City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting
POST PACKET
PUBLIC COMMENT
As of March 17, 2025, at 4:00 PM
1 Somer Smith
From: Somer Smith
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:01 AM
To: Thomas Morgan II
Subject: RE: Questions Land Use Map Amendments
Hi Thomas,
I was forwarded your email below about the General Plan Land Use Map Amendments. Please give me a call when you have a chance. I’d like to walk through your comments to make sure I am understanding everything correctly.
Thanks,
Somer
S
omer Smith, AICP (She/Her)
Senior Planner
650-522-7214
From: Thomas Morgan II
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 12:09 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Questions Land Use Map Amendments
Good Morning
I live at Arbor Rose, so sites 9 and 10 (per the table, appear to be 7 and 8 on the map) are of interest. I would prefer an FAR be added to the Arbor Rose site. There seems to be more height allowed but units per acre seem to decrease (seems like lower FAR?). While the townhomes are likely to remain unchanged I am curious what might happen to the single family homes along S Idaho? In addition, I think the City should revisit developments with mixed housing types ad
In general to all the sites is the City legally allowed to lower FAR and # of units per acre?
Decreasing either feels like a takings and would cause the landowners to want to bring legal action against the City.
While I am unhappy with what is going on at 1055 S Amphlett I do not see how FAR can go from 1.5 to 1.0.
When the owner of 1055 Amphlett brought a proposal, the planning commissioners recommended adjusting the utility easement so a building could be placed closer to Amphlett versus the Townhomes. I think this is the appropriate time to incorporate that change and hope this is part of the proposal.
2 Second, while more housing is needed I would want to ensure minimum housing requirements in mixed use projects are resolved before we increase densities and land uses in San Mateo. If the increase occurs before the housing requirements I would view the minimum housing requirement as a takings.
Imagine how that would look in the Daily Journal of a project being approved with 100% office because densities were approved before housing requirements and the City was unable to enforce the wishes of the community.
Thank you,
Thomas Morgan