and loss of affordability is possible, owner has long participated in Section 8 voucher program, so it may or may not be a “high” risk situation.

Since this property expires in 2032, suggest adding a separate implementation date to work with owner.

Perhaps 2030-2031 instead of 2025-2026? See Table 9 policy H2.2 (page H-62) and Table 12 H5.3.3 (page H-72).

Appendix D Attachment 1
Quantified Objective- “Advertise Bridgepointe units going to sale” Seems unlikely to assume that Bridgepointe owner would sell off affordable units since this is one large rental project . Suggest something more general like negotiate with owner to “explore” selling units to non profit and/ or provide rental assistance to displaced tenants
Similar language for Belmont- could also add explore extension of participation in Section 8 program for that building. Update timeline.

Remove Humboldt House.

Funding Sources/Programs-
Section 3.3.3 (page H-24)
State: Can add PLHA
Local funds listed: San Mateo Aff Hsg Fund/Housing Innovation funds ( these are county programs, so add County to title). --I believe Innovation Fund was a one-time program and not available at this time- check with County staff
May want to add City funding sources as well.

Section 3.3.6 ( page H-38)
Include sources listed on page H-24
Other State programs that could be mentioned, since City has used them: Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG), Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF)
Table 8 Policy 1.2 (page H-58) Target Column
Do you want to specify the “Talbots” parking lot project? ( Could include some milestones and number of units in the target and timeline columns.)
Table 10 Policy 3.1 (page H-64)- Target Column
Add qualifiers to list of programs (“as funds are available”, “for programs that have been funded in the past such as “ etc) City does not traditionally fund Vendome, and may or may not continue to fund HIP Housing. Montara is likely only for a couple of years. Rapid ReHousing may or may not continue to get funding if other priorities are identified for future PLHA. This is an 8 year plan and these things can change on an annual basis.

Appendix C Housing Resources Pages HC-6-7:

Section 2.2.2 -could add other State programs as mentioned above Section 2.3 Suggest adding County AFH Funds--City has relied on them extensively over the past several years.

Section 2.3.1 Former RDA funds include loan repayments from prior loans- this is the source of the $2.85M for Kiku with 250K balance as described. Seems odd to mention this small fund balance, since it is projected to grow over the HE time period ( I did revenue projections on the spreadsheet that summarizes Quantified Objectives.) especially since the other larger sources of funding are not quantified.

The $706K plus 20% annual contribution ( collectively called “boomerang funds- total over $5M ) are still available to spend. Maybe just keep this simple and leave dollar amounts out entirely. Or, go all in ,and list projected resources for all local City housing funds for the entire HE period.

Section 2.3.2 BMR program is not the name of the “fund”. It is referred to as “City Housing Fund”, which includes fractional BMR fees, as well as other misc housing revenues ( fees collected for subordination processing, loan payoffs from old First time buyer program, etc). Also City Housing Fund is mentioned specifically in Section 3.11 (page HC10) and 3.11.2 ( p HC 11), so it would be good to be consistent.

Section 2.3.3 The Commercial Linkage fees mentioned are adjusted each year using construction cost index. These are out of date already! Seems too detailed to include specific fee.

Section 2.4.4. HEART Down payment program income requirements are out of date- they change from time to time as median income changes. Also don’t think it is called Opening Doors anymore- check website for info.

Appendix C Housing Programs pages HC 9-12
Section 3.5 Acquisition of Land
3rd sentence is incorrect. The two parcels comprise one surface parking lot- does not include the toy store building. Internally, we’ve always called it “Talbots parking lot”, since it is adjacent to Talbots (closed toy store and owned by private party).

The last sentence refers to the other surface parking lot, which is next door to “Raviloli House”- it is not the site of the restaurant. ( again staff nick name). The City has owned this surface lot for years and years, so might be misleading to say City acquired it. The “Ravioli” and “Talbots” parking lots are not adjacent to each other, but are about a block away from each other. Also correct Appendix E 4.6 pageHE10.

Section 3.11.1 Life Moves
The “annual CDBG funding” for First Step is relatively recent (2020) and not guaranteed since these funds are competitive. It would be awkward to infer this is a done deal for the future given its short history of funding. Could say “ City has provided operational funds in the past and may continue based on available funds”
Also Vendome is not a shelter. Perhaps say they have two properties in San Mateo, the First Step shelter and permanent supportive housing at the Vendome.

Section 3.12.3 HIP Self Sufficiency
City has not funded Self Sufficiency Program for over 15 years- I would eliminate funding comment. (This is different that Home Sharing program)

3.13 HOT Team
The final sentence is out of date- eliminate.

3.14 Homeless Prevention. Second sentence is confusing.

Section 3.14.2 Legal Aid.

Again this funding is not guaranteed since they need to compete for funding. That said, the odds of this program to be funded continuously is more likely than other programs. Maybe say City “traditionally” funds this on annual basis.

Special Needs/Homeless
FYI: Shelter Overview
City has one emergency/transitional shelter -First Step for Families (Life Moves)—City provided extensive capital funding to develop property, but typically has not provided ongoing operating subsidy.

However, starting in 2020 Community Resource Commission awarded CDBG grants for operations (competitive process).

Vendome (Life Moves) Permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless. City provided 100% of acquisition/rehab costs for this property, but has not provided any annual operating subsidies, but does support their efforts to obtain HUD funds (PUSH) for operations through Continuum of Care process.

Special Needs
Humboldt House (Mateo Lodge)- Permanent supportive housing for individuals with mental illness. ( not a shelter) City provided extensive funds for acq/rehab of apartment building formerly owned by private individual with County contracts to house mentally ill. City has never provided annual operating funds.

Delaware Pacific (Mid Pen)- City provided land/ subsidy to construct permanent affordable housing with 10 units set aside for households with mental health issues at risk of homelessness as referred by the County. City has never provided operating subsidies.

Montara ( BRDIGE) -City provided land and subsidy to construct permanent affordable housing with 12 units set aside for formerly homeless veterans and 4 other formerly homeless ( nonvets). Will provide operating funds for resident services for 4 years with PLHA funds.

Kiku ( Mid Pen) - City provided land and subsidy to construct permanent affordable housing with 8 units set aside for IDD, and 16 for formerly homeless

Appendix B Constraints

2.9.5 Emergency Shelters page H B 29 final paragraph- City has one shelter, First Step. Humboldt House and Vendome are not shelters.

2.9.7 Emergency Shelter Strategies page HB 30
Re-use of residential buildings. Humboldt House is not an example of this since it is not a shelter and not really re-use since it was always, and still is, an apartment building. ( It served as housing for the mentally ill by a private owner for many years prior to Mateo Lodge acquisition and rehab ) Perhaps this example can be moved above to “Special Needs”. Humboldt House serves the mentally ill, so conceivably could be considered Housing for persons with Disabilities. (2.9.1 ). Also, it serves more than 9 individuals since residents share units- Sandy B can provide the number of individuals who live there.

The info about the services it provides the residents is correct.

Partnership with Faith Based Organizations -FYI there is a program in existence that does this- Home and Hope, based in Burlingame. Many years ago , it received CDBG Community Funding for the congregations who provided sites in San Mateo.

Appendix D AFFH
Section 5.4 R/eCAP Page HD-23 final paragraph—“Edge” Recap language was supposed to be removed by consultant- it’s not required, and for SM is misleading for the CT by Belmont border-could pose AFFH problems for parcels on Sites List along southern stretch of ECR ( Mollie Stones, etc.). I thought they made the correction on the revised draft they sent us. Remove final paragraph entirely.

Check top of page HD -24- Seems like a dangling statement--not sure if it is describing R/ECAP or Edge R/ECAP.

Appendix E Review of Prior Element
Section 2.4 page HE 3 ADU’s Maybe compare the success of 40-60 units now to the prior average of 2- 5/year to stress the success of revisions?
Section 2.7 Preserve Affordable page HE 5. The expiring agreements were negotiated with motivated non profit organizations, and frankly not much of an issue to achieve the affordability extensions. It is an overstatement that it involved “many meetings and prolonged” collaborative efforts. I would delete those describers and just say “ Through collaborative efforts between staff…….” Table A H2.3 page5/12 Item 3 Kiku- Construction commenced in Jan2022—correct estimated dates

1 Manira Sandhir
From: Adam Nugent
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 9:56 PM
To: Manira Sandhir; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; [email protected]
Subject: San Mateo Planning Commission Input - Draft Housing Element - Apr 26 Attachments: Planning Commission Input - Draft Housing Element - Adam Nugent - April 26.pdf Hi Manira and Zach,

Thank you, again, for your team's hard work on the City of San Mateo’s Draft Housing Element. It is a massive undertaking!

Here are my notes and consolidated input from last night’s Planning Commission review of the Draft Housing Element. I spent a few hours following the meeting getting as much of the discussion topics I commented on during the meeting incorporated into my notes as possible.

I hope the additional detail and
clarifying elements in these notes prove useful to the team.

Best,
Adam

Adam Nugent, PLA
Planning Commissioner, City of San Mateo
[email protected]

Commissioner Adam Nugent, April 26, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Input
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Draft for Public Review: Housing Element of the General Plan 2023-2031, April 6, 2022
Outline
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Input
• Introduction and Thank You
• Part 1: Site Inventory Comments
• Methodology-focused
• Part 2: Aﬃrmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Comments
• General Comments
• Fair Housing Assessment
• Contributing Factors
Note: Topics to be discussed at
Continuance Meeting, May 3:
• Part 3: Other Housing Element
Sections
• Part 4: Goals, Policies, and
Programs
• Including Aﬃrmatively
Furthering Fair Housing
Policies and Programs

Introduction and Thank You
Thank you, Housing Element Team!
The work you are doing is extremely important and impactful • All of my comments and questions come from a place of deep respect and appreciation for the hard work you are doing!
• I am proud to have a city with staﬀ of such caliber, who genuinely desire to create a better, more just housing landscape for our future • This is HARD WORK; and you are undertaking it in uncharted territory that is fraught with puzzles and potential pitfalls
Introduction
Thank you, Housing Element Team!
Fair warning:
• My comments are extensive
• To implement the Housing Element in a way that truly advances fair housing goals and meets the needs of our younger generations it will take:
• Tough decisions and a lot of work
• This Housing Element is an opportunity to make real progress:
• Repair racial and economic disparities
• Combat cost of living increases that are disproportionately harming younger adults
Introduction
The Push for Change Has Never Been Greater
Demographics will drive our housing needs and our political will • The younger half of our population has a diﬀerent outlook and set of values than many who are in the older generations
• The political winds are blowing in the right direction for positive change • The Millennial and Gen-Z generations are the largest generations in history and will have continually increasing political voice and power
• It is the younger generations that are feeling the most pain in this crisis, and they are the most motivated to bring about change
• 14% of 4-year university students experienced homelessness last year; 42% experienced housing insecurity (Governing, 4/26/2022)
• We cannot botch this for the next generation
Introduction
Quantified Objectives Discussion
Draft City of San Mateo 2031 Housing Element, Chapter 8 • “According to HCD, the sum of the quantiﬁed objectives for the programs should ideally be equal to or surpass the community's identiﬁed housing needs.” (Page H-75)
• Nevertheless, in the Draft Housing Element, the City has chosen not to produce a plan that meets our Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation
• The City has (erroneously*) calculated its own, quantiﬁed objectives that are below its regionally identiﬁed housing needs
• The Draft Housing Element does not currently include meaningful, quantiﬁable actions that would signiﬁcantly increase housing production to an appropriate level, but this can and should be changed • The only way we can justify not planning to meet our identiﬁed housing needs is if it is impossible for us to create programs, policies, develop funding, or make land use changes that can commensurably increase housing production in line with our allocation, i.e. if there were no precedents in which municipalities reformed policies and subsequently increased housing production
* The quantiﬁed objectives themselves are incorrect due to omissions in the Housing Element’s capacity calculation methodology, discussed next
Introduction
Kevin Erdmann
“Unaffordable housing has one and only one
cause: purposeful communal enforcement
of it. This is legislated poverty.”
“We have a housing problem. And in researching that problem, you many have found that income inequality affects housing affordability. You many have found that the home building industry is inefficient. Dubious mortgage lending. Speculators. Slum lords, etc. etc. “All those things can be real things! They all can even be important things! We should deal with them AFTER the poisoning [purposeful communal enforcement of scarcity] stops!”Introduction Part 1: Sites Inventory
Fundamentally, there is not a set of
programs or proposals in the Draft Housing
Element that justify an assertion that there
will be a 300% increase in housing
production over the next eight years.

My comments focus entirely on methodological
issues and I will heavily reference state statutes
and documented state guidance
How much buﬀer do we have and how does it aﬀect
housing costs and fair housing?
Historically, most US cities planned for far more
housing than was needed for the existing
population. But as cities started to integrate in the
post-war era of the 1950s and 60s, a backlash
ended this practice, and a wave of mass
downzonings followed.

The result: Housing is increasingly unaﬀordable for
most households. This was deliberate, and often
predicted, as downzonings greatly reduced the
“zoning buﬀer” between current housing stock and
the maximum allowable housing capacity. “Before
1960, the buﬀer in both New York and Los Angeles
was at least 300% … New York’s fell to roughly
50% after the 1961 zoning update, and it was just
12% in Los Angeles in 2010.” (Shane Phillips,
Housing Initiative Project Manager, UCLA Lewis
Center for Regional Policy Studies)
Why does zoning capacity matter?
• “Nonvacant Sites Analysis: For nonvacant sites,
demonstrate the potential and likelihood of
additional development within the planning
period based on extent to which existing uses
may constitute an impediment to additional
residential development, past experience with
converting existing uses to higher density
residential development, current market
demand for the existing use, any existing leases
or other contracts that would perpetuate the
existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site
for additional residential development,
development trends, market conditions, and
regulatory or other incentives or standards to
encourage additional residential development on
these sites”
This information needs to be objectively quantiﬁed
Methodological Shortcomings: Nonvacant Sites Analysis
Sites Inventory
A Necessary Threshold listed in the “HDC Housing Element Completeness Checklist 1/1/2021”:
• “If nonvacant sites
accommodate 50 percent or
more of the lower-income RHNA
[which is the case in San Mateo],
demonstrate the existing use
is not an impediment to
additional development and
will likely discontinue in the
planning period, including
adopted ﬁndings based on
substantial evidence.”
Sites Inventory
Methodological Shortcomings: Nonvacant Sites Analysis
A Necessary Threshold listed in the “HDC Housing Element Completeness Checklist 1/1/2021”:

Realistic Development Capacity
My Underlying Questions
• How does the city plan to increase home building by over 300%? • And is this development increase realistic under the described methodology? • What is diﬀerent in cycle 6 from cycle 5?
• The city’s site’s capacities have only decreased from cycle 5 as the city has grown and land uses intensiﬁed (new developments have replaced existing underutilized parcels)
• So, is there a proposed program or group of new programs that can be shown to increase home building by over 300%, based on substantial evidence from other municipalities or from economic studies? Sites Inventory
Sites Inventory Analysis is Incomplete
Current incompleteness prohibits City from assessing actual capacity to meet its RHNA allocation
• From the Draft Housing Element: “The purpose of the Sites Inventory is to evaluate whether there are suﬃcient sites with appropriate zoning to meet the RHNA goal. It is based on the City’s current land use designations and zoning requirements. The analysis does not include the economic feasibility of speciﬁc sites, nor does it take into consideration the owner’s intended use of the land now or in the future.” (Page H-25 Draft City of San Mateo 2031 Housing Element)
• My Q: What substantial evidence, then, does the city provide that uses will be discontinued for nonvacant sites?
• My Q: How does the city incorporate redevelopment trends in its site capacity calculations?
Sites Inventory
Site Inventory Methodology - State Law
(Compare to Draft City of San Mateo 2031 Housing Element, Page H-26) • Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2) The housing element must describe the methodology used to determine the number of units calculated based on the following factors:

1. Land use controls and site improvements requirements,

2. *NEW* The realistic development capacity for the site,

3. *NEW* Typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar aﬀordability level in that jurisdiction,

4. *NEW* The current or planned availability and accessibility of suﬃcient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

The realistic development capacity for sites has not been factored in an appropriate or meaningful way Sites Inventory Page H-26
Draft City of San Mateo 2031 Housing Element
• “The number of units that might be able to be developed at various aﬀordability levels was then estimated, e.g.,
available land zoned at higher densities can be counted toward the very low- and low-income level needs, and land zoned at lower densities are counted toward the moderate and above moderate-income housing need. The analysis
was then completed using the actual average residential densities for developments built on land with various
zoning designations over the past ﬁve years.” (Page H-26 Draft City of San Mateo 2031 Housing Element)
• This a surprisingly short description of a crucial part of our otherwise extensive Draft Housing Element
• “was then estimated” is doing a lot of work in this passage • The City needs to show its math and data so the public can adjudicate its capacity calculations
Site Inventory Methodology
Sites Inventory

Page H-26
Draft City of San Mateo 2031 Housing Element
• “The number of units that might be able to be developed at various aﬀordability levels was then estimated, e.g., available land zoned at higher densities can be counted toward the very low- and low-income level needs, and
land zoned at lower densities are counted toward the
moderate and above moderate-income housing need.

The analysis was then completed using the actual
average residential densities for developments built
on land with various zoning designations over the past
ﬁve years.” (Page H-26 Draft City of San Mateo 2031
Housing Element)
• Q: What is the denominator used in calculating the
average?
• Q: Does this denominator only use recently
developed sites or does it look at all similarly zoned
parcels?
Site Inventory Methodology
Sites Inventory

Site Inventory Methodology
Realistic Development Capacity for nonresidential, nonvacant, or overlay zoned sites • Practically all sites are non-vacant, and so we must look at production trends…
Sites Inventory
City must consider past experience
converting existing uses for Nonvacant Sites
• HCD’s “Site Inventory Guidebook,” page 24:
• “If the inventory identiﬁes nonvacant sites to address a portion of the RHNA, the housing element must describe
the realistic development potential of each site within the planning period. Speciﬁcally, the analysis must
consider the extent that the nonvacant site’s existing use impedes additional residential development, the
jurisdiction's past experience converting existing uses to higher density residential development, market
trends and conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards that encourage additional housing
development on the nonvacant sites.”
“Development potential”
X period of time (“planning period”)
= rate of parcel conversion to new housing
Realistic Development Capacity
Sites Inventory

Nonvacant Site Analysis Methodology
From HCD’s “Site Inventory Guidebook,” May 2020, page 25 Sites Inventory
Part C: Example
Calculation
From HCD’s “Site Inventory
Guidebook,” May 2020, page 22
I cannot ﬁnd this factor in our
site inventory methodology
Sites Inventory
Site Inventory Approach
Page H-26-27
Draft City of San Mateo 2031 Housing Element
The closest thing I can ﬁnd to a calculation
of the rate at which similar parcels were
redeveloped is this non-empirical
“Development Potential Ranking”.

The writers of this draft used a subjective,
ranked series of numbers, 1-5, in its
calculations to encode what amounts to an
unsubstantiated guesstimate of the
“realistic development capacity” of sites
This is like using “thumbs up” emojis
where we should be using available,
numerical, development trend data
Sites Inventory
Realistic Development Capacity
for nonvacant sites
• Using qualitative characteristics to “rank” the “likelihood” of redevelopment for various sites is not an acceptable methodology in any HCD guidance documentation (Draft Housing Element, page H-26 to H-27) • The likelihood of redevelopment should be based on quantitative, measurable trends [rates] (HCD “Site Inventory Guidebook,” page 21) • The only valid exceptions should be for places without reasonably similar development history to calculate trends from, and that should generally not apply to the Bay Area
Sites Inventory
Realistic Development Capacity
• Using qualitative characteristics to “rank” the “likelihood” of redevelopment for various sites is not an acceptable methodology in any HCD guidance documentation (Draft Housing Element, page H-26 to H-27) • When ratings are subjective, it is impossible for the public to ascertain the quality of the City’s analysis.
• It amounts to staﬀ saying, “there is enough capacity because, to us, it feels like there is enough capacity. Trust us.”
• It then becomes uncannily convenient that staﬀ “determined” we have enough zoned capacity to meet our RHNA allocation.
for nonvacant sites
Sites Inventory
Realistic Development Capacity
• Using qualitative characteristics to “rank” the “likelihood” of redevelopment for various sites is not an acceptable methodology in any HCD guidance documentation (Draft Housing Element, page H-26 to H-27) • When we use objective, quantitative data and we ﬁnd that the probability of development is lower than what we need to meet our goals, we have the ability to draft policies that will enable changes that will help us meet our goals in predictable ways
• In contrast, when you base development capacity on subjective, non- empirical ratings, the Public has no way to understand how to change policies in ways that will meet our development needs
for nonvacant sites
Sites Inventory
Non-Vacant Site Analysis Methodology - State Law
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (g)(2) states:
• “An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent ﬁndings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.”
• Q: How can a qualitative ranking of sites be considered substantial evidence? Sites Inventory
Realistic Development Capacity - Nonvacant Sites
• In sum, past production trends must be used, including whether or not a site will be developed at all. Staﬀ or consultant “intuition” is not acceptable • Unless there is substantial evidence that a site will be redeveloped according to a listed density, be it a letter from the property owner or a pre- application submission, the city should be using an objective, calculated probability of redevelopment based on all similar properties locally or regionally over the course of the past RHNA cycle.
• For the City of San Mateo, that probability is 8.5% according to a UCLA study published in 2021
Sites Inventory
Current incompleteness prohibits City from assessing actual capacity to meet its RHNA allocation
• In sum, past production trends must be used, including whether or not a site will be developed at all. Staﬀ or consultant “intuition” is not acceptable • Each parcel capacity calculation should be multiplied by the probability of development for parcels in San Mateo, something akin to 0.085 (or

1.0 if the parcel has substantial evidence of redevelopment) • If there is additional, reﬁned and warranted, development trend data, such as the probability of development for parcels with a speciﬁc zoning- designation that are of a functionally equivalent size, that probability may be factored into the calculation if reviewed and approved by the PC or council
Current incompleteness prohibits City from assessing actual capacity to meet its RHNA allocation
Sites Inventory
Realistic Development Capacity - Nonvacant Sites
The City shall serve the Public in its evaluation of suitable sites • From HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, page 27:
• “If a housing element relies on nonvacant sites to
accommodate 50 percent or more of its RHNA for
lower income households, the nonvacant site’s existing
use is presumed to impede additional residential
development, unless the housing element describes
ﬁndings based on substantial evidence that the use
will likely be discontinued during the planning period.

The housing element must include the following:
• As part of the resolution adopting the housing
elements, ﬁndings stating the uses on nonvacant
sites identiﬁed in the inventory to accommodate the
RHNA for lower income is likely to be discontinued
during the planning period and the factors used to
make that determination. This can be included in
the body or in the recital section of the resolution.”
Non-vacant Site Analysis Next Steps
Sites Inventory

Non-vacant Site Analysis Next Steps
The City shall serve the Public in its evaluation of suitable sites • When substantial evidence is provided for site redevelopment, it should be available to the public, early in the process, in an easy, user-friendly way that is connected to the site geographically,
• The substantial evidence’s warrant for use should be adjudicated by the the Public through the Planning Commission and veriﬁed by HCD • Absent substantial evidence:
• The likelihood of redevelopment of any given site should default to the likelihood of development for all sites across the city (or all sites of a particular zoning category and equivalent size, if the data are available) Sites Inventory
Realistic Development Capacity
Include a Monitoring Program with next-step actions
• Monitoring Programs with next-step actions should be incorporated if the expected housing development is not produced
• “In addition, the housing element should include monitoring programs with next-step actions to ensure sites are achieving the anticipated development patterns. The programs should identify modiﬁcations to incentives, sites, programs, or rezoning the jurisdiction will take should these strategies not yield the expected housing potential.” (HCD “Site Inventory Guidebook,” page 21)
Sites Inventory
Part 2: Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing
Using California HCD Guidance for Public Entities and Housing Elements to advocate for our neighbors in San Mateo
Commissioner Adam Nugent, April 26, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting AFFH General Comments
Where are we going with this?
• We should have a very clear end-state where this city has solved the identiﬁed patterns of segregation, geographic disparities, and aﬃrmatively furthered fair housing
• It does not have to be achieved by the end of this single cycle, but its expected year of achievement should be stated and agreed upon, under the direct consultation of identiﬁed, excluded demographics and protected classes, like an emissions goal
• This end-state should be discernible and anticipated by the goals and actions AFFH: General Comments
Michael Kraus, a social psychologist and an associate professor at Yale University “Many Americans have a hard time recognizing the magnitude and persistence of racial inequality because, psychologically, we resist these truths. Psychologists refer to this kind of broad bias in perception as “motivated cognition” — that is, most Americans want to live in a society that is more racially equal, and so they engage in mental actions that ignore, discount or downplay contradictory evidence to maintain coherence between belief and reality.” AFFH: General Comments
Likewise, when progress toward equality is
seen as inevitable, incentives for political
action are low.

AFFH: General Comments
We need to end residential segregation
and reinvest in our Northern
Neighborhoods
Without displacement
AFFH: General Comments
State Guidance
Aﬃrmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• New California laws require active steps
by our city government to dismantle
housing segregation
• Actions must be taken in the Housing
Element/General Plan creation in 2021
and 2022
• HCD outlines best practices and
policies for cities to use

Quick AFFH
Overview for Readers
of These Notes

What is AFFH?
Aﬃrmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Aﬃrmatively furthering fair housing means
taking meaningful actions, in addition to
combating discrimination, that overcome
patterns of segregation and foster
inclusive communities free from barriers
that restrict access to opportunity based
on protected characteristics.

The duty to aﬃrmatively further fair
housing extends to all of a public
agency’s activities and programs relating
to housing and community development.

AFFH: General Comments
• Address signiﬁcant disparities in housing
needs and in access to opportunity
• Replace segregated living patterns with
truly integrated and balanced living
patterns
• Transform racially and ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty into areas
of opportunity
• Foster and maintain compliance with
civil rights and fair housing laws
Meaningful Action
AFFH requirements
AFFH: General Comments
Fair Housing Actions
What we need San Mateo to do
• Create housing mobility strategies
• Provide new housing choices and
aﬀordability in areas of opportunity
• Design place-based strategies to
encourage community conservation
and revitalization
• Protect existing residents from
displacement
AFFH: General Comments
AFFH: General Comments

6.3 San Mateo’s Fair Housing
Assessment
Fair Housing Assessment
Shortcomings In the Assessment of Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends:
• No analysis of racially segregated, concentrated areas of aﬄuence • Missing assessment of the most segregated racial population: non- Hispanic whites (APPENDIX D, Attachment 4 – UC Merced Segregation Report)
• No opportunity sites are located within the city’s highest-opportunity areas "Figure II-7: White Majority Census Tracts," Root Policy Research Map and Data Packet, Page 11
AFFH: Fair Housing Assessment
Racially Concentrated Areas of Aﬄuence Completely Left Out of the Analysis and Sites Inventory Assessment’s Miss:
70-80% WHITE
70-80% WHITE
70-80% WHITE
90% NON-WHITE
"Figure II-6: % Non-
White Population by
Census Block Groups,"
2018, Root Policy
Research Map and
Data Packet, Page 10
AFFH: Fair Housing Assessment
Fair Housing Assessment
Shortcomings In the Assessment of Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends:
• Why is income-segregation substantially higher in San Mateo compared to the rest of the Bay Area?
• This assessment should highlight factors that can be ﬁxed • Why has San Mateo’s income segregation at the neighborhood level not improved over time and why is it worse than the Bay Area average? AFFH: Fair Housing Assessment
Fair Housing Assessment
• Missing meaningful assessment of segregation in San Mateo relative to the Bay Area region
• Extremely low population of black people. Why?
• Need assessment of causes for the growing exclusion of this demographic from San Mateo in order to solve for this issue Shortcomings In the Assessment of Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends:

AFFH: Fair Housing Assessment
Exclusion and displacement —> low population relative to Bay Area • Only 2% of the city’s population is now black
• In 1990 the North Central census tract was
18% black, the highest in the city
• In 2017 it was only 4% black
• Discuss possible causes:
• Disinvestment-driven displacement in
North Central due to rising rental costs
and lack of improvement of rental housing
conditions
• Government policy preventing home
purchasing
• Historical exclusion elsewhere in the city
Assessment’s Miss: Black population
AFFH: Fair Housing Assessment
Housing Habitability Issues
Assessment’s Miss: Geographic Differences
• Strong and distinguishing
characteristic of North Central
• Highly concentrated in North
Central and downtown
• North Shoreview is not
characterized by this issue
See also: ”Figure III-11: Healthy Places
Index by Census Tract, 2021," Root Policy
Research Map and Data Packet, Page 40
AFFH: Fair Housing Assessment
Overcrowding issues in North Central
• Strong and distinguishing characteristic of
southern North Central
• Highly concentrated in one neighborhood
• North Shoreview (13%) is much less
characterized by this issue
• San Mateo overcrowding overall average:
7%, which is heavily skewed by North
Central
• San Mateo Park: < 1%
• North Central north of Poplar Ave: 1%
• North Central south of Poplar Ave: 27%
Assessment’s Miss: Geographic Differences
"Figure IV-19: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract,
2019," Root Policy Research Map and Data Packet, Page 60 AFFH: Contributing Factors Fair Housing Assessment
• North Central residents, including many who are alive today, have experienced the trauma of exclusion and steering from other neighborhoods of San Mateo
• Paired with a strong history of disinvestment and government practices to prevent POC from home ownership, the neighborhood and its people will need thoughtful repair in both the public and private realms Resident trauma and exclusion
AFFH: Fair Housing Assessment

6.3.2 Contributing factors and
Fair Housing Action Plan.

Excerpt from HCD’s AFFH Presentation

Analysis of Contributing Factors is inadequate
• It currently focuses more on the characteristics of the victims of our discriminatory structures and thus functions more as a continuation of the fair housing assessment than what it’s meant to be
• For instance, listing the fact that Hispanic residents are more likely to work low-wage jobs or that Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in the northeastern area of the city where residents face higher poverty and cost burden as well as poor opportunity outcomes is something that belongs in the fair housing assessment, not in the contributing factors space AFFH: Contributing Factors
Analysis of Contributing Factors is inadequate
What is a fair housing contributing factor?
• Fair housing contributing factor = a factor that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issues • City-controlled regulatory factors, policies, or ways of doing business that cause or contribute to fair housing issues should be fully identiﬁed and take primacy in this analysis, but they are inadequately discussed AFFH: Contributing Factors
Examples of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues by Area • Segregation and Integration
• Community opposition
• Lack of community
revitalization strategies
• Lack of private investments
in speciﬁc neighborhoods
• Land use and zoning laws
From HCD’s “Aﬃrmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance to All Public Entities and for Housing Elements” Pages 68-70
AFFH: Contributing Factors

Examples of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues by Area • Racially and Ethnically
Concentrated Areas of Poverty
• Deteriorated and abandoned
properties
• Displacement of residents
due to economic pressures
• Land use and zoning laws
• Occupancy codes and
restrictions
From HCD’s “Aﬃrmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance to All Public Entities and for Housing Elements” Pages 68-70
AFFH: Contributing Factors

Examples of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues by Area From HCD’s “Aﬃrmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance to All Public Entities and for Housing Elements” Pages 68-70
• Disparities in Access to Opportunity
• The availability, type, frequency, and
reliability of public transportation
• Land use and zoning laws
• Lack of public investments in
speciﬁc neighborhoods, including
services or amenities
• Location of proﬁcient schools and
school assignment policies
• Location and type of aﬀordable
housing
AFFH: Contributing Factors

Examples of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues by Area From HCD’s “Aﬃrmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance to All Public Entities and for Housing Elements” Pages 68-70
• Disproportionate Housing Needs,
Including Displacement Risks
• The availability of aﬀordable
units in a range of sizes
• Lack of renter protections
• Land use and zoning laws
AFFH: Contributing Factors

Analysis of Contributing Factors
Analysis of Contributing Factors is inadequate.
• Contributing Factors analysis must answer key “why” questions:
• What unique factors, characteristics, and history in North Central and, separately, North Shoreview are leading to the concentration of higher poverty, low economic and environmental opportunity, high-cost burden, overcrowding, and ﬂood hazards compared to the rest of the City of San Mateo?
• What existing government constraints or policies have perpetuated these concentrated characteristics?
• What factors, policies, and history in other parts of the city contribute to the absence of these characteristics, especially west of El Camino? AFFH: Contributing Factors
Shortcomings
• The Housing Element needs to assess the geographic and regulatory causes leading to the concentration of poverty, low economic and environmental opportunity, high-cost burden, and overcrowding in North Central and, to a lesser extent, North Shoreview
• The Housing Element also needs to assess the geographic and regulatory causes leading to the concentration of aﬄuence and, disproportionately, white people in western neighborhoods
• This necessary assessment of causes is needed in order to develop place- based programs and actions that will meaningfully repair these issues The Analysis of Contributing Factors
AFFH: Contributing Factors
Must be able to guide Signiﬁcant, Meaningful, and Suﬃcient policies to Overcome Patterns of Segregation
• Existing patterns of segregation in San Mateo are signiﬁcant and persistent • Census tract divergence within the city ranges from 82% white to 6% white (San Mateo Park vs North Central, respectively)
• Class segregation largely follows these lines
• Actions and policies must be suﬃcient to overcome this pattern in a reasonable period of time
• Why is the white population signiﬁcant? Check out Appendix D and read Segregation by Design by Prof. Jessica Trounstine
The Analysis of Contributing Factors
AFFH: Contributing Factors
Must be able to guide Signiﬁcant, Meaningful, and Suﬃcient policies to Overcome Patterns of Segregation
• The Housing Element also fails to discuss strategic approaches to inform and strongly connect “Contributing Factors” to “Goals and Actions” • This contributes to the the creation of goals and actions that are not yet suﬃcient to produce meaningful action
The Analysis of Contributing Factors
AFFH: Contributing Factors
Must be able to guide Signiﬁcant, Meaningful, and Suﬃcient policies to Overcome Patterns of Segregation
• Again, existing patterns of segregation in San Mateo are signiﬁcant and persistent • Analysis of Contributing Factors should be able to connect to Actions and Policies that are structured in a way that, economically, creates value for the city and for residents, without destroying the value of existing places
• This should not be about diminishing the quality of existing high-resource neighborhoods in order to achieve parity
• This process is about:
• Lifting up disinvested portions of our city, and
• Pairing that uplift with expanded access and residential integration across the city through thoughtful government-guided programs
The Analysis of Contributing Factors
AFFH: Contributing Factors
Tell the Story: North Shoreview: Environmental Hazard and Isolation • Why is North Shoreview an edge
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Area of Poverty?
• What characteristics
distinguish North Shoreview
from other similar
neighborhoods, and how
might they lead to higher
concentrations of marginalized
or vulnerable groups?
Identify and Prioritize Contributing Factors
"Figure IV-31: Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2000,"
Root Policy Research Map and Data Packet, Page 69 AFFH: Contributing Factors Identify and Prioritize Contributing Factors:

Tell the Story
Tell the Story: North Shoreview: Environmental Hazard and Isolation • Why is North Shoreview an edge
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Area of Poverty?
• Key diﬀerences between North
Shoreview and South
Shoreview:
• Levy protection and ﬂood
hazard chance.
• Limited access to circulation
and transportation
Identify and Prioritize Contributing Factors
"Figure IV-31: Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2000," Root Policy Research Map and Data Packet, Page 69
Tell the Story: North Central: Poor Housing Conditions + Overcrowding • Why is North Central (south of
Poplar) an edge Racially/
Ethnically Concentrated Area of
Poverty?
• What characteristics distinguish
North Central south of Poplar
Ave from other parts of the city,
and
• How might they lead to higher
concentrations of marginalized
groups?
Identify and Prioritize Contributing Factors
Overcrowding
Unhealthy Housing
Conditions
AFFH: Contributing Factors
Tell the Story: North Central: Disinvestment + Environmental Hazard Identify and Prioritize Contributing Factors
• Why is North Central (south of Poplar) an
edge Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of
Poverty?
• Key diﬀerences between North Central
(south of Poplar) and other areas:
• Decades of disinvestment:
• Both private housing stock and
public infrastructure
• Overcrowding and poverty as both
symptoms and causes of private
disinvestment
• Levy protection and ﬂood hazard
chance (in portions of that area)
"Figure IV-31: Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2000,"
Root Policy Research Map and Data Packet, Page 69 AFFH: Contributing Factors Tell the Story: North Central: Historical Ghettoization + Failed, Segregated Schools Identify and Prioritize Contributing Factors
• Why is North Central (south of Poplar) an
edge Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area
of Poverty?
• Key diﬀerences between North Central
and other areas:
• History of a highly segregated
neighborhood and its
underperforming school
• Neighborhood’s Turnbull Learning
Academy closed about 15 years ago
• The building repurposed for the
College Park Mandarin Immersion
magnet school
AFFH: Contributing Factors
AFFH Links
and Resources
• California HCD Aﬃrmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH) Guidance https://
www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/aﬀh/docs/
aﬀh_document_ﬁnal_4-27-2021.pdf
• AFFH Data Viewer https://aﬀh-data-
resources-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com
• California Healthy Places Index https://
map.healthyplacesindex.org
The Planning Commission discussion will resume on
May 3rd at 7pm where we will discuss Goals, Policies,
and Actions, including those related to AFFH
1 Manira Sandhir
From: Adam Nugent
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 5:45 PM
To: Manira Sandhir; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; [email protected]
Subject: San Mateo Planning Commissioner Input - Draft Housing Element - May 3 Attachments: Planning Commission Input - Draft Housing Element - Adam Nugent - May 3.pdf Hi Manira and Zach,

I appreciate the work you and your team is doing. Our May 3rd continuance meeting was the right call. Thank you for making it happen!

Here are my notes and consolidated input from that May 3rd Planning Commission review of the Draft Housing Element. Again, I hope the additional detail and clarifying elements in these notes prove useful to the team.

Best,
Adam

Adam Nugent, PLA
Planning Commissioner, City of San Mateo
[email protected]

Commissioner Adam Nugent, May 3, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Draft Housing Element
Comments
Draft for Public Review: Housing Element of the General Plan 2023-2031, April 6, 2022
Outline
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Input
• Introduction and Thank You (Same as 4/26)
• Part 3: Other Housing Element Sections
• Part 4: Goals, Policies, and Programs
• Selected Excerpts of Rejection Letters
for Other Cities
• Goals, Policies, and Actions Discussion
• AFFH-Speciﬁc Policy-by-Policy Review
• Non-AFFH-Speciﬁc Policy-by-Policy
Review
Note: Topics that were discussed at the
April 26 Planning Commission Meeting:
• Part 1: Site Inventory Comments
• Methodology-focused
• Part 2: Aﬃrmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Comments
• General Comments
• Fair Housing Assessment
• Contributing Factors

Public Comments
Notes and Highlights
• Market special-needs units to the most appropriate special needs population.

Unit-speciﬁc needs should be marketed so that the unique, appropriate population is matched with the special features of the unit • Measure Y as an obstacle to aﬀordable housing development Thank you, Housing Element Team!
The work you are doing is extremely important and impactful • All of my comments and questions come from a place of deep respect and appreciation for the hard work you are doing!
• I am proud to have a city with staﬀ of such caliber, who genuinely desire to create a better, more just housing landscape for our future • This is HARD WORK; and you are undertaking it in uncharted territory that is fraught with puzzles and potential pitfalls
Introduction
Thank you, Housing Element Team!
Fair warning:
• My comments are extensive
• To implement the Housing Element in a way that truly advances Fair Housing Goals and meets the needs of our younger generations it will take:
• Tough decisions and a lot of work
• This Housing Element is an opportunity to make real progress:
• Repair racial and economic disparities
• Combat cost of living increases that are disproportionately hitting younger adults
Introduction
The Push for Change Has Never Been Greater
Demographics will drive our housing needs and our political will • The younger half of our population has a diﬀerent outlook and set of values than many who are in the older generations
• The political winds are blowing in the right direction for positive change • The Millennial is the largest generation in history and Gen-Z is close behind; they will have continually increasing political voice and power
• It is the younger generations that are feeling the most pain in this crisis, and they are the most motivated to bring about change
• 14% of 4-year university students experienced homelessness last year; 42% experienced housing insecurity (Governing, 4/26/2022)
• We cannot botch this for the next generation
Introduction
Kevin Erdmann
“Unaffordable housing has one and only one
cause: purposeful communal enforcement
of it. This is legislated poverty.”
“We have a housing problem. And in researching that problem, you many have found that income inequality affects housing affordability. You many have found that the home building industry is inefficient. Dubious mortgage lending. Speculators. Slum lords, etc. etc. “All those things can be real things! They all can even be important things! We should deal with them AFTER the poisoning [purposeful communal enforcement of scarcity] stops!”Introduction Part 3: Other Housing Element
Sections
Constraints Analysis
Draft Analysis Not Very Useful
• Constraints analysis should provide metrics on how existing land use and related policies aﬀect the City’s ability to build housing • What are the counterfactuals?
• How much more housing could be built under diﬀerent zoning scenarios? • What are the true limiting factors over the long term? • Why are construction costs so high and what can the city do to counteract these trends?
Part 3: Other Housing Element Sections
Constraints Analysis
Zoning and Land Use Constraints
• Height and Density Constraints on BMR Units: Measure Y • Height and Density constraints contained in measure Y are limiting the city’s ability to increase the percentage of BMR units for the city’s inclusionary ordinance • Recent city-commissioned study found increasing the inclusionary percentage to 20% would render projects infeasible
• This adds up and translates to needing signiﬁcantly more redevelopable land to achieve any given quantity of subsidized units than necessary • Increases costs substantially by increasing costs imposed by land acquisition and entitlement processes
Part 3: Other Housing Element Sections
Constraints Analysis
Zoning and Land Use Constraints
• Height and Density Constraints: Measure Y
• Density limits also signiﬁcantly reduce the number of units that can be built by 2-3x, even under the existing 5-story height limit
• Doubles or triples the land costs per unit for all ranges of aﬀordability • Doubles or triples the procedural, consultant, and time costs of additional design and entitlement processes
Part 3: Other Housing Element Sections
Constraints Analysis
Community Opposition
• Community opposition is a clear problem
• Most people want more housing and to solve our housing crisis • It only takes a few, vocal or inﬂuential residents to block housing • Counterfactuals are hard to quantify, but the eﬀects of a vocal, negative minority are likely enormous
• When good, potential projects never even get proposed • When bad policies and zoning go unchanged
• Need policies to overcome community opposition - especially as it relates to AFFH Part 3: Other Housing Element Sections
Constraints Analysis
Fee Disparities
• Fees take up an unusually large proportion of the total costs of development in the City of San Mateo compared to the rest of San Mateo County • Fees impact small multi-family projects especially hard • They are 3.5 times higher per unit than single family homes Part 3: Other Housing Element Sections
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals,
Policies, and Actions
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail” 1963 “We must come to see that human progress
never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It
comes through the tireless efforts and
persistent work of men willing to be
coworkers with God, and without this hard
work time itself becomes an ally of the
forces of social stagnation.”
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Excerpts from HCD’s AFFH Presentation

Excerpts from HCD’s AFFH Presentation

Selected Excerpts of Rejection
Letters for Other Cities’ 6th-Cycle
Housing Elements
LA’s exemplary Housing Element Rejected
• Praised for metrics used to
demonstrate and determine
adequate sites for the Housing
Element
• Pursuing large rezoning program
Los Angeles
Reason: AFFH
• Programs did not include metrics
• “In addition, while the element
included some actions to replace
segregated patterns, these
actions lacked speciﬁc
geographic focus (communities
with fair housing issues), ﬁrm
commitments and signiﬁcant
targets for AFFH outcomes.”
LA Rejection Letter
Programs
How should programs be structured?
• “Programs must demonstrate that they will have a beneﬁcial impact within the planning period. Beneﬁcial impact means speciﬁc commitment to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, deﬁnitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation. Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to ensure actual housing outcomes.” (From HCD’s Davis, CA rejection letter)
• “Programs should include speciﬁc actions and commitments the City will take to implement the program. For example, a Program should be speciﬁc on the regulatory incentives, zoning standards, and programs it will oﬀer to assist in the development of housing.” (From HCD’s Davis, CA rejection letter)
AFFH-specific
Goals and Actions must be signiﬁcant and meaningful
• “Goals and actions must speciﬁcally respond to the analysis and the identiﬁed and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be signiﬁcant and meaningful enough to overcome identiﬁed patterns and trends… Actions must have speciﬁc commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices, and aﬀordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization, and displacement protection.” (From HCD’s Redondo Beach rejection letter) AFFH-specific
Programs must have metrics and milestones
• “Based on the outcomes of a complete AFFH analysis, the element must add or modify programs to include speciﬁc metrics and milestones to target meaningful AFFH outcomes, including providing mobility opportunity, place- based strategies [for community preservation and revitalization], new housing opportunities, and preservation and conservation eﬀorts to address displacement.” (From HCD’s Davis, CA rejection letter)
AFFH-specific
Programs must have objective measures to determine success of outcomes • [We need to] “replace non-committal language such as “if feasible”, “assess the feasibility of”, or “assess” with language that commits to follow-up actions. The program must include speciﬁc timeframes for action and provide quantiﬁable description of actions to objectively measure for successful outcomes.” (From HCD’s Redondo Beach rejection letter)
• Many policies with AFFH impacts proposed by San Mateo’s Draft Housing Element are characterized by this issue
• All proposed policies that have words like “investigate,” “explore,” or “evaluate” should be amended to provide speciﬁc timeframes for action and provide quantiﬁable descriptions of actions to objectively measure for successful outcomes
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Discussion
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Actions must be:
• Signiﬁcant
• Meaningful
• Suﬃcient to Overcome Patterns of Segregation
• Aﬃrmatively Further Fair Housing
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Necessary Components
• Metrics and milestones for evaluating:
• Progress on programs/actions
• Fair housing results
• Remember:
• Must have a clear timeline with speciﬁc dates and milestones paired with quantiﬁable outcomes • Meaningful impact during the planning period
• Go beyond a continuation of past actions
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
• Address signiﬁcant disparities in housing
needs and in access to opportunity
• Replace segregated living patterns with
truly integrated and balanced living
patterns
• Transform racially and ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty into areas
of opportunity
• Foster and maintain compliance with
civil rights and fair housing laws
Meaningful Action
AFFH requirements
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
How to combat exclusion and segregation
• We will need to tie our policies to
key quantitative metrics focused
on integration and segregation
data
• We will also need well-deﬁned
anti-displacement program
requirements
• Without these two things we will
further collectivize the right to
exclude
Goals, Policies, and Actions
UC Berkeley Othering and Belonging Institute
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Address signiﬁcant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity • Hispanic residents, single female parent households, renters, and the people of North Central, and to a lesser extent North Shoreview, have Disproportionate Housing Needs:

1. Cost Burden & Severe Cost Burden

2. Overcrowding

3. Substandard Housing

4. Displacement risk
• Investment-driven
• Disinvestment-driven
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Address signiﬁcant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity • Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden
• Site inventory, together with goals, policies, and actions, must be suﬃciently developed to actually produce at a minimum, the allocated 7000+ units of housing in San Mateo • Previous production trends indicate less than 1,000 units can be reasonably expected to be developed over the course of the 6th housing cycle, as currently planned in this Draft Housing Element
• Failure to adequately plan for the minimum allocated number of units will lead to further increasing cost burden and severe cost burden. It will also drive young families out of the Bay Area
• The City’s methodology must be revised to produce a high likelihood of meeting our regional allocation in order to address this AFFH disparity Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Address signiﬁcant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity • Overcrowding
• Overcrowding is similarly aﬀected by the reasonable achievement of the regional housing needs allocation goals
• Overcrowding is also highly location-speciﬁc and must be addressed in a combined eﬀort to prevent displacement as part of a program to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity
• North Central contains an area that is nearly 4X the San Mateo average • 27% vs 7% overcrowded households
• Thousands of people in North Central live in overcrowded conditions • Overcrowding is a measurable factor.
• Policies and Actions should be tailored to eliminate disparities in overcrowding and overcrowding in general within set timelines, say 1 and 2 decades, respectively Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Address signiﬁcant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity • Substandard Housing
• Substandard Housing is closely linked geographically to overcrowding in North Central
• Material conditions must be improved, as with overcrowding, in a way that prevents displacement
• Best done as part of a larger program to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity • Policies and Actions should be tailored to realistically eliminate substandard and unhealthy housing conditions within a set timeline, say 1-2 decades Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Address signiﬁcant disparities in housing needs and in
access to opportunity
• Displacement Risk 1
• Programs must be developed to speciﬁcally address
displacement risk caused both by cost burden and by
potential neighborhood reinvestment
• Robust Right of Return for renters, paired
with…
• Alternative option for Unrestricted Negotiable
Tenant Buyouts
• Some tenants may not want to return
• All residents should be materially better
oﬀ following any neighborhood
investment
• All zoning changes and production policies
must be formulated to make the increased
costs imposed by associated displacement
protections feasible
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Address signiﬁcant disparities in housing needs and in
access to opportunity
• Displacement Risk 2
• Programs must be developed to speciﬁcally
address displacement risk caused both by cost
burden and by potential neighborhood
reinvestment
• Relocation Payments for substantial
remodel, demolition…
• and owner move-in
• All residents should be materially
better oﬀ following any
neighborhood investment
• All zoning changes and production policies
must be formulated to make the increased
costs imposed by associated displacement
protections feasible
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Address signiﬁcant disparities in housing needs and in
access to opportunity
• Displacement Risk 3
• Programs must be developed to speciﬁcally address
displacement risk caused both by cost burden and by
potential neighborhood reinvestment
• Create Community Opportunity to Purchase/
Tenant Opportunity to Purchase program,
paired with…
• Partnerships with Philanthropic Organizations
to bring funds to our most disinvested places
• All residents should be materially better
oﬀ following any neighborhood
investment
• All zoning changes and production policies
must be formulated to make the increased
costs imposed by associated displacement
protections feasible
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Address signiﬁcant disparities in housing needs and in
access to opportunity
• Displacement Risk 4
• Programs must be developed
to speciﬁcally address
displacement risk caused both
by cost burden and by potential
neighborhood reinvestment
• Extend AB1482
protections to tenants
whose tenure is less than
1 year
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Additional Policy Suggestions
• Fee Parity
• San Mateo charges higher fees than the majority of its peers, and the city’s fees impose signiﬁcant costs on developers–especially for small multi-family housing • The city’s massive fees for small multi-family projects impose obvious burdens on developers and should be amended to support lower-cost home building • Achieve parity with Single Family home development
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Additional Policy Suggestions
• Aﬀordable Housing Overlay
• Provide aﬀordable housing developers an advantage in the market for developable properties
• Geographically locate the overlay(s) to compensate for existing housing disparities in access to opportunity
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
AFFH-Specific Policy-by-Policy
Review
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Adjust City’s BMR Program
• Positive program but:
• Lacks ﬁrm commitments
• Lacks signiﬁcant targets for
AFFH outcomes
Policy 5.1.1
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions

Participate in a Regional Downpayment program
• Program with potential life-
changing outcomes but:
• Limited scope will not
signiﬁcantly address large-scale
Systemic issues
Policy 5.1.2
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Support the Design of Regional Forgivable Loan Program for 15-year ELI ADU Construction • Potential to contribute to overcoming
patterns of segregation
• Positive program with potential life-
changing outcomes but:
• Limited scope will not signiﬁcantly
address large-scale systematic issues
• Deliverables should occur early in the
planning period to ensure actual
housing outcomes
• Lacks speciﬁc actions and metric-ready
commitments
Policy 5.1.3
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Support the Design of Regional Forgivable Loan Program for 15-year ELI ADU Construction • Policy revision recommendations:
• Expand to SB 9 projects
• Incorporate option for longer
deed restriction (55 years) for
one low income unit within a
SB 9 program
Policy 5.1.3 continued
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions

Aﬃrmatively Market BMR units to households with disproportionate housing needs • Positive program with metrics
• People with special needs have
unique and special needs. Each
potential recipient may be quite
diﬀerent from the next and the
program will need to be
tailorable
• Limited scope will not
signiﬁcantly address large-scale
systemic issues
Policy 5.2.1
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Incentivize development of new accessible units
• Positive program with potential
life-changing outcomes but:
• Limited scope
• Deliverables should occur earlier
in the planning period to ensure
actual housing outcomes
• Lacks speciﬁc actions and
metric-ready commitments
Policy 5.2.2
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions

Prioritize city aﬀordable housing funds for hard-to-serve residents • Positive program but:
• Limited $ = limited impact
• Lacks speciﬁc actions and
quantiﬁable commitments
Policy 5.2.3
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Conduct an area plan for North Shoreview and North Central • Potentially substantial program, but:
• Currently lacking ﬁrm commitments
and signiﬁcant targets for AFFH
outcomes
• Policy 5.3.1 should be speciﬁc on
the regulatory incentives, zoning
standards, and programs it will oﬀer
Policy 5.3.1
• Deliverables should occur earlier and
demonstrate that the program will
have a beneﬁcial impact within the
planning period
• Provide measurable milestones and
a target dates to achieve goals
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Conduct an area plan for North Shoreview and North Central • Actions must speciﬁcally respond
to the analysis and the identiﬁed
and prioritized contributing factors
to fair housing issues and must be
signiﬁcant and meaningful
enough to overcome identiﬁed
patterns and trends
Policy 5.3.1 continued
• Speciﬁc planning goals must also include:
• Displacement prevention +
• Elimination of disproportionate
concentrations poverty, low income
households, and overcrowding
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Plan for the opposite of Urban
Renewal
Urban Renewal conﬂated overcrowding with urban density
• Must not repeat the horrors of these Mid-Century
Planning Eﬀorts
• Urban Renewal sought to:
• Disperse and displace the resident population,
without providing adequate accommodations
elsewhere
• “Clear” slums, and replace them with things
like:
• Freeways, stadiums, convention centers,
• Inadequately-sized public housing
projects

Conduct an area plan for North Shoreview and North Central • Planning goals should be structured with metrics and target dates, for example:
• Eliminate overcrowding by 2040
• Achieve parity with City in economic integration by 2050 Policy 5.3.1 continued
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Conduct an area plan for North Shoreview and North Central Policy 5.3.1 continued
• Additional example planning goals:
• Achieve health and housing habitability parity with City by 2040 • Eliminate disproportionate concentrations of low-income residents while maintaining an outmigration rate below 20xx rate and increasing subsidized, deed-restricted aﬀordable housing at 150% the rate of outmigration
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Conduct an area plan for North Shoreview and North Central • Plan to feasibly accommodate Community Beneﬁts
Agreements that balance redevelopment proposals with
tangible, local beneﬁts to residents in the area, e.g.:
• Creating aﬀordable housing
• Funding renter assistance programs for nearby residents • Other investments that meet community-identiﬁed
needs, such as infrastructure and community amenities
Policy 5.3.1 continued
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions

Conduct an area plan for North Shoreview and North Central • R-1 portions of these neighborhoods should be provided total parity of treatment with the rest of San Mateo’s R-1
neighborhoods
• Why? The lower home values and lower wealth of non-white, owner-occupant homeowners means we need to carefully
manage and enhance the amenity-related value of ownership housing in places predominantly occupied by minorities
• Balance this task with displacement protections
Policy 5.3.1 continued
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions

Conduct an area plan for North Shoreview and North Central • Provide speciﬁc timeframes for action and a quantiﬁable description of actions to objectively measure for successful outcomes
• Metrics to evaluate the plan must be in place and they must ultimately:
• Replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns • Transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity
Policy 5.3.1 Conclusions
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions

Continue to fund minor home repairs
• Nice program but:
• Limited $ = limited impact
• Existing program
Policy 5.3.2
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions

Monitor aﬀordable housing projects at risk of conversion • Important to preserve
aﬀordability, but:
• “Monitor” and “develop a plan”
are inadequate policies
Policy 5.3.3
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions

Tenant Protections to extend AB1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy
• Vital, can be strengthened
• Relocation payments for
demolition should be uncapped
and negotiable
Policy 5.4.1
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions

Non-AFFH-Specific Policy-by-
Policy Review
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Policy Comment Potpourri
Selected Policies
• Policy H 1.2 - Utilize Public Funding for Low/
Moderate Income Housing
• Comment: Well deﬁned, ongoing program
• Policy H 1.3 - Increase Below Market Rate Unit
Production through Density Bonus/Community
Beneﬁts Programs *
• Policy H 1.5 - Encourage Family Housing *
* = Replace non-committal
language such as “explore”
or “assess” with language
that commits to follow-up
actions. The program must
include speciﬁc timeframes
for action and provide
quantiﬁable description of
actions to objectively
measure for successful
outcomes.

Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Policy Comment Potpourri
Selected Policies
• Policy H 1.9 - Create Minimum Densities for Mixed-
Use Residential Projects
• Comment: Provide quantiﬁable description of
actions to objectively measure
• Policy H 1.13 - Encourage Development of Missing
Middle Housing *
• Comment: Provide a quantiﬁable, developed
program of actions
• Policy H 1.14 - Evaluate and Update Special Needs
Group Housing Requirements *
* = Replace non-committal
language such as “explore”
or “assess” with language
that commits to follow-up
actions. The program must
include speciﬁc timeframes
for action and provide
quantiﬁable description of
actions to objectively
measure for successful
outcomes.

Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Policy Comment Potpourri
Selected Policies
• Policy H 2.1 - Fund Housing Rehabilitation Eﬀorts
• Comment: Provide metrics to evaluate eﬀectiveness
of program based on citywide habitability and health
trends
• Policy H 2.3 - Encourage Energy and Water Eﬃciency in Existing Units
• Comment: Provide metrics to evaluate eﬀectiveness
of program based on citywide habitability and health
trends
• Policy H 2.4 - Explore Capital Improvements in lower- resourced Neighborhoods *
* = Replace non-committal
language such as “explore”
or “assess” with language
that commits to follow-up
actions. The program must
include speciﬁc timeframes
for action and provide
quantiﬁable description of
actions to objectively
measure for successful
outcomes.

Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Policy Comment Potpourri
Selected Policies
• Policy H 2.5 - Promote Housing Resilience
• Comment: Existing, ongoing, important
• Policy H 2.6 - Require Replacement Units
• Comment: Make this a permanent local
ordinance
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
• Change “Evaluate” to “Pursue” Additional Local Funding Sources:
• Vacancy Tax - Parcel taxes in the form of a vacant property tax have been used by cities (VPT, Oakland) to fund aﬀordable housing and homeless services; as well as to entice owners of undeveloped sites to either sell or build homes on their parcels. • Increase Commercial Linkage Fees - To help mitigate the increase in demand for housing, cities have the ability to charge a fee on new commercial developments.

The revenue generated can then be used to help fund aﬀordable housing construction.
• Transfer Tax - A one-time tax payment that is levied by a government on the transfer of ownership to property (i.e. sale of a home) from one individual or entity to another within it’s deﬁned boundaries. The raised revenue can then be utilized to fund aﬀordable housing within the jurisdiction.

Policy Comment Potpourri
Policy H 3.3 “Evaluate Housing Revenue Sources”
Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Policy Comment Potpourri
Selected Policies
• Policy H 3.3 - Evaluate Housing Revenue Sources*
• Policy H 3.5 - Explore Below Market Rate Set
Asides*
• Policy H 3.6 - Examine a Rental Registry Option*
• Change to: Adopt a Rental Registry based on
best practices
• Policy H 3.7 - Explore Code Amendments and
Collaboration opportunities for Expanding
Homeless Shelters*
* = Replace non-committal
language such as “explore”
or “assess” with language
that commits to follow-up
actions. The program must
include speciﬁc timeframes
for action and provide
quantiﬁable description of
actions to objectively
measure for successful
outcomes.

Part 4: San Mateo’s Goals, Policies, and Actions
Links and Resources
• California HCD Aﬃrmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH) Guidance https://
www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/aﬀh/docs/
aﬀh_document_ﬁnal_4-27-2021.pdf
• AFFH Data Viewer https://aﬀh-data-
resources-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com
• California Healthy Places Index https://
map.healthyplacesindex.org
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 10:17 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Tech| Housing
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 10:40 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

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

First Name William
Last Name Graham
Email Address
Comment on 2023‐2031
Draft Housing Element
Thank you to city staff and others for their work on the 2023-31 housing plan. As with all plans, there are many things residents

2 will agree on and many they won’t. The plan, though, is well thought out and addresses many challenges the city faces in meeting housing need at all levels.

I may have missed it in my review, but it appears the plan doesn’t speak to public education and alignment with the elementary and high school districts to ensure they have the resources to support additional capacity.

It’s very likely these discussions are happening in other settings. However, knowing that this has been an area of concern for many in the past, I encourage staff to address this upfront to ensure it doesn’t become a barrier. The districts are capable and can meet the need with appropriate planning and integration with the city.

Thank you again for the thought and well considered plan.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 10:17 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Tech| Housing
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403

From: Susan Shankle
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 11:02 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Great report. I have one comment, which relates to Section 4.3, Climate Change and Energy Conservation:

Let’s follow the lead of the CA Central Valley agricultural canal system which, after decades of suggestion and input, finally capped the canals with solar panels, which both significantly reduces evaporation plus offers an additional power source. Smart!

I’ve been asking for more City solar panel installation in San Mateo for years, especially during the planning and construction of the new 92/82 interchange. Lots of space there for panels. It’s getting easier, cheaper and more necessary all the time.

Every new building should have solar panels on its roof.

Thank you,
Susan Shankle
30‐year San Mateo resident
Lifetime Bay Area resident
Citizen, Taxpayer and Voter

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 10:17 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Tech| Housing
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 11:19 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Comment Form

Draft Housing Element Feedback Form
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

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

First Name Kailun
Last Name Wu
Email Address
Comment on 2023‐2031
Draft Housing Element
Hi city staff, planning commissioners and council members,

2 Happy New Year! I'm commenting as a homeowner in Hillsdale and am only representing my small family of three. My wife and I both live and work in San Mateo.

I want to first thank you for your hard work. This is a pivotal moment for current and future San Mateans. For decades our city has been built around driving and parking for literally everything in life, which unfortunately causes climate change, congestions, slow housing production and high cost of living. I believe that a more human-centric, not car-centric San Mateo is popular and achievable so this housing element is our chance to make real progress.

My comments on the housing elements:

1. Teamwork

I urge the newly elected city council to collaborate in good faith, debate and make compromises no matter which sides you're on. After the disastrous and widely publicized mayor
appointment in 2022, this is your moment to show teamwork, transparency and integrity. Use our shared core values when you disagree. Show us that you are fixing our housing crisis by completing a compliant housing element.

2. Zoning

Simplify zoning and improve objective standards. Legalize diverse and medium density buildings. Legalize small scale local shops, daycare, and other services in single family communities (Sunnybrae, North Central, the Village, Hillsdale) to reduce car trips. Allow more homes in downtown to increase home supply while minimizing car traffic because walking can get a lot more done in downtown. Develop empty lots in Bay Meadow and Event Center.

3. Circulation

Building thousands of new homes cannot be done without
traffic improvements. I know this is outside of the housing element but it is a chicken-egg problem. A city-wide,
continuous bike highway needs to be built to encourage more people to run errands, go to school and offices without driving.

Palm Ave, Delaware St are streets that could be a north-south bike highway. SF, Mountain View and many more examples
are there for us to copy. Allocate more money on e-bike rebate, bike paths and traffic calming features.

3 Building homes unfortunately has become so contentious and expensive throughout California. My house is across the street from the Hillsdale Mall which is ripe for more housing/services.

I hope to see new homes, shops and neighbors replacing the lifeless and underutilized parking garage. I want more homes built not for profit but for my friends, coworkers and children to be able to stay without being severely burdened by mortgage or rent.

Inclusivity is one of the values of the City. $1.5M home prices are not inclusive. I really appreciate what you have done given the constraints and history of San Mateo. I believe you can do the right thing for us and the silent majority.

Thanks again!
Kailun

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 4:28 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Technician Housing Dept
330 W 20
th Avenue, San Mateo, Ca 94403

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo

From: Bill Williams
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 12:53 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

1. The Sewage Treatment Plant should be completed before additional construction is started.

2. Since the City of San Mateo has paid fines for untreated storm runoff into the Bay, the storm water overflow system should also be completed before additional construction is started.

3. Open Space calculations for developments should not include rooftops and balconies.

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From:

Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:32 PM
To: Housing
Subject: housing
I am not really sure who really reads our comments and also assume you committee just trashes what you do not like to read I get it but here goes

my name is rick karr and was born in San Mateo Mills Hospital 72 yrs ago and bought my house at 39 1/2 years ago

Basically I understand you committee gets marching orders from the Board of Supervisors or the Govenor ,,,I am hoping you do not volunteer the number of increased housing to be 7000

Again I will state the infrastructure of San Mateo cannot accomodate a great deal of more building ..The traffic is bad The sewage system is overloaded and I can go on and on You have heard all the reasons why big population growth here in the confines of San Mateo is really almost impossible

No one is going to rip up train lines or destroy freeways to provide more housing space There is not a lot of open space left and I do not expect large landowners like the BOHANNON family to just provide a lot of land to the city so that being said I provide the folllowing solutions

HIP Housing and similar should submit a list of numbers of people who are placed each month and use those number to show that the city of SM has complied or is trying to comply,,,I have no idea The city can also publicize to home owners or similar the advantages to renting out a room for extra income,,,I realize many people may be afraid to take a stranger in the home and those apprehensions are realistic ,,,However volunteers fo assist and publicize HIP and similar organzations would be great as some decent types can rent a room or similar and the homeowners will have some extra money each month,,,I suggest that the HIP contact the nursing department at CSM as these students and others are ideal for elderly types who are still living at home,,,,I personally rented out my front bedroom to someone who was pals with a SM pal of mine and he works in Burlingame and has been here for five years now ,,,i also now have another SM person living in my back room ( tv sports room ) who has been here for three months now and maybe another four as he split up with his GF,,,What I am trying to say is that the city and volunteers can assist others like HIP to find people and then those numbers can be tallied ,,

we do not have the space or ability to build say 5000 houses in the city of San Mateo. Yes there are places like FRESNO or MODESTO that have a lot of land but San Mateo does not

I highly suggest you counter this absurd high figure of say 7000 and have it reduced and also delayed The recapture of people provided housing like I mentioned above should be seriously mentioned to these GOV HACKS who dictate these absurd numbers...Those people who do build duplexes or fourplexes are helpful of course ...

I do not consider this issue to be a Republican or DEMOCRATIC party issue ,,,,it is a common sense issue for us the tax payers of San Mateo and residents and unfortunately I have no trust in the ability or courage of these elected or appointed people to stand up for us

please respond to my comments You need to soli
cit others for great ideas and not wait for the elected types to dictate to us ..

We have a 55 foot height limit that was voted in and cannot be changed by one hack using a pen,,,that is what is done in RUSSIA or North Korea or CHINA (PRC) or CUBA

Rick Karr

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 3:26 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p‐650‐522‐7239
f‐ 650‐522‐7221

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: David Eligator
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 1:37 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Dear Mayor Lee, Councilmembers and Commissioners:

I own and live at . in North Central (at Delaware), a beautiful 1913 Victorian that I have been renovating myself from decades of neglect. I invite you to stop by and see it.

I took a day off and read the most recent draft Housing Element. I commend those who drafted it. My comments are specific to North Central, where you’ll find me picking up litter or walking with my dog Susie.

North Central screams with unmet potential. Its location next to downtown is fantastic. It suffers from past redlining, a too‐high percentage of renters, and concentrated poverty. By allowing investment, development and growth, North Central could blossom and become one of the truly great walkable neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The housing element acknowledges the damage done by North Central’s former redlined status. The City can and should remedy by allowing significant new development in North Central to replace our obsolete housing stock and create vibrant neighborhood commercial areas. Even with the 55ft height limit there is potential to build interesting,

2 stylish, ornate and even iconic buildings with visual architectural appeal, which provide both public and private benefit and serve far more than mundane utilitarian function. Architectural beauty is key. Let’s build while at the same time keeping North Central free of huge, streetlife‐deadening projects and bland five‐over‐one boxes (which the 55‐foot limit unfortunately encourages). Let’s harness the market to encourage investment in North Central and allow people to build! We want more neighborhood commercial areas, taquerias, cafes, art galleries, music venues, corner stores and commercial gathering places. Please empower mom‐and ‐pop builders and emphasize small scale developments, many small footprint projects, which create a charming, diverse, varied and interesting urban fabric. And more gardens and trees throughout North Central, please!

The housing element rightly focuses attention on AFFH and social issues affecting low‐income and other vulnerable residents. For North Central, the way to address this is to invite wealth and economic growth in. While the housing market remains strong, the City can use market forces to reshape North Central in a bold and transformative way so as to make it a more dynamic and truly diverse place and not an island of disenfranchisement and poverty. Look to other cities’ models of desirable neighborhoods that truly work. Jane Jacobs’ Death and Life of Great American Cities discusses what physical spaces actually work for and feel good to human beings. North Central needs well‐constructed, well‐ designed, architecturally‐pleasing housing of all types, not mere utilitarian, uninspired buildings withiut aspiration, style, design, craftsmanship, ornament, or redeeming aesthetic qualities. (Who would want to live in a shoebox?)

Especially for North Central, the
housing element provides an exciting opportunity for bold action. Why not use principles of New Urbanism to make North Central a truly diverse, leafy, walkable and desirable neighborhood with flats, townhouses, and a high percentage of owner‐occupants (which create strong communities, prevent blight and permit people and and families to build equity and long‐term economic strength)? North Central will greatly benefit from having more stakeholders with long‐ term economic self‐interest.

To make an omelet one must break some eggs. Let’s not think small when it comes to North Central! North Central has all the ingredients of becoming a stunning, spectacular, highly desirable neighborhood that transcends its redlined past, for the benefit of all. Let’s not be timid or cling to mediocre visions from the past.

David Eligator

North Central

Sent from my iPhone

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 3:26 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: Skye Nygaard
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 1:59 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Hello,

After reading through the new draft housing element, I am overall quite happy with the changes and how they address the needs of the community.

However, I have some points of concern.

2 On page H‐31, there is reference to "physical constraints" limiting the development of smaller lots. Rather, it is zoning regulations, such as setbacks, that are the constraining factor. I would hardly call a law "physical". I would prefer the wording to reflect that it is a result of current policy rather than some universal rule that you can't develop as much on smaller sites.

I appreciate the inclusion of SROs in the latest update. However, it is not a big change. Simply being more specific about where SROs can be built does not get them built. SROs tend to have unit sizes in the range of 100‐200 sq ft. 1 acre = 43560 sq ft. At just 1 story, you could fit upwards of 200 SRO units. When we have a limit of 50 units per acre, no SROs are going to be built. It is a subpar use of limited unit counts. I would like some mention of this constraint to be included in the housing element, to reflect the reason SROs are not being built.

I appreciated the mention of putting adjustments to measure Y on the ballot, on page H‐41. However, I would like it mentioned where measure Y conflicts with state law. Density bonus and state law supersede measure Y already in several conditions, and there was no mention of this in the housing element (at least that I found).

The phrase "a variety of housing" was mentioned on page H‐23 and several other locations. On H‐23, it was then listed the breakdown of single‐family vs 2‐4 unit multifamily, vs > 4‐unit multifamily. This leads to the implication that the variety of housing merely comes down to single‐family vs multi‐family, as well as the price point. However, I think there are other very large variety factors. These include the number of lots, rather than units, and the location of those lots.

While single‐family homes are spread throughout the city, multi‐family dwellings are concentrated in just a few locations. As a renter, there are many places in the city where I cannot find a rental available. Therefore, the diversity of locations for multi‐family is severely limited, due to the much smaller number of lots available with this zoning. I would like this location diversity to be explicitly mentioned, as it is something I have personally dealt with.

Best,
Skye Nygaard, a San Mateo Resident

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mayhew, Tom (22) x4948
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023 4:39 PM
To: Housing
Cc: Planning Commission; City Council (San Mateo); Higley, CJ (25) x4942 Subject: Housing Element - Comments of Housing Action Coalition Attachments: 2023-01-07 Housing Action Coalition - Second Round Comments on San Mateo Draft Housing Element(15225917.pdf; Housing Element
Please see two attachments:

1. The January 7, 2023 letter on behalf of Housing Action Coalition, commenting on the draft December 2022 Housing Element.

2. An earlier email and attachments sent on behalf of Housing Action Coalition on December 16, 2022. This email and its attachments are being re‐sent because it was not included in Appendix F (Public Participation) and we wanted to make sure that you have it.

Please include our comments in the packet for the Planning Commission meeting for January 10, 2023 and City Council meeting (date TBD) concerning the adoption of the Housing Element.

Thank you,
Tom Mayhew
CJ Higley

Thomas B. Mayhew
Partner

San Francisco, CA 94104
www.fbm.com

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

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

THOMAS B. MAYHEW

CHARLES J. HIGLEY

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

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition,1 we write to further comment on the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element for the City of San Mateo, including changes in the December 2022 draft. The draft Housing Element still does not meet the City’s obligation to plan and provide for affordable housing. Absent substantial revisions, it may be found in violation of state law.

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

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 2 ends

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

One of the most concrete aspects of any housing element is the inventory of land “suitable and available” for residential development to meet the city’s regional housing need by income level. Government Code § 65583(a)(3); HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook at p. 1 (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/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 035-466-070, -080, -090, -100, -110)
The City’s draft fails to address whether the existing uses will cease during the next eight years. Absent substantial evidence that existing uses will “likely” discontinue, San Mateo cannot count the Bridgepointe Shopping Center parking lot and stores as addressing the need for sites available, realistic, and suitable for 233 units of lower income housing.

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

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 4 ends

discontinue. While the City explains that it has had “a variety of discussions with the shopping center’s ownership representatives who expressed interest in mixed-use redevelopment,” (December 2022 draft at H-36), it fails to address when redevelopment might occur. The City asserts that the General Plan Update is exploring policies to “guide redevelopment of the shopping center,” and refers to a “draft land use plan designat[ing] Bridgepoint as Mixed-Use High, which could allow up to 200 units per acre.” Id.

But given that City voters have twice
approved a cap of 50 units per acre (Measure P, extended to 2030 by Measure Y), the City’s optimism provides no realistic assurance that affordable housing will be built here before Measure Y, and the 2023-2031 draft Housing Element, expire. Finally, the City’s broad reference at page H-C-14 to a “market trend” of developers that “bought out long term businesses to allow redevelopment into housing” refers only to “underutilized” properties; the Bridgepointe Center is not underutilized. The City’s argument does not meet the substantial evidence standard for the likelihood of development of this specific site, with its specific constraints and existing uses, during the relevant planning period.

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

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

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

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

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 6 ends

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

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

5. The Elks and The Shriners – 229 W. 20th Street and 150 W. 20th Street (APN 037-052-350 and APN 039-030-220)
The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Lodge 1112 (“San Mateo Elks Lodge”), has been located at 229 W. 20th Street since 1954. The San Mateo Elks Lodge has a membership of over 1,100 as of earlier this year. The Elks use their lodge to operate a popular swimming center for kids and families, hold crab feeds and other events in the meeting hall, and engage in fun activities and philanthropic works.

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

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

Page 7 ends

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

Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2).

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

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

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

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

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

APN 042-242-050, -060, -070, -160, -180;
042-243-020, 042-244-040, -050;
042-245-040, -050, -060, -070, -080, -090, -100, -110, -120, -130; 042-263-010, 042-264-010)
This site, consisting of twenty parcels, is claimed to accommodate 161 units of housing affordable to those with lower incomes. The only basis for including it appears to be the claim that there is “ownership interest in specific plan redevelopment,” which does not indicate that all of the parcels would be redeveloped as housing at the maximum density, or indicate who said what to whom, and when.6
the Lodge taken any affirmative steps toward redevelopment beyond this conversation? Without more, the vague reference to “preliminary conversations” between unidentified speakers on an unidentified date does not constitute “substantial evidence.” 6 Here too, the concern about specificity is not idle. There are five separate owners.

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 Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 8 ends

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

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

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

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 9 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 10 ends

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

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

1. Mixed Use/Non-Residential Zoning.

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

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

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

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 11 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 12 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 13 ends

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

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

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

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 14 ends

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

2. Residential Zoning.

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

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 15 ends

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

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

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

3. Site-Specific Adjustments.

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

See December 2022 Draft Appendix C at p. H-C-39.

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

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

Page 16 ends

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

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

C. Additional Comments On Zoning Status.

As noted above, a number of sites included in the City’s inventory are zoned commercial or office without a residential overlay. We request that San Mateo rezone these sites to add a residential overlay, so that developers are assured that residential uses will be permitted, rather than hope the desired inclusion of residential uses will be permitted on a site-by-site basis as part of project-specific approvals. Uncertainty regarding the ultimate success of a rezoning effort discourages residential development in the City. December 2022 Draft at Appendix B, p. H-B-

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

Page 17 ends

Sites Where Residential Units Are Not A Permitted Use:

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

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

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

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 18 ends

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

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

Housing Element
January 7, 2023

Page 19 ends

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

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas B. Mayhew
Charles J. Higley
36615\15225917.1

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 3:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter comment letter re: the San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element – Updated Draft
Attachments: Comments on Updated Draft San Mateo Housing Element January 9, 2023 .pdf

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: Barbara Kelsey
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Gita Dev Gladwyn d'Souza Ken A red
James Eggers Jennifer Hetterly Mike Ferreira

Subject: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter comment letter re: the San Mateo 2023‐2031 Housing Element – Updated Draft

January 9, 2023

2 San Mateo City Council
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council and Planning Commission,

The Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the Updated Draft San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element.

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

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

Cc:

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

sent by:

Barbara Kelsey
she/her/hers
Chapter Coordinator
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter

Palo Alto, CA 94303

3 SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
January 9, 2023
San Mateo City Council
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

Via Email to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Subject: San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element – Updated Draft Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the San Mateo City Council and Planning Commission, The Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the Updated Draft San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element.

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

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

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

1 Concar Passage is the largest housing project approved in recent years and required major time and effort for approval. Developing a project like this each year, will therefore require a major effort above the current processes.
2 The 2015-2022 RHNA was 3,164 units and with only one year left it has 2,573 units completed. This current RHNA number is less than half the new RHNA number; thus, demonstrating the steep challenge of meeting the new RHNA number of 7,015.
must commute long distances by car, emitting greenhouse gases (GHG) as well as other pollutants. It also leads to sprawl, as more development is done in areas that were open space or agricultural land.

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

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

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

The affordable housing should be more strongly focused on low, very low and extremely low- income housing, as these are where the largest needs are and where the lack of inventory is the largest. The very poor jobs/housing fit3 in the Peninsula can best be addressed with a focus on more affordable housing. As noted in the HE draft4, the lack of affordable housing was one of the major concerns expressed by the public.

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

Funding that can be used to support affordable housing is a fundamental need and more must be done to obtain funding. Affordable housing has to be subsidized and a lack of funding will limit the ability to build the needed affordable housing, particularly for low and very low-income units. This could include establishing or increasing: Vacancy Tax, Commercial Linkage Fees, and Transfer Tax. It is particularly important that funding focus on repairing the legacy of discrimination in housing. The following policies and programs should be strengthened to accomplish this goal:
a. H 1.2 - Utilize Public Funding for Low/Moderate Income Housing b. H 1.3 - Increase Affordable Housing Production
c. H 1.18 - Permitting and Development Fee Schedule Review (Increase where necessary) d. H 3.3 – Evaluate Housing Revenue Sources (Increase)

e. H 5.1.1 - Adjust the City's Below Market Rate (inclusionary) program to provide larger density bonuses, and/or increased city support in exchange for affordable units that address the needs of residents with unusually high housing needs f. H 5.1.2 - Participate in a regional down payment assistance program with affirmative marketing to households with disproportionately high housing needs including persons with disabilities, single parents, and Hispanic households g. H 5.1.3 - Support the design of a regional forgivable loan program for homeowners to construct an ADU that is held affordable for extremely low-income households for 15 years

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

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

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

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

Even more priority should be placed on these efforts. The following policies and programs should be strengthened to accomplish this need:

a. H 1.4 - Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units Development with streamlined approvals, development subsidies, or low or zero interest loans for construction cost

5 15-minute neighborhoods are being created in many cities especially post-COVID. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/9/6/7-rules-for-creating-15-minute-neighborhoods 6 Embraced by Mayors around the world, Portland and several small US cities have embraced the concept to rebuild their economizes while crating healthier cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city b. H1.11 Implement the Zoning Code to allow duplexes and lot splits on appropriate single- family sites consistent with SB 9.
c. H1.13- Encourage Development of Missing Middle Housing within a half mile of transit. d. Include overlay zoning, in the General Plan, for “15-minute Neighborhoods” allowing insertion of small new neighborhood retail nodes with Green Streets network 7 to create walkable, bikeable neighborhoods, with the daily amenities, to reduce auto trips and create healthier walkable neighborhoods, convenient for all ages including kids and seniors.

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

Respectfully submitted,

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

Cc:

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

7 How to insert a Green Street network into an existing City. Sierra Club Loma Prieta https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce-authors/u4142/Green%20Streets%20Presentation%20-%201- 20-21%20DC.pdf
8 Ocean Protection Council- Sea Level Rise Guidance: The rate at which sea levels will rise can help inform the planning and implementation timelines of state and local adaptation efforts. Understanding the speed at which sea level is rising can provide context for planning decisions and establish thresholds for action… https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf 1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Melania Maldonado
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 9:30 PM
To: Housing
Subject: Housing element
City Council,

I strongly disagree with the housing approvals you are trying to pass. The city of San Mateo does not build any “affordable” housing for anyone, and nobody in our already over crowded neighborhoods want any more apartment buildings or multi unit housing in our single family neighborhoods. If we wanted to live like that, we would live in San Francisco or other big cities. We like our single family homes, and certainly CANNOT handle any more traffic on our already crowded streets. You keep coming up with all these stupid ideas for building more without any room for parking or play areas for our children. These new so called communities you are approving have inadequate parking space for these people which spill out to our neighborhoods, and then we have no parking. You keep destroying our communities, and have totally ruined our small downtown and our small businesses. So thank you city council, I hope the rest of you “older” council members get voted out next time!

Melania Penirian

Sent from my iPhone

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 1:25 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element Update Comments
Hi Nicky,

Here is an email sent to the commissioners to add to your public comments.

Mary

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

Housing Element Update Comments for the Planning Commission.

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

Laurie Watanuki

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

Mary

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Francie Souza
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 2:27 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element Comments

I am a resident of Central San Mateo and am giving my feedback regarding the Housing Plan.

1) My first question is if we have a high number of housing units we need to develop to meet state mandates, why are most of the new projects in downtown primarily office space (other than Kiku Crossing)?

2) PLEASE do not take away the single family and duplex/quadplex homes along north side of 5th Avenue, and south side of 4th Avenue between Amphlett & Delaware. 5th Avenue is a beautiful tree‐lined street with pre‐war homes/duplexes/quads and is one of the prime reasons we moved into the area. They are also more affordable to those entering the housing market and are close to amenities of downtown. DO NOT raise the height limit beyond what Measure Y was voted on. There needs to be consideration of a transition between the large complexes, such as the one proposed for S Delaware/5th/Claremont/4th, and the less dense housing further down 5th and Delaware.

3) Please consider other areas to develop for housing which are currently a mix of industrial uses ‐ such as parts of Amphlett Blvd and El Camino

4) I am hopeful if new housing has to take over existing housing, such as along West side of Delaware between 5th & 9th and as mentioned above the north side of 5th Avenue, low density, owner occupied townhomes, not high‐rises and large complexes which destroy the nature of the neighborhood community. Alternative 3 or Residential Low is preferred if current housing does need displacement in those areas.

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

Frances Souza

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Mary Way
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Cc: Martin McTaggart; Patrice Olds; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir Subject: RE: Adopt Housing Element
Another comment passing on to Eloiza and Nicky.

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:57 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Adopt Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michelle Byron
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 6:44 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Adopt Housing Element

Please adopt the Housing Element as presented.

Thank you,
Michelle Byron, San Mateo resident

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

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:56 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Mary Way <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing

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

From:

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:07 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing

To: San Mateo City Council

I Support/Request the City Council to ACCEPT the current Housing Element as presented by City staff on January 24 ‐ we have done enough to meet the requirements and our city is stretching our infrastructure.

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

Christine Heckford

San Mateo

Sent from my iPhone

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:34 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Janet Cook
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:30 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

I would like you to vote for the Housing Element before the Council. I would like an investigation into possible bribery with the Planning Commission who went behind our backs to side with developers who care nothing about the will of the voters. As a 45 year citizen of San Mateo, I do not want to loose our town to huge overpopulation.

Thank you,

Janet Cook

San Mateo

Sent from my iPhone

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:46 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting

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

From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting

Dear City Council Members,

I am writing to urge you to approve the Housing Element at your upcoming meeting on January 24th. The voters of San Mateo have repeatedly made it clear that they want managed growth, not urban sprawl.

This is evidenced by the failure of Measure R.

By voting against the Housing Element, you would be:

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

Ultimately allowing a "Builder's Remedy" to not only take away local land use control and put our neighborhoods at risk, resulting in increased traffic congestion and strain on already stretched water and sewer infrastructure in our city.

2 I urge you to approve the Housing Element as presented and protect our neighborhoods, infrastructure, and quality of life in San Mateo.

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

Sincerely,

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

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:49 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Housing element

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

From: Don Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:23 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing element

As a long time resident & homeowner I urge the City Council to Adopt the Housing element as it has been presented.

Don Robertson

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Support for City Council APPROVAL of the current Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:14 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Mary Way <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Support for City Council APPROVAL of the current Housing Element

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

From: Aimee WCrollerskate
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:12 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for City Council APPROVAL of the current Housing Element

As a constituent of San Mateo, I am dismayed and concerned by the continued and inappropriate actions by members of the Planning Commission to undermine San Mateo voters and the approved Measure Y with backroom activities and thinly‐veiled attempts to hand the reins of our city over to profit‐minded developers.

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

But it cannot subvert the will of the voters.

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

I ask that the City Council uphold the will of the voters/Measure Y and ACCEPT the current Housing Element as presented by City staff on January 24th.
‐‐
Regards,
Aimee Stevland
Resident

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023

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

From: Jeff Lowenstein
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:46 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Critical to SM Residents for Housing Element Approval at the City Council Meeting on January 24th, 2023

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff present it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

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

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

Thank You,

2 Jeff
Jeff Lowenstein
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:02 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:02 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: Jim Schwandt
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 3:14 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented au tomatic download of this picture f rom the Internet.

Jim Schwandt

to CITYCOUNCIL

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

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

Sounds like a lawsuit to me.

Is it legal for just a few to overturn the preference of the people? Please support the current and recently accepted Housing Element.

2 ‐‐
Jim Schwandt
San Mateo, CA
Since 1976
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents - housing element approval

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Critical to SM Residents ‐ housing element approval

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

From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 6:19 PM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Laurie Strange <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Drew Corbett <[email protected]>; City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Critical to SM Residents ‐ housing element approval

Dear San Mateo City Council,

Re: Lisa Taner’s Submitted Letter (below)

I have been alerted and apprised by my Neighborhood Association on the potential issue of NOT acting to approve the General Plans which is very concerning and in my assessment would be a dereliction of duty ‐ I raise my voice in support or performing your function as our representatives and support for approval of the City of San Mateo’s general planning process. I along with many others in our community are concerned that some of our representatives may have conflicts of interest on this topic and are allowing their recusal to drive their end goal ‐ please consider this topic when voting and know that we seek sunlight across the entire decision making process.

Thank you for your attention in this matter and are confident that you will act in the best interest of the residents.

2 Kind regards,

Robert Sellers

Dear San
Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

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

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

Thank you,

Lisa Taner

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Current Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Current Housing Element

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

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Approve Current Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

Your constituents are fully informed in regard to the fallout we will face should the deadline to the state be missed. I personally find it appalling that local YIMBY groups are already hosting talks about what will happen to us if we do not have a certified Housing Element to submit by January 31st. There is zero reason for that to happen. Since we've

2 forged a practical and operable Housing Element, residents need to have faith that the Council will accept this updated draft in time to avoid placing all of us in an unimaginable position.

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

Thank you,

Lisa Taner
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: ACCEPT current Housing Element @ Jan 24 CC meeting

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

From: Alicia Woodfall‐Jones
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: ACCEPT current Housing Element @ Jan 24 CC meeting

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

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

2 Thank you,

———————
Alicia Woodfall‐Jones

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element

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

From: Tom Brady
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element

Dear Councilmembers,

It's been brought to my attention that January 24th will be a critical meeting for you to approve San Mateo's Housing Element so we do not suffer punishments from the state, including the Builder's Remedy.

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

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

Thanks ‐ Tom

Thomas E. Brady
Chairman & Principal
Thomas Brady & Associates

2 www.tbradyandassociates.com

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:46 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Planning

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:42 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Planning

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

From: mark de paula
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:40 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Planning

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

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

Thank you,
Mark De Paula

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: Angie Fuqua
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:55 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element

I would like to request the City Council accept the current housing element as presented by city staff at the January 24, 2023 Council Meeting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Angie and Mark Fuqua

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:52 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: Deborah Kohn
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:49 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am writing to strongly advocate for your acceptance of the current Housing Element when staff presents it at your January 24th City Council meeting.

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

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

Thank you,

‐‐
Deborah Kohn

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine - Vote to Approve Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:03 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine ‐ Vote to Approve Housing Element

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

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:02 AM
To: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Dist. 5 Councilmember Loraine ‐ Vote to Approve Housing Element

Dear Councilmember Loraine,
You may not be aware, but Measure Y’s origins emanate from District 5 when Measure H was created by concerned residents in this southwest region of San Mateo. The measure that limits heights and densities and requires affordable housing ‐ before it became the thing to do ‐ runs in our veins and represents our historical and current values: protecting the character of our community and city. The Council will soon be receiving a letter from the membership of the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association, urging Council to vote to accept the Housing Element at the January 24th Council meeting.

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

Much compromise went into the pot as this Element was painstakingly crafted and recrafted, considering all the resident input, all the needs, and suggestions upon the first draft. It more than fulfils our requirement, and all was produced before the upcoming deadline.

2 I can only think that the Planning Commission, with their recommendation to reject the Housing Element, join with the unwavering YIMBY goal to remove all local power and provide yet another opening for developers to have their way with our city. I can only think that any councilmember voting to reject the current Housing Element and causing us to miss the crucial state deadline, regardless of how that decision would be explained, is choosing the same goal, and actively choosing to fail the residents of San Mateo.

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

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

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

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:27 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Mary Way <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please Approve the Housing Element of the General Plan As Is at Next Council Meeting

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

From: Connie Weiss
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:25 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Please Approve the Housing Element of the General Plan As Is at Next Council Meeting

Hello Members of the San Mateo City Council,

I am hopeful with this new Council that the bad behaviors of the past will stay in the past. Because, all too often, San Mateo residents have been overrun by outside, paid and unpaid lobbyists and big developers, saying San Mateo must rezone and build aggressively to meet state demands. San Mateo voters passed Measure Y for a reason. San Mateo voters want measured growth and true affordable housing, not big‐block developments with office, luxury apartments, and offering only roughly 10% affordable housing. This is not what San Mateo needs and we need to stand firm on what is best for the City.

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

Further review should be conducted on what is really needed for San Mateo’s success in the future. It should not include any strong‐arming by large developers and/or aggressive outside interests looking to take away local land use control and undercut the will of San Mateo residents and voters.

2 It is also disconcerting that at least one member of the Planning Commission decided to take it upon themselves to disrespect the work of City staff and contact the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to say that our Housing Element is insufficient. It seems Council needs to course‐correct errant Planning Commissioner(s) and make changes as needed to ensure that everyone working within the San Mateo City government understands big developers and outside lobbying interests are not to be prioritized over the voters and residents of San Mateo.

Thank you,

Connie Weiss

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:27 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Your support for Current Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:35 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Your support for Current Housing Element

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

From: LOUISE BEKINS >
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 11:47 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Your support for Current Housing Element

Dear Councilmembers

I urge you to adopt the current housing element.

Thank you.

Louise Bekins
San Mateo

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:29 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element

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

From: Mara Castillo
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:58 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Approve Housing Element

Dear Sirs,
I am requesting the Council approve the Housing Element (so we are not faced with the "Builder's Remedy" that eliminates the ability of the City to impose any conditions on a project). Do not destroy our lovely city with out of control building!
Thank you,
Mara Castillo

San Mateo

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:26 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:30 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element vote 1/24/2023

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

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

Dear Honorable City Council Member Hedges::

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

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

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

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

2 hopeful that this new City Council will take appropriate actions to determine if removal of Planning Commissioner Nugent is appropriate.

Thank you,
Jean Dail –

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

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: brigid doherty
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Hello,

My name is Brigid Doherty and I am a homeowner in the Sunnybrae neighborhood, along with my husband. We have been residents of San Mateo since 2007. We were renters before becoming homeowners. We have 2 daughters.

I have spoken at past City Council meetings, particularly regarding the Passages project and its impact on the 19th Ave Park, Fiesta Gardens, and Sunnybrae neighborhoods.

2 According to the Housing Element, it appears that the creation of affordable housing in San Mateo is of upmost importance. However, why is there such a small percentage of units at Passages that will be affordable/low income? This makes no sense to me.

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warmly,
Brigid Doherty

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:25 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Adoption of San Mateo's Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:25 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Adoption of San Mateo's Housing Element

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

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

Honorable Members of the San Mateo City Council:

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

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

The Housing Element was amended to address previous concerns and questions put forth by HCD when it was initially reviewed. City staff worked to correct those concerns and have shown that San Mateo can meet housing requirements and even have a buffer. This is what we have all been trying to achieve. Meeting housing needs and keeping San Mateo a livable place for all.

2 We want to see the council approve our current Housing Element Plan so that this city can move forward. People are not going to tolerate some roque individuals going around the public process. The council must now show it's support for the public's input and approve the plan.

Thank you,

Ronnie and Bruce Eaton
San Mateo

Get BlueMail for Desktop

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:12 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: Edward Evans
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Dear City Council, Housing Manager and Staff,
As you are aware, almost every city and town in the county is going through the same process of drafting a general plan and a specific housing element. The lack of any kind of Labor Standards language in San Mateo's current Draft Housing Element is troubling to us. Through cooperation with Redwood City staff, the Carpenters Union was recently

2 successful in getting Labor Standards language into Redwood City's latest Draft Housing Element and we would like to strongly encourage San Mateo to do the same. For reference, here is the Redwood City language:

POLICY H‐5.7: Encourage developers and contractors to evaluate hiring local labor, hiring from or contributing to apprenticeship programs, increasing resources for labor compliance, and providing living wages. (Page 49: 00_RWC_HE‐1‐6‐23.pdf (welcomehomerwc.org))

We ask that you delay approval of the current Draft Housing Element until it contains some form of meaningful Labor Standards Language similar to that in Redwood City's draft. Thank you for your consideration.

All the best,

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

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

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:26 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:29 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: ROB GIBSON
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:26 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

San Mateo City Council,

The research that I've done has led me to believe that we can meet the states housing requirement and still implement the parameters of measure Y. But that doesn't seem to be what we're doing.

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

But we know that couldn't be true don't we?

Rob Gibson

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:29 AM
Cc: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: HOLLY HEWITT
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:43 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Good Morning,

I want to add my name in support of the Housing Element.

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

Please accept the staff recommendation.

Regards,
Holly H. Hewitt

Sent from my iPad

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: Fwd: Current Housing Element

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Current Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Chuck Kabala
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 7:15 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Current Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

As 26 year San Mateo City residents We strongly urge you to accept the current housing element at your January 24 meeting. We need to protect our wonderful city from outside building interests that simply see dollar signs in planning for the future of San Mateo.

Sincerely, Beth & Chuck Kabala

Sent from my iPhone

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From:

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

Dear City Council Members:

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

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

Voters objected to Measure R that would have allowed city council to approve height increases in designated areas; voters do not want discretionary decisions delegated to any authority including those under the Builder’s Remedy. It is your duty to defend the will of your constituents.

2 The only benefactors of the Builder’s Remedy are developers and builders whose sole purpose is profit. Under the Builder’s Remedy, the City would be at risk of uncontrolled growth, increased traffic and the overburdening of our infrastructure as well as any unforeseen consequences. It is simply irresponsible to expose the City to unidentified risks.

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

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

Thank you,
Lisa M. Maley

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

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: Genel Morgan
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 1:20 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

To whom it may concern,

I am a long time resident of San Mateo. I understand the need for more housing, but I want to see it done in a responsible way, free from influence of special interests (especially builders).

I want the City Council to approve the Housing Element as drafted. It meets the 7,015 housing units required by the state while honoring Measure Y, which was passed by the voters.

2 The Planning Commission overstepped its boundaries by appealing to the state. Their recommendation that the city Council decline to adopt the Housing Element draft is irresponsible and would lead to San Mateo losing local control of housing built in the city in the future. I do not see that the Planning Commission is advocating for the residents of the city.

Sincerely
Genel Morgan
San Mateo
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:31 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: For January 24 meeting

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:31 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: For January 24 meeting

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Judith Paton
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 8:27 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: For January 24 meeting

Please adopt the Housing Element so that we are not forced into the Builders’ Remedy. The latter will not provide the affordable housing we need. With the layoffs now starting with our local dot‐coms we don’t need a new wave of market‐rate apartments.

Thank you
Judith Paton

Sent from my iPhone

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

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: sean schochet
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:30 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Hello,

Can the housing committee please consider connecting campus drive and the new housing complexes there to San Mateo College via a walking/biking bridge over 92? PLEASE. Thanks.

-Sean

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:25 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Leadership & Membership of Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association Request City Council Accept Housing Element 1/24
Attachments: BHNA Membership Supports Acceptance of Housing Element .pdf

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 4:27 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Leadership & Membership of Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association Request City Council Accept Housing Element 1/24

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

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Leadership & Membership of Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association Request City Council Accept Housing Element 1/24

Dear Council,

Attached please see our Membership letter from the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association, whose members voted overwhelmingly to send this correspondence urging the City Council to accept the current Housing Element on January 24, 2023.

Thank you,

Lisa Taner
Past President
BHNA

January 19, 2023

SAN MATEO CITY COUNCIL
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
Via Email

Re: BHNA Membership Urges Council Acceptance
of Current Housing Element at January 24th Meeting

Dear San Mateo City Council,

The Membership of the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association urges you to move forward to accept the Housing Element at your January 24th meeting.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

The Membership & Board of the
Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:30 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: General Plan/Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: General Plan/Housing Element

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

From: Kitty Van Beckum
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 2:53 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan/Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

Please move San Mateo and our General Plan process forward by approving the Housing Element on January 24th. The current draft meets the State housing units requirement without changing the existing zoning.

Sincerely,

Katherine Van Beckum

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:30 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please approve the Housing Element at the next City Council Meeting

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

From: Pete Bertrand
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 5:59 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Please approve the Housing Element at the next City Council Meeting

Dear Council Members,

Don't let developers have the freedom to build whatever they like in our community.

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

Thank you, Pete Bertrand

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:30 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please Approve the Housing Element Plan

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:29 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please Approve the Housing Element Plan

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Trina Pierce
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 10:30 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: Please Approve the Housing Element Plan

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

Many families live in residential homes with several families. I have lived in San Mateo, (North Central) for over 60 years and have seen so many changes. This plan is for over a 10 year period, this can only be a positive for our city, not to mention how the Housing Element plan will be a positive for so many residents in San Mateo County. >
> Please approve the plan, so San Mateo can maintain a small area and not like San Francisco with a lot of high rises, which removes visibility for neighborhoods to enjoy the views when they originally moved to the San Mateo area. >
> Trina Pierce
> North Central
>
> Sent from my iPhone

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:11 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: William Williams
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 10:45 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

When the Bay Meadows Racetrack / Aquifer was developed into buildings and roads, nuisance flooding in San Mateo changed to damaging flooding.

The major hindrance to acceptance of the current San Mateo Housing Element is how many housing units will replace the Hillsdale Mall. Property owners analyze costs and seek profitability. Housing advocates look at the number of units created as a measure of success. Residents who argue for a livable community are not exclusionary racists. We believe "towers of toilets" in tall buildings will lead to sewage and drainage

2 problems. Electrifying Caltrain will not solve traffic and mobility issues. Underground parking has been approved for a large development on Concar Drive (Rite Aid). This parking will flood. Do we just build it and have new residents suffer because they were unaware of potential problems?

The Housing Element should promote livable accommodations. It should not be based on profitability.

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

Sustainability gets a lot of lip service. How much energy demand, water and sewer service, and transportation infrastructure can the natural environment support here in San Mateo?

x Bill Williams, San Mateo

Sent from Outlook
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:19 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Letter enclosed requesting approval of Housing Element at 1/24/2023 meeting.

Attachments: CCHELetter.docx

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

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

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

Dear City Council Members,

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

Sincerely,

Mary Cravalho

1/22/2023

San Mateo City Council
City Hall - City Council Chambers
330 W 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

RE: Please Approve the Housing Element as presented by staff on 1/24/2023

Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

City staff, facilitators and stakeholders spent months and extraordinary effort to provide input and formulate their Housing Element recommendations for the Council’s approval, which reportedly exceeds the mandatory housing unit goals required by the state.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Mary Cravalho

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:49 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: writing in support of a democratic process & the approval of the housing element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:49 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: writing in support of a democratic process & the approval of the housing element

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

From: Evan Powell
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 8:33 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: writing in support of a democratic process & the approval of the housing element

Dear Council and members of staff

Thank you for your service to the city.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

2 Evan

‐‐

Evan Powell

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:31 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element

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

From: Cynthia Prien
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 3:45 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Approve Housing Element

I urge you to approve the Housing Element (with the exclusion of rent restrictions) at your January 24th meeting. City Staff determined that the City will meet the required number of housing units (plus a buffer) within Measure Y standards allowing the Housing Element to meet state requirements. Failure to timely approve the Housing Element puts the City and residents at risk for a Builder’s Remedy resulting in the loss of local control, increased strain on infrastructure and traffic congestion.

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

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

Please approve the Housing Element.

Thank you.

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:30 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: General Plan Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:25 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: General Plan Housing Element

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

From: Daniel Shefer
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 9:05 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Housing Element

Council Members,

Please pass the Housing Element. Whatever faults, real or imagined, the Planning Commission found in it, it is a solid plan and prima facie, passes state requirements and then some. Yes, I actually read it. Not approving the Housing Element will trigger the Builders Remedy and spell disaster to any planning and zoning constraints the city is trying to implement to keep San Mateo liveable.

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

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

I hope you will do the right thing.

Daniel Shefer

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: January 24 City Council Special Meeting Agenda item#2

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:07 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: January 24 City Council Special Meeting Agenda item#2

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Stephen Chen
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:26 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: January 24 City Council Special Meeting Agenda item#2

Dear Ms. Olds,

In lieu of attending the zoom meeting tomorrow, I’m submitting my comments as follows:
(1) now that we are the largest city in San Mateo county, we have an even more urgent need to build more AFFORDABLE HOUSING than before.
(2) regarding the city ڲڱڰگڮڭ measure Y of November 2020, the Yes votes won by only 43 out of a total of 46033 casted votes, that is just 0.09% or less than 0.1%.
(3) AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT THE SAME AS PUBLIC HOUSING. We do need affordable housing for our teachers, policemen, firemen, first responders as well as healthcare workers. It will also benefit our own younger generations in the future.
(4) with ever‐increasing costs for labor, materials , regulations and other factors, the increase in building height and density allowance would make the building project financially more attractive to the builders who might be interested in it. If you are so worried about the height‐density issue, take a leisure drive along the VETERANS BLVD and neighboring streets in our next city south, the RWC, it could give you a rather eye‐opening experience. Besides, if you and your neighbors keep your properties tidy and neat, there is no way somebody will build a high density unit next to you. (5) many recent studies have shown the very restrictive LOCAL ZONING MANDATES played a key role in our current acute housing shortage situation nationwide, which in turn also makes the HOMELESS problem worse.

Sincerely,

Stephen Chen
San Mateo

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: R Colpitts
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:53 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

To the City Council,
My wife Dolores and I strongly support the Housing Element as presented to you by City staff, and we urge you to adopt it as presented, at your meeting on January 24,2023.

Thank you,
Robert F Colpitts

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:18 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Accept the Current Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:52 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Accept the Current Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Dorothy Radyk
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:39 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Accept the Current Housing Element

As a long‐time resident of San Mateo, I request that you accept the current Housing Element. The future of San Mateo should be decided by San Mateo residents, not the developers.

Thank you,
Dorothy Radyk

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:10 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element January 24 meeting

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element January 24 meeting

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

From: Gary Germano
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element January 24 meeting

Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

Please support and accept the current Housing Element being presented at your January 24th meeting that meets our requirements for housing numbers Without Changing the Existing Zoning.

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

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

Arbitrary project specific "spot" zoning and arbitrary General Plan change could destroy this City by not taking the overall "big picture" of what is being done into account. This would create a disaster in terms of overall infrastructure capacity, such as accessibility to services, retail outlets, traffic, and emergency evacuations.

2 Please responsibly build within our existing zoning guidelines and General Plan, and do what our residents and your constituents have consistently approved for the good and safety of all people living here.

Sincerely,

Gary and Janet Germano

San Mateo

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:00 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:59 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: Danny Guiney
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

Council,

Please remove the rental oversight from the housing element. These were not necessary or required. Then approve the Housing Element as previously suggested.

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

Thank you all for your service.

Dan Guiney
San Mateo City Resident

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:19 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: 1/24, Council mtg. Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:19 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: 1/24, Council mtg. Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Devra Harris
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:15 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Housing <[email protected]> Subject: 1/24, Council mtg. Housing Element

Re: San Mateo City Council Meeting 1/24/23 Agenda Item #2

Dear Councilmembers,

I am writing in regards to the General Plan Amendment to adopt the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element for 2023‐ 2031.

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

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

Kindly,

Devra Harris

San Mateo

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Accept the Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:53 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Accept the Housing Element

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

From: Christine Heiss
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:51 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Accept the Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,
As a San Mateo county homeowner since 2005, please consider the following when deciding to accept the Housing Element:

1. The revised Housing Element (HE) substantially complies with t he requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE. The HE identifies 9,934 units or 142% of the City’s required housing allocation of 7,015 units.

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

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

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

They did not offer any suggested revisions.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
Christine Heiss

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

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

From: Jennifer Pacholuk
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:14 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]> Subject: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

Dear City Council Members,

I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council- approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Jennifer Pacholuk

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Accept Current Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:05 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Accept Current Housing Element

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: John Radyk
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:04 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Accept Current Housing Element

City of San Mateo Council Members,

Please vote to accept the current Housing Element. The current Housing Element meets the number of mandated housing units while working within voter approved Measure Y. San Mateo should never be subjected to the Builder's Remedy. Remember that the citizens of San Mateo elected you to represent them, not developers.

Thank you,
John Radyk

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:03 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Adopt the housing element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:01 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Adopt the housing element

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

From: Mike Manely
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:16 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Adopt the housing element

Please represent the exist residents and not bow to the big‐money developers and their future (or past) campaign contributions to you who have accepted their dirty money. We are watching all your actions/votes very closely. You must abide by the current building height restrictions and "ADOPT THE HOUSING ELEMENT", as it will be sufficient enough housing for the State housing mandate and not expose San Mateo to "The Builders Remedy" as it is NOT DEMOCRATIC!!! (Taxation without representation).

Thank You, Michael Manely (35 year resident)

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:49 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: City Council‐approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023

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

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

Members of the San Mateo City Council -

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

Best Regards -

John & Christine O'Dea

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:50 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: land development

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:50 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: land development

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

From: Jen Paiva
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:49 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: land development

Dear City Council Members,

Thank you,
Jennifer Paiva

‐‐
Jen Paiva

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:22 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please accept the revised Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:20 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please accept the revised Housing Element

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

From: Martha Park
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:12 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Please accept the revised Housing Element

Dear Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Nash, and Council Members Loraine, Newsom Jr., and Hedges,
I am writing to request that you accept the revised Housing Element prepared by staff. I'm concerned that our City won't come up with a final plan to submit to the state by January 31st, and we'll be subject to the Builder's Remedy, which will further take away local control from this issue.

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

Thank you,

2 Martha Park
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element approval vote for Parkside Neighborhood

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element approval vote for Parkside Neighborhood

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

From: Felicia Schipper
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:29 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element approval vote for Parkside Neighborhood

Dear City Council Members,

Thank you,
Felicia M. Schipper
Resident on Clipper Street in Parkside

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:48 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

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

From: Roger Smale
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:43 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

Dear City Council Members,

I am sending this email to officially request that each of you vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and 2 years of community meetings. I live in the City of San Mateo and am very concerned about developers of residential projects being able to bypass our zoning code and general plan with no City oversight. Please be strong advocates for our community and submit San Mateo's City Council-approved Housing Element to the State by January 31, 2023.

Thank you,
Roger Smale

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:21 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:03 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

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

From: Tony Pacholuk
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:49 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Cc: Richard Hedges <[email protected]>
Subject: IMPORTANT! Request to Approve San Mateo Housing Element

Dear City Council Members,

Thank you,
Tony Pacholuk

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:09 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Item #1 - General Plan Amendment to Adopt the City of San Mateo's Housing Element for 2023-2031

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Item #1 ‐ General Plan Amendment to Adopt the City of San Mateo's Housing Element for 2023‐2031

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

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

Dear Mayor Lee and Members of the City Council,

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

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

3. Please remove the rent control and tenant protection restrictions in the Housing Element including the rental registry. There has been no debate or outreach to smaller mom and pop property owners who cannot afford these kinds of restrictions of property rights. I don’t think many property owners in San Mateo are even aware of the 5 rental restrictions in the Housing Element. This would be an invasion of privacy, reduce the supply of good affordable housing, punish the good landlords, remove our property rights, and create a huge bureaucracy in City Hall.

2 4. The Planning Commissioners’ conclusion that the Housing Element is not in compliance is not true. We can make our RHNA numbers without rezoning.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,

Laurie Watanuki

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:06 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:04 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: Robert Whitehair
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:18 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, the City Council will have an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. I respectfully request the following actions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you
Robert Whitehair, on behalf of San Mateo Climate Action Team

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:49 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element presented by staff tomorrow!

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:48 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve Housing Element presented by staff tomorrow!

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

From: Barbara Whiteside
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:34 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Approve Housing Element presented by staff tomorrow!

1/23/2023
San Mateo City Council
City Hall - City Council Chambers
330 W 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

RE: Please Approve the Housing Element as presented by staff on 1/24/2023

Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I have had my home in San Mateo for 35 years and raised our three children here.

2 Please approve the Housing Element recommendations created by stake‐holders, staff, and facilitators to meet the housing unit goals determined by the state. Please note that these recommendations actually exceed the mandatory unit goals required by the state.

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

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

Thank‐you,
Barbara Whiteside

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Revised HE please!

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Revised HE please!

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

From: Helen Young
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:43 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Revised HE please!

Dear Pstrice Olds,

Please please accept (1) the revised Housing Element ( HE ) because it complies with ALL the requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE.

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

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

Regards,

Helen Young

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:47 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element Plan

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:27 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element Plan

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

From: sue
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:17 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Plan

Dear San Mateo City Council

2 benefits: a) It places the burden on HCD, and b) It delays penalties going into effect by up to 60 days.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request

Sincerely
Sue Blockstein
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:38 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:35 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: Rustard Mustard
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:24 AM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element

Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,

In regards to the Housing Element, I respectfully request that the City of San Mateo take guidance and consultant assistance from individuals and organizations who have worked with cities that are already in compliance with the Housing Element.

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

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

Regarding legal fines and fees how much money has Redwood City, Alameda and Emeryville saved from being in compliance? What is our budget for not being in

2 compliance? What is the cost benefit analysis for being in and not being in compliance?

Sincerely yours,
Suzanne Bonilla

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:02 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:58 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: William Cendak
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element

City Council members,

The residents of San Mateo provided comments and requested changes to the General Plan which the City staff implemented.

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

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

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

Thank you for attention to this urgent matter,

W. J. Cendak

2 San Mateo,CA

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Approve updated draft of Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:31 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Approve updated draft of Housing Element

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

From: Mareva
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:24 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Approve updated draft of Housing Element

Dear City Council Members and Mayor Lee,
Laguna Vista residents are counting on your approval of the Housing Element draft so zoning is protected and SM has control of current and future building projects.

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

In anticipation, many thanks,

Mareva Godfrey
Laguna Vista HOA Marina Lagoon Committee
District 4

Sent from the all new AOL app for Android

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:42 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: 1/24/2023 Council meeting - approve draft Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:39 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: 1/24/2023 Council meeting ‐ approve draft Housing Element

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

From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:15 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: 1/24/2023 Council meeting ‐ approve draft Housing Element

Dear Council members,

Tonight you make a major decision on doing all in your power to keep local control of San Mateo's future or allow it to become a "builders remedy" free for all. I urge you to approve the draft Housing Element, as presented by staff, and forward it to the state for their acceptance.

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

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

I know many are urging you to reject this draft as inadequate. As my mother liked to say, "consider the source". Are those you are hearing from people who will benefit from the imposition of the builders remedy? Or are these people whose livelihood depends on presenting positions opposed to what this housing element represents? Are these people who believe in housing at any cost (ignoring the need to step up affordable housing production), leaving San Mateo to deal with the negative impacts of market rate and luxury building that outpaces our infrastructure and natural resources?

A particular word about the recommendation from the Planning Commission to reject this draft. It is truly unfortunate that only 3 commissioners attended that meeting. We deserved the opinion of all five. The council ended up with a "unanimous" decision from three commissioners who represent approaches which are possibly the most out of sync with

2 most San Mateans. One has used every opportunity over the past 4-5 years to castigate large swaths of our residents as "racist". Another recently attacked speakers at a meeting as "racist" and then embarked on an extended rant based on personal history. The third is serving under the cloud of a District Attorney investigation into possible illegal activities during the recent Council campaign. Two of these commissioners have become so activist as to directly contact HDC, laying out their views against the draft Housing Element, while also making it clear that they are Planning Commissioners.

Does this seem like the actions of people who are appointed to advise the Council - not usurp the Council's decision making powers?

I served this city as a Planning Commissioner for 14 years. I served with many people representing a variety of viewpoints and approaches. But I assure, you none of them would have taken such egregious positions or actions to undermine our city and its residents and City Council. Again, I urge you to consider the source - and reject their "advice".

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

Karen Herrel
San Mateo resident since 1963
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: General Plan Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:30 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: General Plan Housing Element

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

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

Dear Mayor Lee and Council Members:

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

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

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

The revised Housing Element (HE) substantially complies with the requirements and addresses the State Housing and Community Development comments on the HE. The HE includes identifies 9,934 units or 142% of the City’s required housing allocation of 7,015 units. The RHNA allocations can be met without overturning Measure Y.

2 Please remove the rental restrictions from the HE including the rental registry. The restrictions would invade privacy, reduce supply, punish good landlords, and remove property rights. The rental restrictions are not required and do not belong in the housing element. Please remove Policy H5.4.1 ‐ Establish tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB 1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases. It is not necessary for San Mateo to go beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
San Mateo
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:18 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:11 AM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: Michelle Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:09 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Michelle Hudson
Resident of San Mateo

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: [email protected]

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:41 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: [email protected]

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

From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:26 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: [email protected]

Dear City Council,

I strongly support the current City Staff Housing Element plan, but with the removal of rental property restrictions. This does not belong in the same conversation as housing development and will seriously negatively impact small ma and pa property owners (and many retired) the most. How this got in there I do not know. It’s definitely gross government overreach.

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

Here are some principles I hope you adhere to:

2 -Keep voter approved Measure Y in tact

-Protect existing single family zoning

-Listen to people who actually live in San Mateo

-Support smart balanced growth independent of developer interference

-Protect small ma and pa rental property owners who are the key engine for rental availability, from restrictions which will cripple them.

-Conduct outreach and get public input from rental housing providers before any future rental restrictions (and registry which could be used for further restrictions) are even proposed.

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

Gary Isoardi
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:00 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element

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

From: Sean Lacson
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:42 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

I am submitting this letter in the hope that the City Council will make some difficult, but incredibly important decisions regarding the housing affordability of our city for years to come. My own family's ability to purchase a home in this city is dependent on your vote.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Sean Lacson
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:40 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:39 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: Ricki McGlashan
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:07 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council,

Tonight, Jan. 24, the City Council has an important decision to make about the future of housing in San Mateo and I urge the following strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ricki and Doug McGlashan

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: We need better housing access in San Mateo

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:00 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: We need better housing access in San Mateo

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

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

Jan. 24, 2023

To the San Mateo City Council:

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

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

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

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

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

Please do what's needed to address this problem.

Harry R. Moody

2 San Mateo, CA 94403
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element Vote Tonight

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:29 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element Vote Tonight

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

From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:00 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element Vote Tonight

Dear Council,
Please approve the Housing Element as prepared by City Staff and Consultant. It will never be a document that will make all parties happy. Any changes do not guarantee HCD approval, and may actually open up the City to further scrutiny if the plan becomes too specific and the Council can not deliver what is being promised. Policy changes should be discussed and have public outreach versus being added at the 11th hour as a mitigating measures in hopes of getting the housing element through. I believe if there are issues with this version we will be allowed more time to address, versus being deemed out of compliance based on the passage of time. This version is an improvement over the previous version.

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

I would also like to request Mayor Lee recuse herself from voting on this and other General Plan votes for a period of at least one year (or longer, if council decides) for the recent GoFundMe campaign launched unilaterally by Mayor Lee. I 100% support the cause but feel that this should have been done by the Council as a whole and run through a non-profit organization such as Samaritan House or other agreed upon not-for-profit entity. This was appearing to have been done by Supervisor Corzo for her recent advocacy for the flood victims in Belmont. Reviewing the top donors, a significant portion has come from the developer community Bohannon and Windy Hill both contributed $10K and Lane Partners

2 contributed $5K. A week ago, half the donations were from these developers. This creates and cast doubt for me as it will for many others as it appears Mayor Lee now appears to have a conflict in relation to these donations. GoFundMe also appears to have a 15% surcharge which I would prefer go to the victims.

Thank you,

Thomas Morgan
San Mateo

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:11 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element Vote

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:11 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element Vote

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Valerie Oblath
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 9:10 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Vote

To all City Council members,

I am writing to strongly encourage you at tonight’s meeting to vote to approve the Housing Element as prepared by our City Staff, following two years of community meetings and discussion. If it is not approved, San Mateo will be subject to automatic implementation of the “Builders’ Remedy” which, it is my understanding, allows developers of residential projects to bypass the zoning code and General Plan. This must not happen!!

Respectfully,
Valerie Oblath
District 4

Sent from my iPad

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:40 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo's Housing Element requested actions

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:37 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo's Housing Element requested actions

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

From: Elaine Salinger
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:13 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo's Housing Element requested actions

Dear San Mateo City Council

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

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

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

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

Sincerely

Elaine Salinger, San Mateo Chapter Leader

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element comments

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element comments

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

From: Karen S
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element comments

Dear City Council,

I am writing to ask you to please adopt the Housing Element as presented since we are able to meet all current state requirements with the current Housing Element.

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

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

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Karen Sid

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:01 PM
Cc: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element comment

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:57 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Housing Element comment

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

From: Maxine Terner
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element comment

In case you didn't see or get my previous email sent last night to clerk@city...

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

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

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

Adopting the Housing Element also makes San Mateo eligible, or with higher priority, for numerous sources of funding, as enumerated in the staff report. Not adopting the Housing Element places the City at risk for significant fines imposed by the State. The pros clearly outweigh the cons.

2 Of more concern is that San Mateo may lose the right to exercise local land use control over housing projects. Under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision in the Housing Accountability Act if a jurisdiction has a noncompliant housing element, the city must approve any housing development project, regardless of the local General Plan and Zoning requirements.

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

I urge you to adopt the Housing Element tonight.

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

Sandra Belluomini
Administrative Tech| Housing
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650‐522‐7239| [email protected]

From: Kristen Watts‐Penny
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:29 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element.

Please adopt San Mateo’s 2023-2031 Housing Element.

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element 2023-2031
Attachments: San Mateo City Council 1.24.23.docx

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: San Mateo Housing Element 2023‐2031

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

From: Dianne Whitaker
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; ldiaz‐[email protected]; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element 2023‐2031

Mayor Lee, Deputy Mayor Diaz-Nash, Councilmembers Hedges, Lorraine and Newsom –

I am submitting the attached document for tonight’s Special City Council Meeting regarding the City’s Housing Element.

Thank you for your service.

-Dianne

Dianne R. Whitaker, AIA
Dianne Whitaker Architect

Mayor Lee,
Deputy Major Diaz-Nash,
Council Members Hedges, Lorraine and Newsom
January 24, 2023

Housing Element Acceptance and Approval

California State Legislators are on a mission to remove more and more local control away from our cities regarding land use decisions.

Once size does not fit all.

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

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

Thank You,

Dianne Whitaker
San Mateo

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: The Housing Element

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:56 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: The Housing Element

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

From: Teri Whitehair
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: The Housing Element

Dear San Mateo City Council

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

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request

Sincerely

2 Teri Whitehair

Elders Action Network
EAN National Gathering Coordinator
Elders for Social Justice Co‐coordinator

The great work now is to carry out the transition from a period of human devastation of the earth to a period when humans would be present to the planet in a mutually beneficial manner.

Thomas Berry

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:43 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Please submit to HCD the "Housing Element" for reasons and information stated below

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:28 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Please submit to HCD the "Housing Element" for reasons and information stated below

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

From: Valerie Fox Carlos
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Please submit to HCD the "Housing Element" for reasons and information stated below

Dear San Mateo City Council

On Tuesday night January 24, 2023, this is an important night that may impact the future of housing in San Mateo, as it considers taking a position on the Housing Element. We request the following actions:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this request

Respectfully,

Valerie Fox Carlos

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:44 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element Agenda Item

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

From: Ted McKinnon
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:14 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Agenda Item

Dear San Mateo City Council,
To any informed observer, the Housing Element of San Mateo’s General Plan, as presented at the Planning Commission meeting of January 12th, will not pass muster with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), leaving the City in substantial non‐compliance with California state law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Ted McKinnon

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: city council meeting

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:58 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]> Subject: FW: city council meeting

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

From: Louise A Duncalf
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 5:27 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: city council meeting

PLEASE A[PPROVE HOUSING ELEMENT. LOUISE DUNCALF

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Council Special Meeting

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:57 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Council Special Meeting

This was during the meeting so we will add to this packet. I'll send four more.

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:13 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Council Special Meeting

Approve the plan ‐ as bad as it is, it avoids the builder remedy

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Special Council

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:48 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Special Council

It seems that 7k housing is arbitrary number needs to be challenged ‐ potential remedies are just that, potential. Why do we find ourselves in a reactive mode rather than being proactive with a comprehensive plan that is built by our the will of the community… I love a statistically relevant study comment for more affordable housing, please explain what that means and please provide a link for this study if you are placing this out as your foundation of decision.

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: City Council Special

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:58 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]> Subject: FW: City Council Special

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:29 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Special

What happened to city independence ‐ I thought we were incorporated as the City of San Mateo, we are getting railroaded by communities that have a labor and contractor focus — please show some leadership and represent the City of San Mateo!!

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Special Council

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: ROBERT SELLERS
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:22 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Special Council

Where do you get your growth numbers that support this unabated growth? Where do you have a quality of life provision? You relay on Bay Area metrics not San Mateo specific needs ‐ you do realize that the micro climates of commerce and want to dilute our quality of life and become another Richmond. This one size fits all does not work ‐ if your force it into this model it is destine to fail and yes we too will be another failed community.

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Housing Element

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

From: Scott Stoeckle
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

As a San Mateo resident, at I am urging City Council to approve, the Housing Element, as prepared by city staff and two years of community meetings.

Thank you, Scott Stoeckle

Sent from Mail for Windows

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:25 PM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Council Meeting 1/24/23 Housing Element Approval

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:21 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Council Meeting 1/24/23 Housing Element Approval

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

From: Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:18 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Council Meeting 1/24/23 Housing Element Approval

Dear Council ‐ Once again I find myself rather stunned that residents have to write in on something that should be ministerial after all of the staff, council, and community input, but here we are. Ignoring that entire process because Planning Commissioners Patel, Nugent and Ebneter once again feel they can legislate from their unelected positions would be the acme of irresponsibility, subjecting San Mateo to the "Builders Remedy", and perhaps more importantly, jeopardizing millions in funding due to a non‐compliant housing element. Even recommending this, much less going all the way to the HCD suggesting they reject our housing element, should be grounds for their immediate removal for conduct detrimental to the City of San Mateo and dereliction of duty. We had a special council meeting to address literally this very issue within the last year. Apparently they did not get the message. Unchecked bad behavior begets more such behavior. But, I digress.

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

Your job tonight is simple ‐ approve the housing element.

Sincerely ‐ Michael Weinhauer

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:02 AM
To: Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: Reprieve from Builders Remedy and penalties

From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:56 AM
To: Eloiza Murillo‐Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Reprieve from Builders Remedy and penalties

For the next time this comes to council as it was after the close of the meeting

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

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

Dear Mayor and Council

To summarize my comments tonight:

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

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

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

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

As difficult and aspirational as my proposal is, it is better than another vote on Measure Y in 2024, or all the chaos that would result if there is no Housing Element adopted. Measure Y was passed by only 46 votes out of 46,000 cast. The

2 tide is turning, things are changing, those in favor of Y might want to take advantage of what will could be fleeting power. But please listen to their concerns and the concerns of all the others!

We have so many vital people on all sides of the issue willing to work this out.

Please do that

Robert Whitehair

1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Housing
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 2:38 PM
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
Subject: FW: San Mateo Adopted Housing Element Comment Letter Attachments: San Mateo Follow-up Housing Element Comments_TransForm.pdf

From: Zack Deutsch-Gross
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 2:37 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo Adopted Housing Element Comment Letter

Dear San Mateo Planning Department and San Mateo City Council, Please find attached TransForm's comment letter on the Adopted Housing Element for San Mateo. While we appreciate the revised program to evaluate off-street parking requirements, Program 1.7 does not specify any specific policies to study and the timeline does not begin for 2 years. We believe San Mateo could take on far more ambitious parking reforms, and urge the city to do so. I hope you will consider our suggestions as you move forward in the planning and implementation of your Housing Element.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Zack Deutsch-Gross

--
Zack Deutsch-Gross (he/him)
Policy Director, TransForm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandra Belluomini
City of San Mateo
p-650-522-7239
f- 650-522-7221

From: Higley, CJ (25) x4942
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2023 4:23 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc:

Subject: Letter to HCD about San Mateo Housing Element (Housing Action Coalition), 1 of 2

2 Mr. McDougall and Mr. Finney –

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

CJ Higley
Partner
He/Him

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

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

THOMAS B. MAYHEW
CHARLES J. HIGLEY

February 24, 2023
Via E-Mail
State of California
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento CA 95833

Re: City of San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element

Dear Mr. McDougall and Ms. Prasad:

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

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

We refer you to the enclosed letters for our more detailed analyses, but below is a summary of the arguments in our enclosed letters.

1 The Housing Action Coalition is a nonprofit that advocates for building more homes at all levels of affordability to alleviate the Bay Area and California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis.

Department of Housing and Community Development
February 24, 2023

Page 2 ends

San Mateo City CouncilMay 20, 2024

San Mateo City Council
May 20, 2024