Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, February 23, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Regular Meeting
February 23, 2026
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine
Nicole Fernandez
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Robert Newsom Jr.

AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.

PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTELY .

SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

To join via Zoom – click here:

F
ebruary 23, 2026
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 821 3604 1477 Passcode: 662398
The City Council meeting will conclude by 11:00 p.m. unless otherwise extended by council vote.

Any unheard items will automatically move forward to the next regular meeting.

CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Considerations for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances

CEREMONIAL

1. San Mateo Black Stars 8U-1 Champions — Recognition

2. College of San Mateo Bulldogs — Recognition

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion. If discussion is desired, that item may be removed and considered separately.

3. City Council Meeting Minutes — Approval
Approve the minutes of the special and regular meetings of the City Council held on January 26, 2026, and February 2, 2026. Approve the minutes of the special meeting of the City Council held on February 7, 2026.

CEQA: This minutes approval is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

4. Senior Center and Beresford Recreation Center Roof Improvements — Agreements Award agreements to Bartos Architecture, Inc. and Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for design professional services for the Senior Center and Beresford Recreation Center Roof Improvements Projects in amounts not to

1 of 719

exceed $120,820 and $141,776, respectively, with contingency reserves of $12,000 and $14,000, respectively; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreements in substantially the form presented and issue amendments within the respective contingency amounts.

CEQA: These projects are categorically exempt from CEQA as an “existing facility,” because they consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)

5. Commercial Property Management – Agreement
Approve an agreement with Prodesse Property Group, in an amount not to exceed $125,000 for a term from March 1, 2026 through February 28, 2029, with an optional two-year extension, to manage City-owned properties and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

CEQA: This agreement is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b) (5).)

6. City of San Mateo and All Union/Association MOUs — Amendment Adopt a Resolution to amend the San Mateo City Employees’ Association (SMCEA), San Mateo Police Officers Association (SMPOA), San Mateo Police Sergeants Association (SMPSA), San Mateo Safety Management Association (SMSMA), San Mateo Management Employees’ Association (SMMEA), SEIU Library Merit Unit (SEIU LIB), SEIU Library Per Diem Unit (SEIU LIB PD), SEIU Maintenance Unit (SEIU M) and SEIU Non-Merit Per Diem Unit (SEIU NMPT) MOUs pertaining to the total compensation survey sections and approve side letters of agreement with SMCEA, SMPOA, SMPSA, SMSMA, SMMEA, SEIU LIB, SEIU LIB PD, SEIU M and SEIU NMPT for total compensation survey methodology and authorize the City and its unions/associations to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

CEQA: This side letter of agreements is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to comment on any item not appearing on the agenda may address the City Council at this time. State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred to staff for follow up.

Public comment is limited to a total of 15 minutes; however, an opportunity for additional public comment may be provided later in the agenda.

OLD BUSINESS

7. Grand Boulevard Initiative and Central El Camino Real Plan — Appropriation Adopt a Resolution to appropriate $70,000 of the City’s Measure A funds to support additional San Mateo- specific studies and community engagement; and receive an informational presentation on the Central El Camino Multimodal Plan being developed in partnership with SamTrans and the Cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City.

CEQA: This Council action is exempt from CEQA, as it involves feasibility or planning studies for future City actions which has not been approved, adopted, or funded. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.)

8. Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Project — Direction

2 of 719

Receive a presentation on the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Project, receive public comments, and provide staff with direction on how to proceed with updating the City’s Zoning Code.

CEQA: This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15060(c) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, because the activity, which consists of discussion of updates to the City’s Zoning Code but no actions or amendments, will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and Section 15060(c)(3), because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, since it has no potential for resulting in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment.

PUBLIC HEARING
City Council action on the following public hearing(s) represents a final decision concluding all administrative proceedings. Judicial review may be had only if a petition is filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date the decision is made.

Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a time period for litigation as short as 30 days following the date the decision is made.

9. General Plan - San Mateo's 2023-2031 Housing Element — Amendments Adopt a Resolution to approve amendments to the General Plan’s Housing Element for the Sixth Housing Cycle (2023-2031) that is compliant with State law, provides a plan for at least 7,015 new housing units, affirmatively furthers fair housing, and is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, based on the listed findings.

CEQA: The adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments are considered exempt under the “common sense” exemption under state CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the project involves policies, programs, and actions to meet the City’s RHNA and AFFH goals that would not have any potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and identifies programs and actions to remove constraints and promote affordable housing development. The proposed amendments involve an update to the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory, associated text amendments to align with these Sites Inventory updates and minor updates to various policies, programs, and actions to support meeting the City’s RHNA and AFFH goals.

CLOSED SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment before the Council’s consideration of these items. Following the meeting a report of action from Closed Session will be provided if required.

10. Conference with Labor Negotiators — Compensation
Agency designated representatives: Council Members Diaz Nash and Cwirko-Godycki Unrepresented employee: City Manager

11. Conference with Labor Negotiators — Compensation
Agency designated representatives: Council Members Diaz Nash and Cwirko-Godycki Unrepresented employee: City Attorney

NEW BUSINESS

12. City Attorney Employment Agreement — Amendment
Adopt a Resolution to amend the compensation for the City Attorney and authorize the Mayor to execute an amendment to his employment agreement.

CEQA: This employment agreement amendment and compensation is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the

3 of 719

environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

13. City Manager Employment Agreement — Amendment
Adopt a Resolution to amend the compensation for the City Manager and authorize the Mayor to execute an amendment to his employment agreement.

CEQA: This employment agreement amendment and compensation adjustment is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND COMMITTEE UPDATES
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members report on their various assignments and liaison roles and Council requests for scheduling future items.

ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:

Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.

WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:

City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.

For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:

There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream

PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.

During the meeting
By Zoom:

Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.

By telephone:

Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.

In Person:

At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form. Organized Group and Presentations: Up to five (5) minutes for a group presentation, with as many speakers as can be accommodated within that time allowance. To qualify for a group presentation, all individuals associated with the presentation must be clearly identified and confirmed as in attendance at the meeting. Presentation materials must be submitted to [email protected] one (1) business day in advance of the meeting.

ACCESSIBILITY:

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and to ensure meaningful access for all participants, including those with limited English proficiency, individuals requiring special accommodations or language assistance to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected] . Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

4 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 3 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-1511 File ID: 26-10934 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2026
SUBJECT:

City Council Meeting Minutes — Approval
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the minutes of the special and regular meetings of the City Council held on January 26, 2026, and February 2, 2026. Approve the minutes of the special meeting of the City Council held on February 7, 2026.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no budgetary impact associated with this administrative action.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This minutes approval is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Minutes 2026-1-26 Special
Att 2 – Minutes 2026-1-26 Regular
Att 3 – Minutes 2026-2-2 Special
Att 4 – Minutes 2026-2-2 Regular
Att 5 – Minutes 2026-2-7 Special

STAFF CONTACT
Martin McTaggart, City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7042

5 of 719

City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 1/26/2026 Page 1 1 2
8 8
8 COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine, Mayor
Nicole Fernandez, Deputy Mayor
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Rob Newsom Jr.

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

January 26, 2026
6:00 PM
Special Meeting
CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 p.m.

Roll Call

Present: Mayor Loraine, Deputy Mayor Fernandez, Council Members: Cwirko-Godycki and Diaz Nash, Newsom AB 2449 Requests and Considerations for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances – there were no requests.

STUDY SESSION

1.Storm Drain Master Plan — Informational Update
Jimmy Vo, Senior Engineer and Dan Schaaf from Schaaf and Wheeler gave the presentation.

Public Comment: there were no speakers.

The Council expressed support for the proposed project priorities, use of stormwater fee revenues to support bonding for high-priority projects, and setting aside $250,000 annually to address minor ponding. The Council also supported continued coordination with private development and related community outreach efforts, including the launch of a public stormwater mapping tool. Staff was directed to return with bonding options and updated funding projections at a future meeting.

ADJOURNMENT –The meeting adjourned at 6:46 p.m.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Adam Loraine, Mayor Martin McTaggart, City Clerk

6 of 719

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/26/2026 Page 1 1 3
0 0
8 COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine, Mayor
Nicole Fernandez, Deputy Mayor
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Rob Newsom Jr.

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

January 26, 2026
7:00 PM
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER at 7:18 p.m.

Roll Call

CEREMONIAL

1. Age-Friendly Business Certification — Recognition - Jennifer Chen gave a presentation prior to the City Council recognizing the twenty-three businesses and organizations for earning the City’s Age-Friendly Business Certification.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items, 2 through 15, were considered to be routine by the City Council. After the titles of the items were read by the City Clerk, the public was invited to comment and there were no speakers.

Moved: Fernandez, Seconded: Newsom
Ayes: Newsom, Loraine, Fernandez, Cwirko-Godycki, and Diaz Nash Noes: None

2. City Council Meeting Minutes - Approval
Approve the minutes of the special meeting of the City Council held on December 15, 2025.

3. Ceremonial Street Naming Application Honoring Former Mayor Jerry Hill — Approval Approve the application from Deputy Mayor Fernandez and Council Member Diaz Nash for the ceremonial street naming of O’Farrell Street to honor former Mayor Jerry Hill, consistent with the City’s Ceremonial Street Naming Policy adopted by Resolution No. 109 (2025).

4. 2033 La Salle Drive - Zoning Reclassification, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planning Application for an Early Childhood Education Center — Ordinance Adoption
Adopt an Ordinance to approve a Zoning Reclassification from R1-B to R1-B/Q8, and a Zoning Code Amendment to provide development standards for an educational facility and find it exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).

Enactment: Ordinance 2026-01

5. Enterprise Resource Planning System Subscription Increase — Approval Approve a subscription growth and expansion increase to the City’s agreement with Workday for an enterprise resource planning system for years five (5) through ten (10) of the existing agreement in the amount of $242,000, for a new total amount of $4,513,883; establish a contingency reserve of $30,000; and authorize the Finance

7 of 719

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/26/2026 Page 2 1 3
0 0
8 Director to execute the subscription growth acknowledgement in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amount.

6. Revisions and Retitle of Crime and Intelligence Analyst Position — Approval Adopt a Resolution to revise the Crime and Intelligence Analyst job specification and retitle as the Real Time Information Center (RTIC) Coordinator position, located in the Police Department.

Enactment: Resolution No. 9 (2026)

7. County of San Mateo Compost Broker Program — Memorandum of Understanding Approve a Memorandum of Understanding with San Mateo County to participate in the Senate Bill 1383 Compost Broker Program; authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding in substantially the form presented; authorize the City Manager to execute future renewals of the MOU to allow continued participation in the Compost Broker Program, subject to City Council approval of associated costs; and authorize payment to San Mateo County in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for calendar year 2026 program costs.

8. Underground Flow Equalization System Odor Control System Temporary Rental — Change Order Approve an increase to the rental agreement with PureAir Filtration for the Underground Flow Equalization System (UFES) temporary odor control system rental in the amount of $22,000, for a total amount not to exceed $120,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the change order in substantially the form presented.

9. Transportation Staffing Restructuring – Adoption
Adopt a Resolution to add an additional Engineering Manager position and reallocate an Engineering Technician II position to an Assistant/Associate Transportation Planner position.

Enactment: Resolution No. 10 (2026)

10. Wastewater Treatment Plant On-Call Consulting Services — Amendment Approve Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Consultant Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers, Inc. for Wastewater Treatment Plant on-call consulting services in the amount of $250,000, for a new not-to-exceed amount of $1,675,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

11. Wastewater Treatment Plant Immediate Action Projects Package III — Agreement Award a professional services agreement to HDR Engineering, Inc. to provide Engineering Services During Construction (Phase 3) for Immediate Action Projects Package-III in an amount not to exceed $332,916; establish a contingency reserve of $50,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in the substantially the form presented and approve any necessary change orders within the approved contingency amount.
12 On-Call Consultant Services for Transportation Analysis Report Preparation — Amendment Approve Amendment No. 2 to the agreements with Kittelson and Associates, Inc., AECOM Technical Services, Inc., Steer Davies and Gleave, and Fehr and Peers to extend each agreement term through June 30, 2028, including up to one optional one-year extension, and to update the payment rates; increase Kittelson and Associates agreement by $200,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $600,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendments in substantially the form presented and execute any future term extensions or amendments that do not change the not-to-exceed amount of the agreements. 13 Citywide Tree Planting Services — Bid Rejection
Adopt a Resolution to reject all bids received for the Citywide Tree Planting Services Project.

Enactment: Resolution No. 11 (2026)

8 of 719

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/26/2026 Page 3 1 3
0 0
8 14 Lakeshore Park Batting Cage, Ball Fields, and Concession Building – Lease Agreement Approve a five-year lease agreement with San Mateo National Little League for the batting cage, ball fields, and concessions building at Lakeshore Park, for the period of February 1, 2026, through December 31, 2031, and authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to sign the agreement on behalf of the City in substantially the form presented.

15. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025 — Approval Accept the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Mei Li expressed concerns regarding radio frequency activity, tree damage, and possible environmental impacts in neighborhoods, and requested public awareness and follow-up. Kevin Simpson urged Council to prioritize street safety following the recent death of Veronica Vasquez and called for stronger action to prevent further traffic fatalities. Rich Hedges spoke about the fatal collision at 17th Avenue and El Camino Real, advocated for safety improvements at the intersection, and called for action from Caltrans. Mike Swire commented on pedestrian safety at El Camino Real, urged the City to prioritize protected infrastructure, and expressed opposition to removing bike lane safety improvements.

Trina Pierce spoke in opposition to the Humboldt Street bike lanes, stated they negatively impact North Central residents and seniors, and questioned the use of related funding. Allison MacQueen shared personal experiences of near-collisions while biking, emphasized the importance of pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and urged the Council to maintain safe bike infrastructure.

OLD BUSINESS

16.Historic Policy Effort – Update on Draft Historic Policies and Council Direction Zachary Dahl, Community Development Director and JulieAnn Murphy from Rincon Consultants presented an update on the City’s historic preservation policy effort, including outreach activities, the draft citywide historic context statement, and the draft historic preservation ordinance.

Public Comment: Doug D’Anna (organized presentation) spoke in support of restoring and clarifying Glazenwood’s status as a historic district. Frank Elliott (A Fair Process) (organized presentation) presented a consent-based framework for historic district designation, urged Council to ensure strong property-owner approval standards, and provided a summary handout. Geriko Stokes stated he is a homeowner who has experienced negative impacts under the historic preservation ordinance and referenced a letter outlining his concerns. Shawn Fahrenbruch encouraged the Council to require a plurality of affirmative survey responses to move forward and to count non-responses as opposition. Richard Delaney stated there is not universal agreement within the community and requested additional outreach. Courtney Krause said she purchased property in Glazenwood relying on City materials identifying it as a historic district and requested the City confirm that status. Deborah Athens stated that Glazenwood residents are not seeking new policy but are requesting restoration and clarification of what she described as the district’s established legal status. Thomas Braham requested that the City clarify and formally recognize Glazenwood as a historic district. Gregory Zintel asked the Council to confirm Glazenwood’s historic district status. Chris Eckert requested that the Council reaffirm Glazenwood’s status as a historic district. Joe Volponi raised concerns regarding potential insurance implications associated with historic district designation. Brian Sampson spoke in support of reaffirming Glazenwood’s historic district status. Carol Gillman shared positive experiences with Glazenwood’s historic district designation. Mike Etheridge stated that a majority of Baywood residents do not support formation of a historic district in their neighborhood. Gene Alston expressed concerns regarding lack of clarity in the consent process for district designation. Brendan Lawry requested that the City slow the process and allow additional time for review and outreach. Shelly Decorte expressed concerns regarding the outreach and engagement process. David Light requested that the Central neighborhood be included in the historic context study. Laurie Watanuki recommended enhancements to the historic resources inventory and designation criteria. Christina Brobst stated that limiting nominations to property owners overlooks broader community heritage interests and suggested the City retain the ability to initiate nominations. Eleanore Dogan expressed concerns that expanded

9 of 719

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/26/2026 Page 4 1 3
0 0
8 historic efforts could conflict with housing goals and questioned continued consultant expenditures. Andrew Ryan commented on incomplete outreach, the need for clear local consent requirements, and suggested inclusion of anti-bypass provisions for state designation. Zev Simon stated that as a builder he would avoid projects located within historic districts due to regulatory constraints. Jordan Grimes expressed concern that historic designation could be used in ways that restrict housing development. Ken Abreu raised concerns that one neighborhood within a district could impose restrictions on another area. Jeremy Levine expressed concerns regarding the consent metrics proposed for creating historic districts. Kolja Schluetter stated that consent should require at least 75% approval, with non-responses counted as opposition. Mike Swire expressed concerns regarding the amount of public funds being spent on consultants related to the ordinance update.

City Council asked questions of staff. The City Council provided direction to staff to conduct additional community outreach prior to the next public hearing, including meetings with the Glazenwood neighborhood, to gather further input on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Citywide Historic Context Statement. The Council supported modifying the ordinance to include a two-step application qualification process for historic district designation consisting of: (1) an applicant-initiated petition requiring signatures from at least 20% of property owners (one signature per property), followed by (2) a City-conducted survey requiring approval from 60% plus one of property owners to proceed. Council directed staff to add language to the Historic Context Statement acknowledging the potential for additional time and costs associated with historic designation. The Council expressed support for using the term “Landmarks” to describe designated historic properties. The Council supported establishing a dedicated Historic Advisory Committee rather than assigning those responsibilities to the Community Relations Commission or Planning Commission. Staff will incorporate community feedback from the study session and additional outreach prior to presenting final draft documents to the Planning Commission and City Council in March and April 2026.

A motion was made by Council Member Cwirko-Godycki to extend meeting beyond 11 p.m.

Moved: Cwirko-Godycki, Seconded: Fernandez
Ayes: Newsom, Loraine, Fernandez, Cwirko-Godycki, and Diaz Nash Noes: None
Motion passed 5-0.

PUBLIC HEARING

17.Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance - Zoning Code Amendments — Ordinance Introduction Elizabeth Gagliardi, Associate Planner provided a presentation on an ordinance introduction recommended for San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.19, “Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit – Residential Zones”. Public Comment: there were no speakers.

The City Council asked questions from staff. Council voted to introduce an ordinance to amend the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance (Zoning Code Chapter 27.19) to align with current state law, address local needs and improve the functionality of the ordinance. The Council action included Planning Commission recommendations to clarify the Accessory Dwelling Unit Discretionary Review (ADUDR) process and to require small second-story decks or balconies with an ADU to not face toward any adjacent residential properties. The ordinance will return to the Council for adoption at a future meeting and will go into effect 30 days after the date of adoption.

Moved: Cwirko-Godycki, Seconded: Fernandez
Ayes: Newsom, Loraine, Fernandez, Cwirko-Godycki, and Diaz Nash Noes: None
Motion passed 5-0.

10 of 719

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/26/2026 Page 5 1 3
0 0
8 REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND COMMITTEE UPDATES
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members reported on their various assignments and liaison roles and noted past and future events, along with updates. Council Member Newsom requested Council approval for the City to correspond with Caltrans and regional elected representatives to help address traffic safety concerns on El Camino Real, the Council approved.

ADJOURNMENT –The meeting adjourned at 11:51 p.m. in memory of the pedestrian who was struck on the intersection of El Camino Real and 17th Avenue, Diana and Robert Caughlan, and Daniel Gilbrech.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Adam Loraine, Mayor Martin McTaggart, City Clerk

11 of 719

City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 2/2/2026 Page 1
1 2
8 8
8 COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine, Mayor
Nicole Fernandez, Deputy Mayor
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Rob Newsom Jr.

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

February 2, 2026
6:00 PM
Special Meeting
CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 p.m.

Roll Call

City Council received a request from staff to reorder the agenda to receive Closed Session Items prior to the study session. The request was approved by Council consensus. The public was provided with an opportunity to speak on agenda items 2 and 3, there were no requests to speak.

Council entered Closed Session at 6:02 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION

2.Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City designated representatives: Aracelia Esparza, Abby Veeser, Stacey Cue, IEDA, and Employee Organizations:

San Mateo Safety Management Employees’ Association, SEIU- Library Merit, and SEIU Library Per Diem

3.Conference with Labor Negotiators - (Government Code Section 54957.6) City designated representatives: Aracelia Esparza and Stacey Cue, IEDA Employee Organizations: San Mateo City Employees’ Association , San Mateo Management Employees’ Association, San Mateo Police Officers’ Association, San Mateo Police Sergeants’ Association, San Mateo Safety Management Association, SIEU- Library Merit, SIEU- Library Per Diem, SIEU- Maintenance, and SIEU- Non-Meritt and Part-Time
Council reconvened to open session at 6:16 p.m.

STUDY SESSION

1.Draft 2026 City of San Mateo Legislative Platform – Direction Zachary Reda, Senior Management Analyst and Dane Hutchings from California Public Policy Group presented the City’s draft 2026 Legislative Platform.

Public Comment: Robert Whitehair requested that utilities and infrastructure section of the draft platform should further emphasize climate initiatives. Kevin Simpson spoke to the need to prioritize transportation safety within the platform.

The City Council discussed the proposed platform and provided feedback and revisions for staff and the City’s legislative consultant, CPPG to incorporate prior to adoption. Council provided direction regarding state policies

12 of 719

City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 2/2/2026 Page 2
1 2
8 8
8 impacting departmental operations; major City issues, projects, and initiatives; key policy areas requiring closer monitoring; critical funding priorities; and strategies for strengthening the City’s advocacy efforts.

The Council directed staff to make structural changes to the document and update language to better define and emphasize priority categories, including adding language reflecting the City’s positions on funding procurement, housing, transportation, small cell infrastructure, and immigration, and provided direction regarding the adoption process.

Staff and CPPG will return the Legislative Platform to the City Council under the consent calendar at a future meeting, including both a redlined version for reference and a revised version for adoption.

ADJOURNMENT –The meeting adjourned at 6:51 p.m.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Adam Loraine, Mayor Martin McTaggart, City Clerk

13 of 719

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 2/2/2026 Page 1
1 3
0 0
8 COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine, Mayor
Nicole Fernandez, Deputy Mayor
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Rob Newsom Jr.

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

February 2, 2026
7:00 PM
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER at 7:09 p.m.

Roll Call

CEREMONIAL

1. Black History Month & NAACP San Mateo Branch Centennial Commemoration — Proclamations – Maurice Goodman, NAACP San Mateo Branch Chapter President received the proclamation honoring Black History Month and a separate proclamation commemorating NAACP San Mateo Branch’s Centennial celebration.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items, 2 through 6, were considered to be routine by the City Council. After the titles of the items were read by the City Clerk, the public was invited to comment and there were no speakers.

Moved: Cwirko-Godycki, Seconded: Newsom
Ayes: Newsom, Loraine, Fernandez, Cwirko-Godycki, and Diaz Nash Noes: None

2. City Council Meeting Minutes - Approval
Approve the minutes of the special and regular meeting of the City Council held on January 12, 2026.

3. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance - Zoning Code Amendments — Ordinance Adoption Adopt an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.19, “Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit – Residential Zones” to address comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to align with current state law, and to address Housing Element programs, and find it exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Enactment: Ordinance No. 2026-02

4. Salary Schedule Revision for the Senior Transportation Planner — Approval Adopt a Resolution to approve the revision to the Salary Schedule for the Senior Transportation Planner classification.

Enactment: Resolution No. 12 (2026)

14 of 719

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 2/2/2026 Page 2
1 3
0 0
8 5. Senior Transportation “Get Around” Program — Amendment Approve an amendment to the agreement with Serra Yellow Cab of Daly City, Inc. for the Senior Transportation “Get Around” program to authorize an additional $200,000 for FY 2025–26, for a total amount not to exceed $950,000, and authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

6. Audio Solutions Special Events Support — Agreement
Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternate purchasing procedure; approve an agreement in an amount not to exceed $64,750.00 with Thor Audio Solutions for sound, stage, dance floor and support services at city-wide special events from July 22, 2024-December 31, 2025, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement substantially in the form presented.

Enactment: Resolution No. 13 (2026)

PUBLIC COMMENT
Kevin Simpson spoke regarding pedestrian safety at 17th Avenue and Bovet/El Camino Real following the fatality of Veronica Vasquez. Stated Caltrans indicated signal timing responsibility lies with the City. Urged immediate safety improvements. Mei Li raised concerns regarding alleged radio frequency exposure and technological manipulation affecting residents. Chris Eckert requested Council agendize a formal discussion to grandfather the Glazenwood Historic District prior to final adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Alicia Woodfall-Jones spoke regarding small cell wireless appeals. Questioned inconsistency between recent upheld appeals and previously approved permits. Requested independent investigation and consultation with outside experts. Pam Rittlemeyer addressed the fatal collision at Bovet/El Camino Real. Asserted intersection has long been dangerous. Urged immediate action and clarity regarding City vs. Caltrans jurisdiction. Taso Zografos criticized City governance and called for removal of Planning Commissioner Seema Patel, alleging poor judgment and politicization of a fatal accident. Doug D’anna provided feedback on the outreach conducted through the City’s Historic Ordinance process and requested Council agendize an item to restore Glazenwood’s historic district status. Joanne, Tom Braham, Deborah Athens, Kelli Combs, and Brian Sampson also spoke in support of Council recognizing Glazenwood’s historic district status.

NEW BUSINESS

7.Humboldt Bike Lanes Alternative — Update
Receive a presentation from Jay Yu, Engineering Manager on efforts to explore potential alternatives to a portion of the Humboldt Street bike lanes and requested direction/recommendation from City Council.

Public Comment: Mary Beavins (Sunnybrae Neighbors Supporting North Central provided an organized presentation urging Council restore parking on North Humboldt Street. Mike Swire and Max Mautner (Move San Mateo) provided an organized presentation advocating for retaining the existing bike lanes. Michael Ragan, Lisa Tanner, and Thomas Lease (Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association) spoke in support of restoring parking on Humboldt Street. Taso Zografos (Humboldt/NC Residents) provided an organized presentation requesting the restoration of parking on Humboldt.

The following speakers spoke in favor of removing the bike lanes on Humboldt and restoring parking: Tim Donnelly, Trina Pierce, Claire Mack, Marty Jones, Connie Weiss, and Rick Sakuda The following speakers spoke in retaining Humboldt Bike Lanes: Colin Madere, Remy Madere, Mayuri Patel, Seema Patel, Giulianu Carlini, Jayden Wan, Michael Crocker, Dylan Tweney, Vigan Joshi, Mariana d’Abreu, Jacob Chamom, Jay Patel, Ana Salotti, Pam Rittlemeyer, Rishika Mukherjee, Natalie Dias, Maggie Bibbin, Krysta Waldrop, Snenil Tiwari, Jason Gates, Warren Long, Kailun Wu, Allison MacQueen, Yili Young, Hannah Young, Anna Leib, Sofia Diaz, Joanne Bennet, Jedina Supkota, Jordan Grimes, Andrew Rebeck, Tiffany, Sean, Mari, Amy Thompson, Carvin Desaka, Nicholas Ha, Sean Shochet, Rick Ballard, Maria, Maria Allegia, Tyler, Michelle Hudson, Annie Tsai, Maggie Trinh, and Julia

15 of 719

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 2/2/2026 Page 3
1 3
0 0
8 Kevin Simpson spoke on need for more fiscal responsibility and broader transportation safety issues.

A motion was made by Deputy Mayor Fernandez to extend meeting to 11:15 p.m.

Moved: Fernandez, Seconded: Cwirko-Godycki
Ayes: Newsom, Loraine, Fernandez, Cwirko-Godycki, and Diaz Nash Noes: None
Motion passed 5-0.

A motion was made by Council Member Cwirko-Godycki to extend meeting to 11:45 p.m.

Moved: Cwirko-Godycki Seconded: Fernandez
Ayes: Newsom, Loraine, Fernandez, Cwirko-Godycki, and Diaz Nash Noes: None
Motion passed 5-0.

City Council asked questions of staff. The City Council provided direction to staff to retain the existing Class II bicycle lanes on Humboldt Street; evaluate options to increase speeding enforcement in the North Central neighborhood; evaluate enhanced parking enforcement, with particular focus on abandoned vehicles; advance exploration of a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) in North Central, emphasizing parking access for residents on Humboldt Street; explore a temporary rideshare pilot program for Humboldt Street residents pending potential implementation of an RPPP; include streetlighting upgrades on Humboldt Street, Idaho Street, and Fremont Street; implement traffic calming measures on Humboldt Street; and conduct a high-level feasibility analysis, including community outreach, regarding a potential one-way street configuration for Humboldt Street. Additionally, Council directed staff to incorporate findings from the bike boulevard concept designs into future bicycle planning and infrastructure projects and indicated it will consider appropriation of funding to implement these actions at a future meeting.

REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND COMMITTEE UPDATES
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members reported on their various assignments and liaison roles and noted past and future events, along with updates. Council Member Cwirko-Godycki requested Council agendize a discussion item for Council to consider adopting resolution to recognize Glazenwood as an historic district prior to the new historic ordinance is adopted. This request received Council approval.

ADJOURNMENT –The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Adam Loraine, Mayor Martin McTaggart, City Clerk

16 of 719

City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 2/7/2026 Page 1
6 1
6 5

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine, Mayor
Nicole Fernandez, Deputy Mayor
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Rob Newsom Jr.

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

February 7, 2026
College of San Mateo – College Heights
Conference Room 9:00 AM
Special Meeting

CALL TO ORDER at 9:00 a.m.

Roll Call

Present: Mayor Loraine, Deputy Mayor Fernandez, Council Members: Cwirko-Godycki and Diaz Nash, Newsom The mayor opened the workshop and outlined the purpose of the workshop and called for public comment.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Michael Ragan raised concerns regarding traffic safety, speeding, the 31st Avenue project, and impacts from the Hillsdale development. He urged prioritization of a speed survey, funding for traffic mitigation, and upgrades to the 42nd Avenue pump station, and thanked staff for communication. Teri Whitehair and Jayden Wan presented on the Elders Action Network and Future Design initiative, promoting multigenerational programs and long-term, future-focused community planning through role-playing and strategic visioning. Allison MacQueen advocated for expanded traffic calming, increased enforcement, “no right on red” restrictions near schools and downtown, and quarterly crash data review. Mike Swire supported advancing the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan, improving parking management strategies, and increasing transparency regarding project prioritization. David Light thanked staff for pedestrian improvements, including leading pedestrian signals, flashing beacons, and speed monitoring efforts. Laurie Watanuki supported the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and use of speed bumps as an effective traffic calming tool. Jordan Grimes emphasized housing affordability and urged accelerating housing production, advancing projects, and prioritizing pedestrian safety and traffic calming. Moises Guilleda encouraged inclusion of enhanced prequalification standards for publicly funded projects to support quality contractors and workforce development.

STUDY SESSION

1. City Council “Blue Sky” Goal Setting Workshop
The City Council conducted a strategic priorities workshop. City Manager Alex Khojikian outlined the process and noted this was the first workshop held under the City’s newly adopted Strategic Plan. With facilitation by Shawn Spano, Council reviewed the 2026 Strategic Plan, evaluated the existing 2025–26 Council Priority List, and provided recommendations to remove items or convert them to the Strategic Plan’s SMART activities framework. Council then reviewed proposed 2026–27 departmental initiatives and discussed new priorities for 2026–27.

Council provided direction to staff on draft revisions and a proposed priority list. Staff will review each revision and evaluate resource investments. Staff will return with updates at a March 16 Study Session for public comment and further Council direction, with formal adoption anticipated at a future meeting in April or May 2026.

Council recessed from 11:13 am to 11:25 am; then broke for lunch at 12:15 pm and reconvened at 12:30 pm.

ADJOURNMENT –The meeting adjourned at 1:36 p.m.

17 of 719

City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 2/7/2026 Page 2
6 1
6 5
APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Adam Loraine, Mayor Martin McTaggart, City Clerk

18 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 0
4 0

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 4 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 82-4681 File ID: 26-10849 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2026
SUBJECT:

Senior Center and Beresford Recreation Center Roof Improvements — Agreements RECOMMENDATION:

Award agreements to Bartos Architecture, Inc. and Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for design professional services for the Senior Center and Beresford Recreation Center Roof Improvements Projects in amounts not to exceed $120,820 and $141,776, respectively, with contingency reserves of $12,000 and $14,000, respectively; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreements in substantially the form presented and issue amendments within the respective contingency amounts.

BACKGROUND:

The Senior Center has served the community for over thirty years and the Beresford Recreation Center has served the community for over sixty years. Both facilities have roof systems that include flat gravel roofing and sloped wood shake shingles. Over decades of exposure to moisture, both the gravel and wood shake shingles at each facility have deteriorated, resulting in persistent leaks and ongoing maintenance challenges. Currently, multiple roof penetrations and areas of trapped moisture exist throughout the two facilities.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023–24, the City retained McGinnis Chen Associates, Inc. to conduct a Citywide roof assessment. The final report identified the Senior Center and Beresford Recreation Center, among other facilities, as posing risks due to compromised roof structures and recommended immediate corrective action. In response, the City established a Capital Improvement Program project for roof replacements in 2024 for the following facilities identified in the report: Central Recreation Center (FY 2024–25), Beresford Recreation Center (FY 2025–26), Senior Center (FY 2025–26), and City Hall (FY 2026–27).

In November 2025, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for remedial architectural services, including investigation, testing, design, construction documentation, bidding support, and construction administration. Six proposals were submitted in December 2025 and City staff evaluated them based on criteria including understanding of the project scope, experience with similar public-sector projects, and availability of qualified staffing. In January 2026, the City interviewed three firms and ultimately selected two: Bartos Architecture, Inc. for the Senior Center, and Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for the Beresford Recreation Center.

Following the design efforts by both firms, staff anticipates securing building permits and awarding construction in early Summer 2026. Construction is anticipated to last approximately three months and must occur during dry weather.

Therefore, it is critical that design documents are completed and permits obtained in advance of the construction window.

Based on the above, staff recommends awarding agreements to both firms.

19 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 0
4 0
BUDGET IMPACT:

There is sufficient funding in the Citywide Facilities Roof Replacements (46F056) project budget to fund these agreements and the proposed contingency reserve.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

These projects are categorically exempt from CEQA as an “existing facility,” because they consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Bartos Architecture, Inc. Agreement
Att 2 – Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Agreement

STAFF CONTACT
Steve Wu, Facilities & Fleet Services Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7345

20 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 1 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 AGREEMENT WITH BARTOS ARCHITECTURE, INC.

FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FOR

SENIOR CENTER ROOF IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
This Agreement, made and entered into this day of ____________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California (“CITY”), and BARTOS ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Corporation (“CONSULTANT”), whose address is 300 8th Avenue, Suite 202, San Mateo, CA 94401.

RECITALS:

A. CITY desires certain design professional services hereinafter described.

B. CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide these design professional services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services and CONSULTANT has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:

SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement is as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2 - DUTIES OF CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of all work furnished by CONSULTANT under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its work.

CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANT agrees to comply with the City’s minimum wage ordinance as codified in Municipal Code Chapter 5.92, which differs from the state minimum wage and includes a Consumer Price Index escalator.

SECTION 3 - DUTIES OF CITY
CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project.

21 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 2 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 CITY shall examine documents submitted by CONSULTANT and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of CONSULTANT's work.

SECTION 4 - TERM
The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence upon execution of this agreement and be completed on December 31, 2026.

SECTION 5 - PAYMENT
Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee in an amount of $120,820.00, pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 6 - TERMINATION
Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY shall otherwise have by law, CITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend work on the Project for any reason, upon ten (10) days' written notice to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT agrees to cease all work under this Agreement upon receipt of said written notice.

Upon termination and upon CITY's payment of the amount required to be paid, documents become the property of CITY, and CONSULTANT shall transfer them to CITY upon request without additional compensation.

SECTION 7 - OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All documents prepared by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement, although instruments of professional service, are and shall be the property of CITY, whether the project for which they are made is executed or not.

SECTION 8 - CONFIDENTIALITY
All reports and documents prepared by CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public. CONSULTANT shall not make any such documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by CONSULTANT or CITY without the written consent of CITY before any such release.

SECTION 9 - INTEREST OF CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services under this Agreement.

22 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 3 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 SECTION 10 - CONSULTANT'S STATUS
It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the professional services required under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall at all times be considered an independent CONSULTANT as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make CONSULTANT an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement.

SECTION 11 - INDEMNITY
CONSULTANT agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of CONSULTANT’s negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct to the maximum extent permitted by state law. To the extent permitted by Civil Code section 2782.8, CONSULTANT agrees to defend City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims. The CONSULTANT’S duty to indemnify shall survive expiration or early termination of this Agreement.

SECTION 12 - INSURANCE
CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract and three years thereafter (five years for building or major improvements) the insurance specified in Exhibit C to this Agreement.

SECTION 13 - NONASSIGNABILITY
Both parties hereto recognize that this Agreement is for the personal services of CONSULTANT and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of CITY.

SECTION 14 - RELIANCE UPON PROFESSIONAL

SKILL OF CONSULTANT
It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that CONSULTANT is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the work agreed to be done under this Agreement and that CITY relies upon the skill of CONSULTANT to do and perform the work in the most skillful manner, and CONSULTANT agrees to thus perform the work. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's work by CITY does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from said obligation.

SECTION 15 - WAIVERS
The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any provisions of any ordinance or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any

23 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 4 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 applicable law or ordinance.

SECTION 16 – SEVERABILITY
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

SECTION 17 - COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this Agreement that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 18 - NON-DISCRIMINATION
CONSULTANT warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither CONSULTANT nor any of its sub-consultants shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

SECTION 19 - MEDIATION
Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the State Mediation and Conciliation Service, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a blind draw.

The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties.

24 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 5 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 SECTION 20 - LITIGATION
CONSULTANT shall testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with CONSULTANT's services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT, or is based upon CONSULTANT's wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

SECTION 21 - NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To CITY: Attn: Steve Wu, Facilities & Fleet
Services Manager
City of San Mateo
1961 Pacific Boulevard
San Mateo, CA 94403
To CONSULTANT: Bartos Architecture, Inc.

Attn: Mark Bartos
300 8th Avenue, Suite 202
San Mateo, CA 94401
SECTION 22 - AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL
UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT
This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.

SECTION 23 - AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT
CONSULTANT has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

SECTION 24 - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and, in the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

25 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 5 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 26 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 6 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN MATEO CONSULTANT
Matt Fabry
Public Works Director
Date Mark Bartos
Its Authorized Agent
President
If a Corporation, can be either 1)
President or 2) Vice President plus
an additional corporate officer
(i.e., Secretary, Treasurer) who
shall sign below.

Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Linh P. Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney
Date
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Payment Rates
Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements

27 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 6 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 28 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 7 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

1. Program and Pre-Design Phase
a. Project Kickoff Meeting
b. Background Document Review
c. Assist with Master Schedule Development
d. Meetings
e. Ongoing Consultation

2. Schematic Design Phase
a. Materials Research
b. Basis of Design (BOD)
c. Verify As-Builts
d. Meeting
e. Ongoing Consultation

3. Design Development
a. Update BOD
b. Drawings
c. Specifications
d. Structural Engineering
e. Meetings
f. Ongoing Consultation

4. Construction Documents
a. Drawings
b. Specifications
c. Meetings
d. Ongoing Consultation

5. Bid Phase
a. Bid Documents
b. Bid Walk
c. Bid Analysis/Contractor Selection Process
d. Meetings
e. Clarifications and Addendums

6. Construction Administration Phase
a. Pre-Construction Meetings
b. Material Submittal and Shop Drawing Reviews
c. Mock-ups Reviews
d. Construction Meetings
e. Site Visits
f. Requests for Information (RFIs), Alternates and Substitutions g. Review Change Order Requests
h. Ongoing Consultation
i. Final Punch List, Substantial Completion Certificates and Close-out letter

29 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 8 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT RATES

30 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 8 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 31 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 9 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1.Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 07 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2.Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if CONSULTANT has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3.Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

4.Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions): Insurance appropriate to the CONSULTANT’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate If the CONSULTANT maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the CONSULTANT.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as insureds on the auto policy for liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT; and on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the CONSULTANT’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, or agents shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City. If a Notice of Cancellation endorsement is not available, CONSULTANT shall ensure the requisite Notice of

32 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 10 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
8 4
7 Cancellation is specified in the Certificate of Insurance. In the event the Notice of Cancellation is not specified in the Certificate of Insurance, Consultant shall be responsible for providing the City the requisite notice as specified in this Exhibit C.

CONSULTANT agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the CONSULTANT to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Verification of Coverage
CONSULTANT shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the CONSULTANT’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

33 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 1 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 AGREEMENT WITH STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.

FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FOR

BERESFORD RECREATION CENTER ROOF IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
This Agreement, made and entered into this day of ____________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California (“CITY”), and STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., a Corporation (“CONSULTANT”), whose address is 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104.

RECITALS:

A. CITY desires certain design professional services hereinafter described.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:

SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement is as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.

CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CONSULTANT.

SECTION 3 - DUTIES OF CITY
CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project.

34 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 2 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 CITY shall examine documents submitted by CONSULTANT and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of CONSULTANT's work.

SECTION 4 - TERM
The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence upon execution of this agreement and be completed on December 31, 2026.

SECTION 5 - PAYMENT
Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee in an amount of $141,776.00, pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.

35 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 3 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 SECTION 10 - CONSULTANT'S STATUS
It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the professional services required under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall at all times be considered an independent CONSULTANT as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make CONSULTANT an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement.

SECTION 14 - RELIANCE UPON PROFESSIONAL

36 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 4 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 applicable law or ordinance.

37 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 5 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 SECTION 20 - LITIGATION
CONSULTANT shall testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with CONSULTANT's services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT, or is based upon CONSULTANT's wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

SECTION 21 - NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To CITY: Attn: Steve Wu, Facilities & Fleet
Services Manager
City of San Mateo
1961 Pacific Boulevard
San Mateo, CA 94403
To CONSULTANT: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

Attn: Velba Villanueva
300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200,
San Francisco, CA 94104
SECTION 22 - AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL
UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT
This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.

38 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 5 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 39 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 6 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN MATEO CONSULTANT
Matt Fabry
Public Works Director
Date David P. Markman
Its Authorized Agent
Principal
If a Corporation, can be either 1)
President or 2) Vice President plus
an additional corporate officer
(i.e., Secretary, Treasurer) who
shall sign below.

Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Linh Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney
Date
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Payment Rates
Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements

40 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 6 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 41 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 7 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

1. Program and Pre-Design Phase
a. Project Kickoff Meeting
b. Background Document Review
c. Assist with Master Schedule Development
d. Meetings
e. Ongoing Consultation

2. Schematic Design Phase
a. Materials Research
b. Basis of Design (BOD)
c. Verify As-Builts
d. Meeting
e. Ongoing Consultation

3. Design Development
a. Update BOD
b. Drawings
c. Specifications
d. Structural Engineering
e. Meetings
f. Ongoing Consultation

4. Construction Documents
a. Drawings
b. Specifications
c. Meetings
d. Ongoing Consultation

5. Bid Phase
a. Bid Documents
b. Bid Walk
c. Bid Analysis/Contractor Selection Process
d. Meetings
e. Clarifications and Addendums

42 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 8 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT RATES

43 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 8 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 44 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 9 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

45 of 719

Design Professional Services 2024 Page 10 of 10
Rev 1/24
1 2
7 9
9 Cancellation is specified in the Certificate of Insurance. In the event the Notice of Cancellation is not specified in the Certificate of Insurance, Consultant shall be responsible for providing the City the requisite notice as specified in this Exhibit C.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

46 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 2
1 1

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 5 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 14-1311 File ID: 26-10880 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2026
SUBJECT:

Commercial Property Management — Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve an agreement with Prodesse Property Group, in an amount not to exceed $125,000 for a term from March 1, 2026 through February 28, 2029, with an optional two-year extension, to manage City-owned properties and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

The City owns and manages eight commercial properties in the Downtown. Tenants at the Main Street Garage include Beard Papa’s, Cold Stone Creamery, Fletch’s Taqueria, and Anton’s Patisserie, with one additional space currently vacant.

Rise Woodfire Pizza is the primary tenant at the Transit Center and there is also one vacant space at that location. The Century Theatres is the long-term ground lessee on the block of B Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. The Downtown commercial property management contract excludes the ground lease with Century Theatres, as it is managed internally by staff.

In September 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for commercial property management services and received a high level of interest, along with several competitive proposals. Following a competitive review, staff selected Prodesse Property Group as the City’s commercial property manager based on its property management expertise, customer service record, competitive rates, and ability to provide sound solicited and unsolicited advice about the commercial rental market.

Headquartered in San Mateo, Prodesse Property Group has 30 years of experience in property management and specializes in providing comprehensive property management services. The firm manages extensive residential investment properties and more than 250,000 square feet of retail, light industrial, medical-dental, and office space throughout the Bay Area. Michael Pierce, President, and Gilbert Sanchez, Commercial Portfolio Manager, are the principals of the company. Prodesse is currently on contract with the City and is familiar with the City’s property portfolio, including recurring conversations, and knows its current tenants and leasing documents. These factors combined with their experience, expertise, and pricing make Prodesse a sound choice from those who responded to the RFP. More information on pricing is described below.

The agreement includes an initial three-year term, with an option for one two-year extension. Prodesse submitted the most cost-effective proposal among the RFP responses and received the highest overall score for service. The management fee would continue at six percent (6%) of collected monthly gross income (base rent and CAM) from all managed properties and spaces, or a minimum of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) annually, whichever is greater, and would be deducted from collected rental revenues.. In addition to the management fee, the agreement includes leasing and renewal fees, a per-unit monthly data access fee to cover software and data costs, and a construction management fee for projects

47 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 2
1 1
exceeding $25,000 to account for additional staffing and oversight administered by Prodesse. Such repairs would incur an administrative cost born by the City should they occur; however, this has not occurred in staff’s experience and is not expected, as major property repairs to City property would typically be administered by the City.

BUDGET IMPACT:

Although the agreement authorizes a total amount not to exceed $125,000 over the term, no net budget impact is anticipated, as the costs paid to Prodesse are deducted from rental revenues collected for City-owned properties.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This agreement is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Agreement

STAFF CONTACT
Jennifer Chen, Economic Development Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7009

48 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES
FOR
Commercial Property Management
This Agreement, made and entered into this day of ____________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California (“CITY”), and Prodesse Property Group, a California Corporation, (“CONSULTANT”), whose address is 655 Mariners Island Boulevard, Suite 301, San Mateo, CA 94404.

RECITALS:

A. CITY desires certain Commercial Property Management services hereinafter described.

B. CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide these Commercial Property Management services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services and CONSULTANT has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:

SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement is as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.

CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CONSULTANT.

49 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 2 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 SECTION 3 - DUTIES OF CITY
CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project.

CITY shall examine documents submitted by CONSULTANT and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of CONSULTANT's work.

SECTION 4 - TERM
The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence on March 1, 2026 and be completed on February 28, 2029. The CITY reserves the option to extend CONSULTANT’S services for an additional two years after the initial period is completed.

SECTION 5 - PAYMENT
Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee in an amount pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference. The total compensation paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement will not exceed $125,000 over the term of the Agreement without prior written amendment approved by the CITY.

SECTION 6 - TERMINATION
Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY or CONTRACTOR shall otherwise have by law, CITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend work on the Project for any reason, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. CONSULTANT agrees to cease all work under this Agreement upon receipt of said written notice.

SECTION 7 - OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS, AUDIT AND TRUST RECORDS All documents prepared by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement, although instruments of professional service, are and shall be the property of CITY, whether the project for which they are made is executed or not.

CITY shall have the right to audit CONSULTANT’s books and records as they pertain to the performance of CONSULTANT’s duties during normal business hours. In the event CITY elects to perform such audit, payment for any such audit shall be the responsibility of CITY.

50 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 3 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 All documents and records prepared, maintained and stored by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY in the performance of CONSULTANT’s duties hereunder, such as receipts, cancelled checks, and other records shall be stored in electronic digital format. CONSULTANT’s obligation to store such electronic digital records shall end upon termination of this Agreement.

SECTION 10 - CONSULTANT'S STATUS
It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the professional services required under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall at all times be considered an independent contractor as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make CONSULTANT an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement.

SECTION 11 - INDEMNITY
CONSULTANT agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement, except those claims arising out of CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT agrees to defend City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims.

CITY agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CONSULTANT from and against any claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of the condition of the property being managed or acts of God(“Covered Claims”) ; except to the extent any such claims result from a breach of CONSULTANT’S duties hereunder or negligence or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT or its vendors, agents or employees, in which case CONSULTANT shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend CITY. CITY agrees to defend CONSULTANT against any Covered Claims.

The provisions of the indemnification provision in Section 11 shall survive any cancellation, termination or expiration of this Agreement and shall remain in full force and effect until the

51 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 4 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 applicable statute of limitations shall have expired for all claims that are the subject of said indemnification provision.

With regard to Covered Claims described above in Section 11, the CITY’s insurance will be primary for CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR will be listed as an additional insured.

SECTION 13 - NON-ASSIGNABILITY
Both parties hereto recognize that this Agreement is for the personal services of CONSULTANT and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of CITY.

SECTION 14 - RELIANCE UPON PROFESSIONAL SKILL OF CONSULTANT It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that CONSULTANT is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the work agreed to be done under this Agreement and that CITY relies upon the skill of CONSULTANT to do and perform the work in the most skillful manner, and CONSULTANT agrees to thus perform the work. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's work by CITY does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from said obligation.

SECTION 16 - SEVERABILITY
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

SECTION 17 - COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES

52 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 5 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this Agreement that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 18 - NON-DISCRIMINATION
CONSULTANT warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither CONSULTANT nor any of its subcontractors shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

SECTION 20 - LITIGATION
CONSULTANT shall testify at CITY'S request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with CONSULTANT's services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT, or is based upon CONSULTANT's wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

53 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 5 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 54 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 6 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 SECTION 21 - NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To CITY: Jennifer Chen
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
To CONSULTANT: Prodesse Property Group
Attn: Michael Pierce
655 Mariners Island Boulevard, Suite 301
San Mateo, CA 94404
SECTION 22 -AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.

SECTION 23 - CONFLICTS
In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any other referenced exhibit or document attached to this Agreement, the language and terms of this Agreement shall control.

SECTION 24 - AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT
CONSULTANT has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

SECTION 25 - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and, in the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.

55 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 7 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 SECTION 26 – ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: REPAIRS, SIGNS AND BANKING CONSULTANT shall have the right to make repairs, emergency or otherwise, at the CITY’s request, for the benefit of the CITY’s properties. All such repairs shall be performed at the CITY’s expense.

CONSULTANT shall have the right to place leasing signs on the properties CONSULTANT is managing for the CITY, to advertise vacant space(s) and to place other required signage as Federal, State and local ordinances require.

CONSULTANT shall have the right to establish a bank account for the CITY’s properties at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured bank selected by CONSULTANT (the Operating Account), to deposit income from the CITY’s properties and to pay property expenses. To ensure the orderly payment of bills, CONSULTANT shall maintain a cash reserve in the Operating Account equal to Five Thousand dollars ($5,000). After meeting the cash reserve, on or before the 15th day of each calendar month, CONSULTANT shall transmit to CITY all other funds remaining in the Operating Account as of the end of the prior calendar month. If the Operating Account has insufficient funds to pay the properties financial obligations, then such obligations will be paid in this order: insurance premiums; payroll and payroll taxes, Management Fee and reimbursements, mortgage payment; property taxes; utilities; operating expenses; reserves.

Signature page follows

56 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 7 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 57 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 8 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and Prodesse Property Group have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN MATEO CONSULTANT
Prodesse Property Group
Alex Khojikian Date Michael Pierce Date
City Manager Its Authorized Agent
President

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Mazarin Vakharia Date
Assistant City Attorney
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Fee Rates
Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements

58 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 8 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 59 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 9 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Prodesse shall provide the day-to-day commercial property management for the City’s currently owned ground floor commercial spaces within the Main Street Garage and the Transit Center in downtown San Mateo, which includes the current occupied and vacant properties at 2 N. B Street, 360 First Avenue, 380 First Avenue, 385 First Avenue, 385 First Avenue, 390 First Avenue, 365 Second avenue, 275 Second Avenue and 385 Second Avenue, plus additional City owned sites that the City may elect to place under management in the future. These management functions would include, but not be limited to the following:

Tenant Management
Facilitate the execution of lease extensions, amendments, renewals and terminations with the prior approval of the City.
Maintain a relationship with each tenant to better know their needs and concerns, and to ensure tenant compliance with lease terms and conditions. Provide 24- hour response to any emergency situations, reporting such events to the City by the next business day at the latest. Address any tenant issues with leases and/or occupied spaces.
Serve delinquency notices and assist the City with tenant eviction processes, whether for nonpayment of rent or violation of lease provision(s) Advise the City on needed repairs to preserve long-term property value and make recommendations as to potential improvements that could enhance the value of the properties.
Walk the interior and exterior of the properties periodically after lease-required notices to the tenants, to ensure the maintenance of the properties, making sure they are safe and sanitary, and notifying the City of any identified leaks, damage or necessary repairs either within the premises or in the common areas of the Garage and Transit Center within one business day.
Represent the City in all matters relating to each tenant, under their lease agreement.
Record the water meter readings for the Transit Center, Main Street Garage and other managed properties on a monthly basis and report the same to City staff. Walk any vacated properties and coordinate any necessary repairs so that the property shows well.
Collect monthly lease payments from tenants and remit to the City on a monthly basis net of property related expenses.
Oversee any maintenance work approved by the City, including ensuring all contractors have City-approved licenses and insurance coverage, and pay prevailing wages if required.

60 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 10 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 Tenant Attraction/Leasing
Advertise vacancies on the properties and on commercial property listing sites and prepare all necessary marketing and advertising collateral materials. Oversee minor repairs to prepare spaces for leasing.
Screen applicants for compatibility of use and check credit and references and make recommendations to City with regard to tenant selection. Provide guidance to the City on fair market rent and tenant selection. Final tenant selection and approval to be at the discretion and approval of the City Council. Represent the City’s interest in lease negotiations as its broker and advisor for vacant spaces, including reviewing lease documents for conformity to those negotiations.
Ensure lease documents reflect negotiated terms and conditions and make recommendations on updating the City’s lease forms to align with industry standards.

Management Services, Reporting & Administration
Attend meetings with City staff, including those held outside of regular business hours, as requested.
Establish, manage and maintain a separate FDIC insured bank account for the deposit of rents and payment of operating expenses for the City’s leased properties, with a $5,000.00 reserve.
Provide monthly bank statements and reconciliations.
Provide itemized monthly reports and statements on property receipts, expenses and charges, including reports on rent collections, late fees, delinquencies, delinquency aging, and a rent roll including upcoming rent increases. Reports to be delivered to the City by the 10th of each succeeding month. Review annual possessory interest audit as requested by the City’s Finance Department for accuracy and completeness.
Prodesse uses the same Yardi Voyager software that much larger property management firms use, which generate the reports detailed below. Provide other property management service support to the City, as needed.

As is detailed above, each month, consultant team would collect all rents from the tenants that are leasing space at the City’s properties in and around the train station and parking garage. Consultant would serve as the primary contact for all tenants, helping to relieve that burden from City staff. All rents collected would be deposited into a Trust account which consultant would establish and maintain for the City. All tenant concerns regarding the property would be directed to consultant team and handled.

61 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 11 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 Each month, consultant accounting team will prepare a monthly financial statement package that will include an income statement, balance sheet, general ledger, rent roll and 12-month rolling income statement, which will be forwarded electronically to the appropriate City staff members for review. The net cash flow from the properties, following payment of all expenses and withholding the pre-determined $5,000.00 reserve amount will be deposited into the City’s designated bank account each month.

Prodesse will continue to provide the City with general property analysis and risk assessment based upon consultant observations from visits to the City’s properties, and ongoing review of the existing leases, utility bills and rent roll.

PROJECT SCHEDULE & TIMELINE
Prodesse will continue providing services under this Agreement, with no interruption in services to the City.

62 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 11 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 63 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 12 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 EXHIBIT B

FEE RATES

1. A management fee of 6.0% of the collected monthly gross income (base rent and CAM) from all properties and spaces managed, with a floor of $1,000.00 per month.

2. A leasing fee for leases obtained for new tenants of 6.0% of the total base rent for lease years 1 and 2; 4.0% of the total base rent for lease years 3, 4 and 5; and

3.0% of the total base rent for lease years 6 through 10. These fees would be shared on a 50/50 basis with any procuring brokers. For current tenants, a lease renewal fee of $1,000.00 for each lease that is renegotiated and/or renewed.

3. A Percentage Rent fee of 4%, calculated annually, will apply for Rise Wood-Fired Pizza on any Gross Sales exceeding $2,000,000.00; this structure shall also apply to any other tenant whose lease includes a percentage rent clause.

4. A data access fee of $5.25 per unit, per month to offset Prodesse’s software licensing and support costs. Management may adjust the per unit per month fee from time to time in recognition of increased costs for the purchase, licensing, training and operation of property management software as well as the costs of data processing and data storage.

5. A construction management fee of 5.0% of the total costs for any projects that exceed $25,000 to cover the additional staffing time and costs we would bear to manage large repairs and renovation projects at the properties.

64 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 12 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 65 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 13 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if CONSULTANT has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions): Insurance appropriate to the CONSULTANT’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.

If the CONSULTANT maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the CONSULTANT.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

66 of 719

AGREEMENT WITH PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP

Page 14 of 14 ends

1 2
9 2
5 insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, or agents shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Waiver of Subrogation
CONSULTANT hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said CONSULTANT may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. CONSULTANT agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

67 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 6 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-2312 File ID: 26-10894 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Human Resources Department
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2026
SUBJECT:

City of San Mateo and All Union/Association MOUs — Amendment RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to amend the San Mateo City Employees’ Association (SMCEA), San Mateo Police Officers Association (SMPOA), San Mateo Police Sergeants Association (SMPSA), San Mateo Safety Management Association (SMSMA), San Mateo Management Employees’ Association (SMMEA), SEIU Library Merit Unit (SEIU LIB), SEIU Library Per Diem Unit (SEIU LIB PD), SEIU Maintenance Unit (SEIU M) and SEIU Non-Merit Per Diem Unit (SEIU NMPT) MOUs pertaining to the total compensation survey sections and approve side letters of agreement with SMCEA, SMPOA, SMPSA, SMSMA, SMMEA, SEIU LIB, SEIU LIB PD, SEIU M and SEIU NMPT for total compensation survey methodology and authorize the City and its unions/associations to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

During the last contract negotiations with the various unions/associations, concerns were raised regarding how total compensation surveys were conducted. Specifically, certain benchmark classifications, total compensation survey components, and jurisdictions used in previous surveys were questioned. As a result, the City proposed a limited reopener for the purpose of reviewing the comparable city requirements and factors, including benchmark classifications to be used in future total compensation surveys during contract negotiations. After meeting and conferring since August 7, 2025, the City has reached agreement with all bargaining units over the Total Compensation Survey Methodology. As a result, we will now have a consistent and fair survey methodology aimed at attracting and retaining talent with competitive wages and benefits. Furthermore, all classifications will be linked to a relevant “Benchmark” classification within the same bargaining unit. A summary of the agreement is as follows:

Jurisdictions
The following twelve (12) cities will be surveyed from each of the following counties - San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, as follows:

San Mateo County:
• Daly City
• Redwood City
• South San Francisco
Santa Clara County:
• Milpitas
• Mountain View
• Palo Alto
• Santa Clara

68 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Alameda County:
• Alameda
• Hayward
• Livermore
• San Leandro
• Union City
For the Wastewater Treatment Plant, the following eight (8) jurisdictions will be surveyed:
• Dublin/San Ramon District
• Hayward
• North Sanitation District
• Oro Loma
• Palo Alto
• Silicon Valley Clean Water
• South San Francisco
• Sunnyvale
Data
The following data will be included in the total compensation survey for each identified benchmark classification:
• Top Step of Base Salary
• Maximum Education/Certification Pay Premium when available to all employees in the classification • Employer’s Portion of Retirement Paid by the Employee (this amount is subtracted from the Total Compensation) - PEPRA Rate
• Deferred Compensation
• Cafeteria Plan
• Health (Most Expensive Plan)
• Dental
• Vision
• Life insurance
• Long-term Disability (LTD)
• Social Security and/or Medicare (if applicable)
BUDGET IMPACT:

The recommended amendments regarding total compensation surveys for bargaining units does not have a quantifiable fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This side letter of agreements is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Exhibit A – Side Letters of Agreement

STAFF CONTACT

69 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Yumi Maeda, Senior Human Resource Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 522-7279

70 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. __ (2026)

APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN

MATEO AND ALL OF ITS UNIONS/ASSOCIATIONS

WHEREAS, during the last contract negotiations with the San Mateo City Employees’ Association (SMCEA), San Mateo Police Officers’ Association (SMPOA), San Mateo Police Sergeants’ Association (SMPSA), San Mateo Safety Management Association (SMSMA), San Mateo Management Employees’ Association (SMMEA), SEIU Library Merit Unit (SEIU LIB), SEIU Library Per Diem Unit (SEIU LIB PD), SEIU Maintenance Unit (SEIU M), and SEIU Non-Merit Part-Time Unit (SEIU NMPT), concerns were raised regarding how total compensation surveys were conducted; and

WHEREAS, the City proposed a limited reopener for the purpose of reviewing the comparable city requirements and factors, including benchmark classifications to be used in future total compensation surveys during contract negotiations; and

WHEREAS, the City’s intent was to have a survey methodology that was consistent citywide with the following goals:

• consistent and fair survey methodology aimed at attracting and retaining talent with competitive wages and benefits.
• All classifications to be linked to a relevant “Benchmark” classification within the same bargaining unit.

No classifications will be left behind.
• Ensure surveys include a “balanced approach” and relevant compensation components consistent with widely acceptable practices.
• Identify jurisdictions to be surveyed that are comparable to the City of San Mateo. • All special adjustments are to be completed during upcoming contract negotiations. • Limit existing language in the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) related to classification and compensation review to classification studies only. The purpose of the classification study is to: 1) determine the appropriate classification based on the duties performed on a permanent, regular and consistent basis, and 2) allocate such position(s) to the appropriate classification.

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and reached agreement; and

WHEREAS, the side letters of agreement are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

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

1. The side letters of agreement are not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment.

2. The side letters of agreement are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

3. The side letters of agreement are approved.

71 of 719

4. The SMCEA, SMPOA, SMPSA, SMSMA, SMMEA, SEIU LIB, SEIU LIB PD, SEIU M and SEIU NMPT MOUs will be amended to include Side Letters of Agreement Between the City and its unions/associations pertaining to the total compensation survey methodology.

72 of 719

Side Letter of Agreement
Between
City of San Mateo
And
SEIU Non-Merit Part-Time Unit

Total Compensation Survey Methodology

The Total Compensation Survey Methodology outlined below will be applied during upcoming contract negotiations with the SEIU Non-Merit Part-Time Unit.

1. Jurisdictions
The following twelve (12) cities will be surveyed from each of the following counties- San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, as follows:

San Mateo County Santa Clara County Alameda County
Daly City Milpitas Alameda
Redwood City Mountain View Hayward
South San Francisco Palo Alto Livermore
Santa Clara San Leandro
Union City

The cities above were identified based on the services provided, geographic proximity, budget, full- time equivalent positions, and population.

2. Data
The following data will be included in the total compensation survey for each identified benchmark classification:
• Top Step of Base Salary
• Maximum Education/Certification Pay Premium when available to all employees in the classification
• Employer’s Portion of Retirement Paid by the Employee (this amount is subtracted from the Total Compensation)- PEPRA Rate
• Deferred Compensation
• Cafeteria Plan
• Health (Most Expensive Plan)
• Dental
• Vision
• Life insurance, and
• Long-term Disability (LTD)
• Social Security and/or Medicare (if applicable)

The data will be compiled and provided to the union/association during contract negotiations, but no later than two (2) months prior to the expiration of the Memorandum of Understanding. The market median for benchmark classifications is determined by a total compensation survey of the comparable benchmark classifications using those cities identified above under section #1. At the time the survey is finalized, the survey shall include known and approved future increases in wages and benefits from other cities that are subject to implementation within thirty (30) calendar days.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3B244C41-5361-451F-81E6-03D7A7C71C29

73 of 719

Page 2 of 3 ends

3. Benchmark Classifications
The benchmark classifications are as follows:

Current Classification Union Proposed Benchmark

Office Assistant II SMCEA Benchmark
Senior Program Assistant PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II Program Assistant II PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II
Program Assistant I PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II
Office Assistant II PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II
Office Assistant I PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II
Recreation Specialist I PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II Recreation Specialist II PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II Recreation Specialist III PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II Facilities Specialist I PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II Facilities Specialist II PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II Inclusion Specialist PD SEIU- NMPT Office Assistant II

Executive Assistant SMCEA Benchmark
Administrative Technician PD SEIU- NMPT Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant PD SEIU- NMPT Executive Assistant

Human Resources Technician SMCEA Benchmark
Human Resources Technician PD SEIU- NMPT Human Resources Technician

Police Records Specialist II SMCEA Benchmark
Police Records Specialist I PD SEIU- NMPT Police Records Specialist II

Recreation Program Specialist SEIU NMPT Benchmark
Inclusion Specialist PD SEIU NMPT Recreation Program Specialist

Lifeguard II SEIU NMPT Benchmark
Senior Lifeguard PD SEIU NMPT Lifeguard II
Lifeguard I PD SEIU NMPT Lifeguard II

Community Services Coordinator SMCEA Benchmark
Park Ranger PD SEIU NMPT Community Services Coordinator

4. Classification and Compensation Review Outside of Contract Negotiations

Docusign Envelope ID: 3B244C41-5361-451F-81E6-03D7A7C71C29

74 of 719

Page 3 of 3 ends

All classifications will be linked to a benchmark classification, which will be surveyed for future contract negotiations. Therefore, the existing language in Memorandum of Understandings (“MOU”) related to classification and compensation review will be limited to classification studies only.

For SEIU Non-Merit Part-Time Unit City of San Mateo

By: ______________________________ By: ____________________________________ Eric Rosenthal, SEIU Representative Stacey Cue, IEDA

Date: ___1.23.26________ Date: _____________
Docusign Envelope ID: 3B244C41-5361-451F-81E6-03D7A7C71C29 1/28/2026

75 of 719

Side Letter of Agreement
Between
City of San Mateo
And
San Mateo Police Sergeants’ Association (“SMPSA”)

Total Compensation Survey Methodology

The Total Compensation Survey Methodology outlined below will be applied during upcoming contract negotiations with the San Mateo Police Sergeants’ Association (SMPSA).

1. Jurisdictions
The following twelve (12) cities will be surveyed from each of the following counties- San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, as follows:

San Mateo County Santa Clara County Alameda County
Daly City Milpitas Alameda
Redwood City Mountain View Hayward
South San Francisco Palo Alto Livermore
Santa Clara San Leandro
Union City

The cities above were identified based on the services provided, geographic proximity, budget, full- time equivalent positions, and population.

Docusign Envelope ID: 43FD653C-4B5B-4163-A336-BCAC5AE12F48 Docusign Envelope ID: D561A26B-5A31-4148-A5FC-3DE9C2A2C4A3

76 of 719

Page 2 of 2 ends

3. Benchmark Classifications
There is no change in the benchmark classification. Language in the MOU, Article 12.A.2- Salary Alignment, will remain the same, as follows:

4. Classification and Compensation Review Outside of Contract Negotiations

For San Mateo Police Sergeants’ Association City of San Mateo

By: ________________________________ By: ____________________________________ Peter Hoffmann, SMPSA Representative Stacey Cue, IEDA

Date: ___________ Date: _____________
Docusign Envelope ID: 43FD653C-4B5B-4163-A336-BCAC5AE12F48 Docusign Envelope ID: D561A26B-5A31-4148-A5FC-3DE9C2A2C4A3 2/8/2026
2/9/2026

77 of 719

Side Letter of Agreement
Between
City of San Mateo
And
SEIU Library Unit

Total Compensation Survey Methodology

The Total Compensation Survey Methodology outlined below will be applied during upcoming contract negotiations with the SEIU Library Unit.

1. Jurisdictions
The following twelve (12) cities will be surveyed from each of the following counties- San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, as follows:

San Mateo County Santa Clara County Alameda County
Daly City Milpitas Alameda
Redwood City Mountain View Hayward
South San Francisco Palo Alto Livermore
Santa Clara San Leandro
Union City

The cities above were identified based on the services provided, geographic proximity, budget, full- time equivalent positions, and population.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3B244C41-5361-451F-81E6-03D7A7C71C29

78 of 719

Page 2 of 2 ends

3. Benchmark Classifications
The benchmark classifications are as follows:

Current Classification Union Proposed Benchmark
Librarian II (37.5 hrs.) SEIU LIB Benchmark
Librarian I (37.5 hrs.) SEIU LIB Librarian II
Literacy Program Coordinator (37.5 hrs.) SEIU LIB Librarian II Literacy Specialist (37.5 hrs.) SEIU LIB Librarian II

Library Assistant II (37.5 hrs.) SEIU LIB Benchmark
Senior Library Assistant (37.5 hrs.) SEIU LIB Library Assistant II Library Assistant I (37.5 hrs.) SEIU LIB Library Assistant II

4. Classification and Compensation Review Outside of Contract Negotiations

For SEIU Library Unit City of San Mateo

By: ______________________________ By: ____________________________________ Eric Rosenthal, SEIU Representative Stacey Cue, IEDA

Date: __1.23.26_________ Date: _____________
Docusign Envelope ID: 3B244C41-5361-451F-81E6-03D7A7C71C29 1/28/2026

79 of 719

Side Letter of Agreement
Between
City of San Mateo
And
San Mateo Police Officers’ Association (“SMPOA”)

Total Compensation Survey Methodology

The Total Compensation Survey Methodology outlined below will be applied during upcoming contract negotiations with the San Mateo Police Officers’ Association (SMPOA).

1. Jurisdictions
The following twelve (12) cities will be surveyed from each of the following counties- San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, as follows:

San Mateo County Santa Clara County Alameda County
Daly City Milpitas Alameda
Redwood City Mountain View Hayward
South San Francisco Palo Alto Livermore
Santa Clara San Leandro
Union City

The cities above were identified based on the services provided, geographic proximity, budget, full- time equivalent positions, and population.

Docusign Envelope ID: 43FD653C-4B5B-4163-A336-BCAC5AE12F48

80 of 719

Page 2 of 2 ends

3. Benchmark Classifications
The benchmark classifications are as follows:

Current Classification Union Proposed Benchmark
Police Officer SMPOA Benchmark
Police Officer Trainee SMPOA Police Officer

Community Services Officer II SMPOA Benchmark
Community Services Officer I SMPOA Community Services Officer II Senior Community Services Officer SMPOA Community Services Officer II

Dispatcher SMPOA Benchmark
Senior Dispatcher SMPOA Dispatcher

4. Classification and Compensation Review Outside of Contract Negotiations

For San Mateo Police Officers’ Association City of San Mateo

By: ________________________________ By: ____________________________________ Peter Hoffmann, SMPOA Representative Stacey Cue, IEDA

Date: ___________ Date: _____________
Docusign Envelope ID: 43FD653C-4B5B-4163-A336-BCAC5AE12F48 1/28/2026 1/29/2026

81 of 719

Side Letter of Agreement
Between
City of San Mateo
And
San Mateo Safety Management Association (“SMSMA”)

Total Compensation Survey Methodology

The Total Compensation Survey Methodology outlined below will be applied during upcoming contract negotiations with the San Mateo Safety Management Association (SMSMA).

1. Jurisdictions
The following twelve (12) cities will be surveyed from each of the following counties- San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, as follows:

San Mateo County Santa Clara County Alameda County
Daly City Milpitas Alameda
Redwood City Mountain View Hayward
South San Francisco Palo Alto Livermore
Santa Clara San Leandro
Union City

The cities above were identified based on the services provided, geographic proximity, budget, full- time equivalent positions, and population.

Docusign Envelope ID: B20EB78B-6C9E-4A06-AFF9-6CD76A364A75 Docusign Envelope ID: 513EDB8F-BAFD-4556-9281-79F1FA835546

82 of 719

Page 2 of 2 ends

3. Benchmark Classifications
The benchmark classifications are as follows:

Current Classification Union Proposed Benchmark
Police Technical Services
Administrator
SMSMA Benchmark

Police Lieutenant SMSMA Benchmark (different BU than Sergeant) Police Captain SMSMA Police Lieutenant

4. Classification and Compensation Review Outside of Contract Negotiations

For San Mateo Safety Management Association City of San Mateo

By: ___________________________________ By: ____________________________________ Matthew Earnshaw, SMSMA Representative Stacey Cue, IEDA

Date: ___________ Date: _____________
Docusign Envelope ID: B20EB78B-6C9E-4A06-AFF9-6CD76A364A75 1/28/2026
Docusign Envelope ID: 513EDB8F-BAFD-4556-9281-79F1FA835546 1/28/2026

83 of 719

Side Letter of Agreement
Between
City of San Mateo
And
SEIU Library Per Diem Unit

Total Compensation Survey Methodology

The Total Compensation Survey Methodology outlined below will be applied during upcoming contract negotiations with the SEIU Library Per Diem Unit.

1. Jurisdictions
The following twelve (12) cities will be surveyed from each of the following counties- San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, as follows:

San Mateo County Santa Clara County Alameda County
Daly City Milpitas Alameda
Redwood City Mountain View Hayward
South San Francisco Palo Alto Livermore
Santa Clara San Leandro
Union City

The cities above were identified based on the services provided, geographic proximity, budget, full- time equivalent positions, and population.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3B244C41-5361-451F-81E6-03D7A7C71C29

84 of 719

Page 2 of 2 ends

3. Benchmark Classifications
The benchmark classifications are as follows:

Current Classification Union Proposed Benchmark
Library Assistant II (37.5 hrs.) SEIU LIB Benchmark
Library Aide I SEIU LIB-PD Library Assistant II
Library Aide II SEIU LIB-PD Library Assistant II

4. Classification and Compensation Review Outside of Contract Negotiations

For SEIU Library Per Diem Unit City of San Mateo

By: ______________________________ By: ____________________________________ Eric Rosenthal, SEIU Representative Stacey Cue, IEDA

Date: _1.23.26__________ Date: _____________
Docusign Envelope ID: 3B244C41-5361-451F-81E6-03D7A7C71C29 1/28/2026

85 of 719

Side Letter of Agreement
Between
City of San Mateo
And
San Mateo Management Employees’ Association (“SMMEA”)

Total Compensation Survey Methodology

The Total Compensation Survey Methodology outlined below will be applied during upcoming contract negotiations with the San Mateo Management Employees’ Association (SMMEA).

1. Jurisdictions
The following twelve (12) cities will be surveyed from each of the following counties- San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, as follows:

San Mateo County Santa Clara County Alameda County
Daly City Milpitas Alameda
Redwood City Mountain View Hayward
South San Francisco Palo Alto Livermore
Santa Clara San Leandro
Union City

The cities above were identified based on the services provided, geographic proximity, budget, full-time equivalent positions, and population.

2. Data
The following data will be included in the total compensation survey for each identified benchmark classification:
• Top Step of Base Salary
• Maximum Education/Certification Pay Premium when available to all employees in the classification
• Employer’s Portion of Retirement Paid by the Employee (this amount is subtracted from the T otal Compensation)- PEPRA Rate
• Deferred Compensation
• Cafeteria Plan
• Health (Most Expensive Plan)
• Dental
• Vision
• Life insurance, and
• Long-term Disability (LTD)
• Social Security and/or Medicare (if applicable)

The data will be compiled and provided to the union/association during contract negotiations, but no later than two (2) months prior to the expiration of the Memorandum of Understanding.

The market median for benchmark classifications is determined by a total compensation survey of the comparable benchmark classifications using those cities identified above under section Docusign Envelope ID: 9EF0E719-0244-48DB-81AE-B3612597575B Docusign Envelope ID: 63671177-8F50-4970-9780-DEED9E9F397E

86 of 719

#1. At the time the survey is finalized, the survey shall include known and approved future increases in wages and benefits from other cities that are subject to implementation within thirty (30) calendar days.

3. Benchmark Classifications
The benchmark classifications are as follows:

Current Classification Union Proposed Benchmark
Management Analyst II SMMEA Benchmark
Business Manager SMMEA Management Analyst II
Senior Management Analyst SMMEA Management Analyst II
Management Analyst I SMMEA Management Analyst II
Communications and Public Relations Analyst SMMEA Management Analyst II Police Communications and Public Relations Analyst SMMEA Management Analyst II Communications Manager SMMEA Management Analyst II
Sustainability Analyst SMMEA Management Analyst II
Police Support Services Analyst SMMEA Management Analyst II

Senior Planner SMMEA Benchmark
Planning Manager SMMEA Senior Planner
Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager SMMEA Senior Planner Principal Planner SMMEA Senior Planner
Principal Transportation Planner SMMEA Senior Planner
Senior Project Manager SMMEA Senior Planner
Senior Transportation Planner (new classification) SMMEA Senior Planner Project Manager II SMMEA Senior Planner
Project Manager I SMMEA Senior Planner

Code Enforcement Manager SMMEA Benchmark
Building Official SMMEA Code Enforcement Manager

Senior Engineer SMMEA Benchmark
Engineering Manager SMMEA Senior Engineer
Deputy Building Official SMMEA Senior Engineer
Inspection Supervisor SMMEA Senior Engineer
Permit Center Supervisor SMMEA Senior Engineer
Plan Check Supervisor SMMEA Senior Engineer
Waste Management Supervisor SMMEA Senior Engineer

Accountant II SMMEA Benchmark
Payroll Supervisor SMMEA Accountant II
Senior Accountant SMMEA Accountant II
Docusign Envelope ID: 9EF0E719-0244-48DB-81AE-B3612597575B Docusign Envelope ID: 63671177-8F50-4970-9780-DEED9E9F397E

87 of 719

Accounting Manager SMMEA Benchmark
Budget Manager SMMEA Accounting Manager

Human Resources Analyst II SMMEA Benchmark
Senior Human Resources Analyst SMMEA Human Resources Analyst II Senior Risk Management Analyst SMMEA Human Resources Analyst II Human Resources Analyst I SMMEA Human Resources Analyst II HRIS Analyst II SMMEA Human Resources Analyst II
HRIS Analyst I SMMEA Human Resources Analyst II

Supervising Librarian SMMEA Benchmark
Supervising Library Assistant SMMEA Supervising Librarian

Systems Analyst II SMMEA Benchmark
Consulting and Applications Manager SMMEA Systems Analyst II Systems and Network Manager SMMEA Systems Analyst II
Customer Service Manager SMMEA Systems Analyst II
Senior Business Systems Analyst SMMEA Systems Analyst II Business Systems Analyst II SMMEA Systems Analyst II
Business Systems Analyst I SMMEA Systems Analyst II
GIS Coordinator SMMEA Systems Analyst II
Web Specialist SMMEA Systems Analyst II
Network Analyst SMMEA Systems Analyst II

Public Works Supervisor SMMEA Benchmark
Parks and Landscape Manager SMMEA Public Works Supervisor Managing Arborist SMMEA Public Works Supervisor
Golf Course Maintenance Supervisor SMMEA Public Works Supervisor Parks and Landscape Maintenance Supervisor SMMEA Public Works Supervisor Facilities and Fleet Services Manager SMMEA Public Works Supervisor Field Maintenance Manager SMMEA Public Works Supervisor Fleet Services Supervisor SMMEA Public Works Supervisor Building Maintenance Supervisor SMMEA Public Works Supervisor

Police Records or Property Supervisor SMMEA Benchmark
Dispatch Services Supervisor SMMEA Police Records or Property Supervisor

Docusign Envelope ID: 9EF0E719-0244-48DB-81AE-B3612597575B Docusign Envelope ID: 63671177-8F50-4970-9780-DEED9E9F397E

88 of 719

Police Evidence Analyst SMMEA Benchmark
Real Time Information Center Coordinator (previously
Crime and Intelligence Analyst)
SMMEA Police Evidence Analyst
Police Digital Forensic Analyst SMMEA Police Evidence Analyst

WWTP Shift Supervisor SMMEA Benchmark
WWTP Manager SMMEA WWTP Shift Supervisor
Regulatory Compliance Manager SMMEA WWTP Shift Supervisor WWTP Operations Superintendent SMMEA WWTP Shift Supervisor WWTP Maintenance Superintendent SMMEA WWTP Shift Supervisor

Community Services Manager SMMEA Benchmark
Community Services Section Manager SMMEA Community Services Manager Senior Community Services Supervisor SMMEA Community Services Manager Golf Services Manager SMMEA Community Services Manager
Community Services Supervisor SMMEA Community Services Manager

Assistant City Attorney SMMEA Benchmark

Economic Development Manager SMMEA Benchmark

Laboratory Supervisor SMMEA Benchmark

Deputy City Clerk SMMEA Benchmark

Senior Code Enforcement Officer SMMEA Benchmark

4. Classification and Compensation Review Outside of Contract Negotiations

For San Mateo Management Employees’ Association City of San Mateo

By: ________________________________ By: __________________________ Kevin Kobayashi, SMMEA Representative Stacey Cue, IEDA

Date: ___________ Date: _____________
Docusign Envelope ID: 9EF0E719-0244-48DB-81AE-B3612597575B 1/28/2026
Docusign Envelope ID: 63671177-8F50-4970-9780-DEED9E9F397E 1/28/2026

89 of 719

Side Letter of Agreement
Between
City of San Mateo
And
SEIU Maintenance Unit

Total Compensation Survey Methodology

The Total Compensation Survey Methodology outlined below will be applied during upcoming contract negotiations with the SEIU Maintenance Unit.

1. Jurisdictions
The following twelve (12) cities will be surveyed from each of the following counties- San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, as follows:

San Mateo County Santa Clara County Alameda County
Daly City Milpitas Alameda
Redwood City Mountain View Hayward
South San Francisco Palo Alto Livermore
Santa Clara San Leandro
Union City

The cities above were identified based on the services provided, geographic proximity, budget, full- time equivalent positions, and population.

For the Wastewater Treatment Plant, the following eight (8) jurisdictions will be surveyed:

• Dublin/San Ramon District
• Hayward
• North Sanitation District
• Oro Loma
• Palo Alto
• Silicon Valley Clean Water
• South San Francisco
• Sunnyvale

2. Data
The following data will be included in the total compensation survey for each identified benchmark classification:
• Top Step of Base Salary
• Maximum Education/Certification Pay Premium when available to all employees in the classification
• Employer’s Portion of Retirement Paid by the Employee (this amount is subtracted from the Total Compensation)- PEPRA Rate
• Deferred Compensation
• Cafeteria Plan
• Health (Most Expensive Plan)
Docusign Envelope ID: 3B244C41-5361-451F-81E6-03D7A7C71C29

90 of 719

Page 2 of 3 ends

• Dental
• Vision
• Life insurance, and
• Long-term Disability (LTD)
• Social Security and/or Medicare (if applicable)

3. Benchmark Classifications
The benchmark classifications are as follows:

Current Classification Union Proposed Benchmark
Landscape Maintenance Worker II SEIU M Benchmark
Senior Parks & Landscape Maintenance Worker SEIU M Landscape Maintenance Worker II Landscape Maintenance Worker I SEIU M Landscape Maintenance Worker II Landscape Laborer SEIU M Landscape Maintenance Worker II Tree Maintenance Specialist SEIU M Landscape Maintenance Worker II Golf Equipment Maintenance Specialist SEIU M Landscape Maintenance Worker II Irrigation Specialist SEIU M Landscape Maintenance Worker II Light Equipment Mechanic SEIU M Landscape Maintenance Worker II

Maintenance Worker II SEIU M Benchmark
Traffic Safety Worker SEIU M Maintenance Worker II
Maintenance Worker Lead - PW SEIU M Maintenance Worker II Maintenance Worker I SEIU M Maintenance Worker II
Laborer SEIU M Maintenance Worker II

Facility Maintenance Worker SEIU M Benchmark
Senior Facilities Maintenance Worker SEIU M Facility Maintenance Worker

WWTP Operator II SEIU M Benchmark
WWTP Operator III SEIU M WWTP Operator II
WWTP Operator I SEIU M WWTP Operator II
WWTP Operator-in-Training SEIU M WWTP Operator II

Instrument Control Technician SEIU M Benchmark
Senior Instrument Control Technician SEIU M Instrument and Control Technician Calibration Technician SEIU M Instrument and Control Technician Maintenance Planner SEIU M Instrument and Control Technician WWTP Electrical Technician SEIU M Instrument and Control Technician Docusign Envelope ID: 3B244C41-5361-451F-81E6-03D7A7C71C29

91 of 719

Page 3 of 3 ends

WWTP Mechanic II SEIU M Benchmark
WWTP Mechanic III SEIU M WWTP Mechanic II
WWTP Mechanic I SEIU M WWTP Mechanic II
Pump Station Mechanic III SEIU M WWTP Mechanic II
Pump Station Mechanic II SEIU M WWTP Mechanic II
Pump Station Mechanic I SEIU M WWTP Mechanic II

Traffic and Lighting Technician SEIU M Benchmark

Custodian SEIU M Benchmark

Central Services Worker SEIU M Benchmark

4. Classification and Compensation Review Outside of Contract Negotiations

For SEIU Maintenance Unit City of San Mateo

By: ______________________________ By: ____________________________________ Eric Rosenthal, SEIU Representative Stacey Cue, IEDA

Date: _1.23.26__________ Date: _____________
Docusign Envelope ID: 3B244C41-5361-451F-81E6-03D7A7C71C29 1/28/2026

92 of 719

Side Letter of Agreement
Between
City of San Mateo
And
San Mateo City Employees’ Association (“SMCEA”)

Total Compensation Survey Methodology

The Total Compensation Survey Methodology outlined below will be applied during upcoming contract negotiations with the San Mateo City Employees’ Association (SMCEA).

1. Jurisdictions
The following twelve (12) cities will be surveyed from each of the following counties- San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, as follows:

San Mateo County Santa Clara County Alameda County
Daly City Milpitas Alameda
Redwood City Mountain View Hayward
South San Francisco Palo Alto Livermore
Santa Clara San Leandro
Union City

The cities above were identified based on the services provided, geographic proximity, budget, full- time equivalent positions, and population.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6C1E1A27-0D0B-4917-B3C7-FEB6857974DF

93 of 719

Page 2 of 4 ends

3. Benchmark Classifications
The benchmark classifications are as follows:

Current Classification Union Proposed Benchmark
Associate Engineer SMCEA Benchmark
Plan Check Engineer SMCEA Associate Engineer
Assistant Engineer SMCEA Associate Engineer
Junior Engineer SMCEA Associate Engineer

Plan Checker II SMCEA Benchmark
Plan Checker I SMCEA Plan Checker II

Office Assistant II SMCEA Benchmark
Senior Program Assistant SMCEA Office Assistant II
Program Assistant II SMCEA Office Assistant II
Program Assistant I SMCEA Office Assistant II
Office Assistant I SMCEA Office Assistant II

Executive Assistant SMCEA Benchmark
Administrative Technician SMCEA Executive Assistant
Executive Secretary to the City Manager SMCEA Executive Assistant Executive Secretary to the City Attorney SMCEA Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant SMCEA Executive Assistant
Assistant to the City Clerk SMCEA Executive Assistant

Associate Planner SMCEA Benchmark
Assistant Planner SMCEA Associate Planner
Associate Transportation Planner SMCEA Associate Planner Assistant Transportation Planner SMCEA Associate Planner

Code Enforcement Officer II SMCEA Benchmark
Code Enforcement Officer I SMCEA Code Enforcement Officer II Downtown Coordinator SMCEA Code Enforcement Officer II
Solid Waste Technician SMCEA Code Enforcement Officer II

Housing Specialist II SMCEA Benchmark
Senior Housing Specialist SMCEA Housing Specialist II
Housing Specialist I

SMCEA Housing Specialist II

Building Inspector II SMCEA Benchmark
Senior Building Inspector SMCEA Building Inspector II
Building Inspector I SMCEA Building Inspector II
Docusign Envelope ID: 6C1E1A27-0D0B-4917-B3C7-FEB6857974DF

94 of 719

Page 3 of 4 ends

Development Review Technician II SMCEA Benchmark
Senior Development Review Technician SMCEA Development Review Technician II Development Review Technician I SMCEA Development Review Technician II

Accounting Assistant II SMCEA Benchmark
Finance Specialist II SMCEA Accounting Assistant II
Finance Specialist I SMCEA Accounting Assistant II
Senior Accounting Assistant SMCEA Accounting Assistant II Accounting Assistant I SMCEA Accounting Assistant II

Human Resources Technician SMCEA Benchmark
Payroll Technician II SMCEA Human Resources Technician
Payroll Technician I SMCEA Human Resources Technician

Information Systems Support Technician II SMCEA Benchmark Senior Information Support Technician SMCEA Information Systems Support Technician II Information Systems Support Technician I SMCEA Information Systems Support Technician II Library Technology Specialist SMCEA Information Systems Support Technician II

GIS Technician II SMCEA Benchmark
GIS Technician I SMCEA GIS Technician II

Community Services Coordinator SMCEA Benchmark
Communications and Engagement
Coordinator II
SMCEA Community Services Coordinator
Communications and Engagement
Coordinator I
SMCEA Community Services Coordinator
Lead Teacher SMCEA Community Services Coordinator
Senior Park Ranger SMCEA Community Services Coordinator

Police Records Specialist II SMCEA Benchmark
Senior Police Records Specialist SMCEA Police Records Specialist II Police Records Specialist I SMCEA Police Records Specialist II

Engineering Technician II SMCEA Benchmark
Engineering Technician I SMCEA Engineering Technician II

Construction Inspector II SMCEA Benchmark
Construction Inspector I SMCEA Construction Inspector II

Docusign Envelope ID: 6C1E1A27-0D0B-4917-B3C7-FEB6857974DF

95 of 719

Page 4 of 4 ends

Laboratory Analyst II SMCEA Benchmark
Laboratory Analyst III SMCEA Laboratory Analyst II
Laboratory Analyst I SMCEA Laboratory Analyst II
Environmental Programs Coordinator SMCEA Laboratory Analyst II Environmental Compliance Inspector SMCEA Laboratory Analyst II

Solid Waste & Recycling Program
Coordinator
SMCEA Benchmark

Systems Analyst I SMCEA Benchmark (different BU than II)

Accountant I SMCEA Benchmark (different BU than II)

Vehicle Abatement Officer SMCEA Benchmark

4. Classification and Compensation Review Outside of Contract Negotiations

For San Mateo City Employees’ Association City of San Mateo

By: ________________________________ By: ____________________________________ Peter Hoffmann, SMCEA Representative Stacey Cue, IEDA

Date: ___________ Date: _____________
Docusign Envelope ID: 6C1E1A27-0D0B-4917-B3C7-FEB6857974DF 1/28/2026
1/29/2026

96 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 7 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS Account Number: File ID: 26-10873 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2026
SUBJECT:

Grand Boulevard Initiative and Central El Camino Real Plan — Appropriation RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to appropriate $70,000 of the City’s Measure A funds to support additional San Mateo-specific studies and community engagement; and receive an informational presentation on the Central El Camino Multimodal Plan being developed in partnership with SamTrans and the Cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City.

BACKGROUND:

In February 2025, SamTrans launched the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan (Central El Camino Plan), a corridor study for an 8.5-mile segment of El Camino Real (Caltrans State Route 82) within the cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos and a short segment of Redwood City.

This Central El Camino Plan is a part of a broader effort called the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI), which is a collaboration in San Mateo County between 15 local jurisdictions, four countywide agencies, and Caltrans. This effort is supporting cities along the corridor by leading a joint, coordinated Caltrans process to advance local city visions. GBI aims to make El Camino Real a safer and more comfortable place to walk, bike, drive, and take transit by installing streetscape improvements along the corridor.

Over the past year, GBI convened a Task Force and a Working Group comprised of staff representing all cities and various agencies and organizations along the corridor in a series of workshops. These groups provide direction on corridor-wide challenges and needs, potential solutions, public and stakeholder engagement, and the vision for the corridor. These groups meet bi-monthly and SamTrans used this feedback to develop a GBI Action Plan.

The GBI Action Plan is a planning document that evaluates corridor-wide needs, establishes a cohesive vision, and builds momentum toward implementation. Once the Action Plan is complete, SamTrans will lead the first phase of a coordinated Caltrans project development process, called a Project Initiation Document (PID), for all of El Camino Real in San Mateo County. The PID will define the purpose and need for transportation improvements to the corridor as well as establish potential design alternatives.

Because El Camino Real is a state highway, Caltrans has the final authority over design approvals, right-of-way changes, signal modifications, and construction standards. No changes can be implemented on the state highway without Caltrans review and approval, so SamTrans must coordinate closely with Caltrans throughout the PID process.

Central El Camino Real Plan:

The Central El Camino Plan identifies corridor needs, defines alternatives, and selects alternative(s) to be advanced to the next phase based on an analysis of tradeoffs as well as community and stakeholder feedback. This will allow San Mateo to

97 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
identify selected alternative(s) for inclusion in the countywide PID led by GBI.

El Camino Real is the main arterial of San Mateo County, connecting downtowns, businesses, schools, regional transit hubs, and other key destinations. While El Camino Real serves a range of trip purposes and users, its design reflects its historic role as a state highway focused on facilitating high speed auto travel. Consequently, the corridor is a barrier for pedestrians and cyclists and is challenging to navigate efficiently for buses.

Undertaking the Central El Camino Plan provides an opportunity to build upon San Mateo’s efforts related to El Camino Real over the years, including its TOD Pedestrian Access Plan (2022), Bicycle Master Plan (2020), and ongoing Complete Streets Plan. In outreach conducted during these plans, San Mateo residents have indicated concerns related to the heavy traffic volumes, including the lack of safe routes to schools, high-speed traffic, and a lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Themes from past outreach conducted for El Camino Real include:
• Complete Streets: safety and connectivity gaps for walking and bicycling • Pedestrian Access: difficult crossings, narrow/obstructed sidewalks, and limited bus stop amenities • Safety: concerns about speeding, red light running, and crossing conditions The Central El Camino Plan incorporates this input and gathered additional feedback on the Plan through conducting pop- ups, community-based organization meetings, and listening sessions. The Central El Camino Plan identifies similar findings in Phase 1 of engagement, including the need for bus stop amenities and higher bus frequencies, safer pedestrian crossings and wider and better maintained sidewalks, more pedestrian-scale lighting, separated bike facilities, and better bus connections to Caltrain stations. This engagement, as well as findings from local and regional plans, was used to define potential design alternatives for El Camino Real.

Historically, implementing changes on this Caltrans facility has been difficult for cities with only a patchwork of improvements occurring over the past several decades. The development of the Central El Camino Plan is essential for San Mateo, in partnership with SamTrans and neighboring cities, to advance roadway safety and active transportation improvements. The Central El Camino Plan will fill a critical corridor planning gap that is necessary for San Mateo and its neighboring cities to complete the requisite planning for the first stage of the Caltrans project development process being led through GBI.

Relevance to Caltrans Paving Project:

It is important to note that the Central El Camino Real Plan and GBI are separate from the 04-4W730 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) project, which involves pavement resurfacing and upgrading of curb ramps to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards on State Route 82 / El Camino Real from 43rd Avenue to E. Santa Inez Avenue in the City of San Mateo. The 04-4W730 SHOPP project is led by Caltrans, but City staff and SamTrans staff have been engaged throughout the project development process. This collaboration is critical to ensure that spot improvements that are safety critical are incorporated in the repaving effort as they can be delivered on a faster timeline.

Feedback Received from Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission:

SamTrans presented the Central El Camino Real Plan to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Committee (SIC) during Phase 1 of outreach on July 9, 2025. The following feedback was received:
• Commissioners encouraged SamTrans staff consider prohibiting and/or restricting left turns during rush hours in the downtown areas of the City on El Camino Real. SamTrans staff confirmed that this is a feature that is being considered as part of the Central El Camino Real Plan.
• Commissioners reinforced accessibility and narrow sidewalk concerns and curb cut issues.

SamTrans presented the Grand Boulevard Initiative to SIC on October 8, 2025. The following feedback was received:
• Commissioners expressed support for the Grand Boulevard Initiative but frustration over how long planning has taken. They raised concerns about El Camino’s poor pavement, traffic backups, and the need to explore limiting left turns during peak hours. They emphasized challenges around adding protected bike lanes due to parking or lane-removal trade-offs. Finally, they asked whether a full feasibility study of transit, biking, and walking improvements on El Camino has ever been done.

98 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Public Engagement:

SamTrans, in collaboration with the cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos and Redwood City, is conducting public engagement in three phases:
•Phase 1 (Spring/Summer 2025): Identify corridor gaps and needs •Phase 2 (Winter 2026): Present corridor alternatives and trade-offs •Phase 3 (Summer 2026): Present preferred alternative and implementation plan Phase 1 engagement included community pop-ups, meetings with community-based organizations, multilingual listening sessions, presentations, and an online interactive mapping tool along the corridor limits:
https://fp.mysocialpinpoint.com/central-el-camino-plan. For San Mateo, SamTrans hosted a pop-up table on the 4th of July at Central Park. A total of 310 comments collected through the Phase 1 engagement interactive mapping tool related to San Mateo.

Phase 2 engagement will run from January – February 2026 and will include the following activities in San Mateo listed below:

Activity Date Communications
Online survey January 12 – February
28 City and SamTrans social media, city
newsletters, signs at bus stops, printed
materials, mailers
Community-based organization
meeting outreach Mid to late January Focused engagement with community- based organizations
Pop-up community outreach at
the San Mateo Downtown
Library
January 12, February 7
City and SamTrans social media, city
newsletters
Virtual listening sessions February 4, 11, and 12
Focused engagement with target
audiences through
commissions/chambers (including the
Downtown San Mateo Association),
mailers
City Council presentation with
GBI February 23 City and SamTrans social media, city
newsletters
Virtual community workshop February 26 City and SamTrans social media, city newsletters, printed materials
The online survey provides cross section examples for the cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos and Redwood City, and prompts the user to select which alternative they prefer. For the City of San Mateo, the alternatives are as follows:
• Existing: What El Camino Real looks like today
• Transit: Faster bus service, wider sidewalks, and more trees • Pedestrian: Wider sidewalks and more trees
• Bicycle: Continuous separated bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and more trees Spot improvements which are anticipated to be included in all build alternatives are as follows:
• Safety
oTraffic calming
oTraffic signal gap closures
oMedians
oLighting
• Active Transportation
oCrosswalk improvements
oMore opportunities for crossing

99 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
oStreet trees or urban greening
• Transit
oBus stop enhancements
oTransit signal priority
oAccess improvements
The focus of Phase 3 of the engagement process is to gather further input from City Council and stakeholders, to assist in selecting alternatives to be advanced into the Caltrans project development process.

The proposed alternatives have the potential to remove parking along El Camino Real. In Spring, City staff is proposing to supplement SamTrans’s engagement process by conducting an expanded parking occupancy study along El Camino Real to build upon SamTrans’s August 2025 parking occupancy study and to provide door-to-door engagement for businesses and gather additional feedback about the proposed alternatives. Staff is requesting a $70,000 appropriation of Measure A funds to support this effort. Feedback from this data gathering efforts will be summarized and presented to City Council together with the findings of the Phase 2 Engagement effort later this year. A resolution is proposed to appropriate these Measure A funds. If funds are not appropriated, staff would be reliant on the August 2025 parking occupancy study, which evaluated parking conditions only along El Camino Real and did not assess side-street or on-site parking capacity. Staff would also be unable to conduct door-to-door business engagement or support other additional data collection to inform Council’s selection of a preferred alternative.

More information about the project, the online survey, and upcoming engagement efforts is available at:
https://samtrans.com/CentralElCamino.

Next Steps:

Following completion of the Phase 2 engagement period, in late Spring or early Summer 2026, SamTrans staff will return to City Council with a summary of the feedback received through this community engagement and seek feedback from the City Council to select an alternative or alternatives for inclusion in the countywide PID led by GBI.

It is anticipated that it could take up to 8-10 years for full implementation of the project including construction, following completion of the Central El Camino Plan.

BUDGET IMPACT:

The Central El Camino Plan is funded by SamTrans and a Transit Performance Initiative (TPI) grant awarded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The study cost is $732,000, funded by a $407,000 MTC Transit Performance Initiative grant and $325,000 in SamTrans funds.

The GBI Action Plan and Project Initiation Document are funded by SamTrans, through a $2 million grant from the MTC, as well as a $250,000 grant of local transportation sales tax dollars from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.

The City is providing in-kind staff support. Funding for in-kind staff time is supported by the Regional & Citywide Transportation Program Management (46r030) project. Funding for supplemental outreach for the Central El Camino Real project beyond in-kind staff time was not included in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 project budget but is recommended through the requested appropriation of $70,000 in the City’s Measure A funds to support a more robust data gathering and community engagement effort as part of this project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This Council action is exempt from CEQA, as it involves feasibility or planning studies for future City actions which has not been approved, adopted, or funded. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

100 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution

STAFF CONTACT
Jay Yu, Engineering Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7323

101 of 719

1 2
9 2
7 CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2026)
AUTHORIZING AN APPROPRIATION of $70,000 FROM THE CITY’S MEASURE A FUNDS TO THE REGIONAL &

CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROJECT IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND WHEREAS, in February 2025, SamTrans launched the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan (Central El Camino Plan), a corridor study for an 8.5-mile segment of El Camino Real (Caltrans State Route 82) within the cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and a short segment of Redwood City; and WHEREAS, the Central El Camino Plan is part of a broader effort called the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI), which aims to make El Camino Real a safer and more comfortable place to walk, bike, drive, and take transit by installing streetscape improvements along the corridor; and WHEREAS, the City would like to supplement SamTrans’s community engagement efforts in Fiscal Year 2025-26; and
WHEREAS, an appropriation of $70,000 from Measure A funds to the Project account is necessary to appropriately allocate the funds to finance the Project.

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

1. This Council action is exempt from CEQA, because it involves feasibility or planning studies for future City actions which has not been approved, adopted, or funded.. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.)

2. An appropriation of $70,000 of the City’s Measure A funds to the Regional & Citywide Transportation Program Management Project (46r030) in the Capital Projects Fund is authorized.

102 of 719

1 From: Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 9:35 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: FW: SamTrans bus stop rehab/upgrades...

Public comment

From: Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 9:10 AM
To: Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>
Subject: SamTrans bus stop rehab/upgrades...

All: The SamTrans bus stops have become a bit of a blight on the east side, in various stages of run down aesthetics and disrepair, requiring immediate and thorough attention as well as upgrading for inclement weather as this boulevard project proceeds.

As one who rents rooms to travel RNs who come to San Mateo to help out staffing in overburdened hospitals, one of the first 'asks' is about SM public transit and I sadly have to reply that it's limited in terms of accessibility and antiquated on the east side where I reside.

Please consider adding this to your discussions with SamTrans this evening as it's not just the El Camino corridor GBI that needs upgrading, attention, and TLC.

Appreciatively,
Amy Jussel Bedard, District 4

103 of 719

1 From: Sheri Boles
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 11:16 AM
To: Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom Cc: Martin McTaggart; Clerk
Subject: Item 7 | City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for Feb. 23, 2026 Dear Mayor Loraine, Deputy Mayor Fernandez, and Council Members Cwirko-Godycki, Diaz Nash, and Newsom,

I am wriƟng to you regarding Item 7 — Grand Boulevard IniƟaƟve and Central El Camino Real Plan — on the agenda for tonight’s Regular MeeƟng of the City Council.

I am requesƟng that as part of the adopƟon of a ResoluƟon to appropriate $70,000 of the City’s Measure A funds to support the Grand Boulevard IniƟaƟve, transit improvements, speciﬁcally bus stop enhancements along the east side, will be made to beƩer accommodate commuters.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Sheri

San Mateo resident

104 of 719

FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Grand Boulevard Initiative &
Central El Camino Real Plan
San Mateo City Council
SamTrans
Cassie Halls, Project Manager, SamTrans
Ingrid Ballus-Armet, Fehr & Peers
Charlsie Chang, SamTrans
City of San Mateo
Jay Yu, Engineering Manager
Bethany Lopez, Senior Engineer

105 of 719

Feedback Needed from City Council
Seeking a resolution to appropriate $70,000 of the City's Measure A funds to support additional San Mateo-specific studies and community engagement; and
Receive an informational presentation on the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan and provide feedback on
concept alternatives

106 of 719

Agenda

1. Grand Boulevard Initiative
Overview

2. Central El Camino Real
Multimodal Plan

3. Next Steps: San Mateo
3 107 of 719

Background on the Grand Boulevard
Initiative

108 of 719

A Brief History of El Camino Real
(State Route 82)
5 1920s
El Camino Real paved
as the Peninsula’s first
highway
1940s-1970s
101 and 280 freeways built,
shifting regional travel away
from El Camino Real
2006
The Grand Boulevard Initiative
(GBI) launched to transform the
built environment on
El Camino Real
2024
SamTrans reassembles GBI
focused on advancing
transportation improvements
in San Mateo County

109 of 719

What is the Grand Boulevard Initiative?
6 Grand Boulevard Initiative
The Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) is a partnership
between cities, countywide agencies, Caltrans, advocates, and business groups.

The purpose of GBI is to establish a cohesive countywide vision for modernizing El Camino Real (SR 82) to improve safety and mobility.

110 of 719

GBI Vision
El Camino Real is a safe and
vibrant street where people of
all ages and abilities travel
comfortably.
7 A ‘safe street’ eliminates fatalities and serious injuries by managing speeds, conflicts, and travel behavior.

A ‘vibrant street’ supports local businesses, strengthens sense of community, and is a place people want to spend time.
‘All ages and abilities’ means that everyone has the freedom to travel comfortably, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities.

111 of 719

GBI Builds Upon Local Corridor Studies
Every city in San Mateo County has been working on complete streets studies for El Camino.

In parallel, GBI serves as a forum for collaboration and continuity across these local studies.
8 Every city in San Mateo County has
been working on complete streets
studies for El Camino.

In parallel, GBI serves as a forum
for collaboration and continuity
across these local studies.

Community Based Organization
Meeting at Catholic Charities
Example of a completed corridor study
from Redwood City

112 of 719

GBI Funding Approach
Up to $1B
Rough order of magnitude cost for
up to 22 miles of streetscape redesign ($2025)
Up to $500M
Up to 50% of total project costs from
SMCTA Measure A & W Program
SMCTA considers
local requests to
sponsor projects
Up to $500M
Funding Need
Federal
Opportunities
9 State
Opportunities
Regional
Opportunities
Overall GBI Program
Funding Breakdown
Next Steps
Redesigning El Camino Real will be one of San Mateo County’s largest transportation projects.

113 of 719

Central El Camino Real Multimodal
Plan

114 of 719

The Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan:

Envisioning a Vibrant Corridor
Project Overview and Purpose
The Central El Camino Plan is working to create a shared vision for El Camino Real across the cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and a small portion of Redwood City The goal of this project is to improve El Camino to better serve people walking, biking, and taking transit
The Plan will be advanced as part of a countywide Caltrans project development process facilitated by GBI
11 115 of 719

Alignment with San
Mateo General Plan
2040
C1.1 – Sustainable Transportation
C1.2 – Complete Streets
C1.4 – Prioritize Pedestrian and Bicycle
Mobility Needs
C1.13 El Camino Real Improvements
C5.1 – Transit Ridership and Frequency
C5.5 – Transit Improvements
12 Project Overview and Purpose

116 of 719

Building Upon San
Mateo’s Efforts
The Central El Camino Plan provides an
opportunity to incorporate input from San
Mateo’s efforts related to El Camino Real
over the years:
• Transit Oriented
Development Pedestrian Access Plan
(2022)
• Bicycle Master Plan (2020)
• Ongoing Complete Streets Plan
13 Project Overview and Purpose

117 of 719

Relevance to Caltrans Repaving Project
• This Plan is separate from Caltrans State Highway
Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) EA-04-4W730
• Caltrans’ project extents are from El Camino Real
from 43rd Ave to E. Santa Inez
• Caltrans’ SHOPP project is a $34M repaving project with a planned completion in 2030 that includes:
• 140 curb ramp upgrades
• Two traffic signal upgrades (Hobart/12th, Hillsdale)
• Two pedestrian hybrid beacons at Monte Diablo and
10th Avenue
• City staff and SamTrans have been engaged throughout
Caltrans’ project
14 Project Overview and Purpose

118 of 719

We Are Here
Central El Camino Plan Timeline
15 Project Overview and Purpose
Needs Assessment Alternatives Development Community Input on Conceptual Alternatives
Narrowing down alternatives to
be advanced
2025 2026
Community Engagement
Phase 1 (May – Aug) Phase 2 (Jan – Mar) Phase 3 (Aug – Sep) Online Survey
Virtual Listening Sessions
Pop-Ups
Virtual Workshop
CBO Outreach
City Council
Online Mapping Tool
Virtual Listening Sessions
Pop-Ups
Walk Audits
CBO Outreach
City Council
City Council
Stakeholder Engagement
Continuous Collaboration with City Staff and Caltrans
Preferred
alternative selected
in GBI/Caltrans
process
2027

119 of 719

Alignment with GBI/Caltrans Process
16 Project Overview and Purpose
• Defining alternatives
• Detailed analysis, select
preferred alternative
• Design preferred
alternative
This is the process for a corridor wide redesign facilitated through GBI. Spot improvements can be completed faster if led by local jurisdictions through shorter processes, such as encroachment permits Central El
Camino Plan
completed

120 of 719

• Complete streets: lack of
safety and connectivity for
walking and bicycling
• Pedestrian access: challenging
to cross El Camino Real,
sidewalks are narrow or
obstructed, bus stops lack
amenities
• Safety: concerns about
speeding, red light running, and
pedestrian crossing conditions
17 Themes from City Outreach
Project Overview and Purpose

121 of 719

Data analysis conducted
to date
18 • Travel patterns
• Housing and development growth
projections
• Collisions
• Parking supply and utilization
(on El Camino Real)
• Existing and planned biking
facilities
• Demographic/equity analysis

122 of 719

Phase 1 Community Engagement

123 of 719

What Our Outreach
Looked Like
May – Aug 2025
Activities:
• Pop-ups
• Virtual listening sessions
• CBO meetings
• Online community survey
• Walk audits
• Mailers to businesses and business
sector focused outreach
20 Phase 1 Community Engagement
Pop-up event at Concert in the Park in Central Park
Walk Audit Participants in San Mateo

124 of 719

Phase 1: What We Heard:

Sustainability and Infrastructure Committee
Phase 1 Community Engagement
Central El Camino Plan
Presentation (July 2025)
• Consider prohibiting/restricting left
turns during rush hour
• Accessibility issues, narrow
sidewalks, missing curb cuts
Grand Boulevard Initiative Presentation
(October 2025)
• Support for GBI
• Concern about long project timelines
• Issues related to poor pavement conditions,
traffic backups, need for limiting left turns
during peak hours
• Challenges related to protected bike lanes
due to parking or lane-removal trade-offs
21 125 of 719

Key takeaways for whole
study area
Key takeaways for
San Mateo
• Congestion along El Camino Real at
cross-streets leading to US-101
• Need for separated bike facilities
• Unsafe pedestrian crossings and
narrow sidewalks
• Need for bus stop amenities, higher
bus frequencies and better
infrastructure
Phase 1 Community Engagement
What We Heard in Phase 1 from the Public
"Sidewalks [are]
too narrow in front
of businesses"
"[I-92] area not
hospitable for
pedestrians and
bicyclists"
"This is a scary
crosswalk. Lots of
high-speed traffic."
• 310 interactive map comments in
San Mateo
• Respondents noted poor
pavement and visibility and need
for improved bus connectivity to
Caltrain
22 126 of 719

Concept Alternatives

127 of 719

Spot Improvements Included In All Build
Alternatives
Safety
• Traffic calming
• Traffic signal gap
closures
• Medians
• Lighting
Active
Transportation
• Crosswalk
improvements
• More opportunities for
crossing
• Street trees or urban
greening
Transit
• Bus stop
enhancements
• Transit signal priority
• Access improvements
24 128 of 719

25 San Mateo Segments
Concept Alternative
San Mateo North*
San Mateo South*
*representative cross section: widths and lane configurations vary along the corridor
Crystal Springs Road

129 of 719

San Mateo North
Concept Alternatives
Existing: What El Camino Looks Like Today
Bicycle: Continuous Separated Bike Lanes
Transit: Faster Bus Service, Left Turn Lanes
Pedestrian: Same As Existing
Feature not always present
N-A1
N-A2
26 130 of 719

San Mateo South
Concept Alternatives
Existing: What El Camino Looks Like Today
Bicycle: Continuous Separated Bike Lanes,
Wider Sidewalks, and More Trees
Transit: Faster Bus Service, Wider Sidewalks,
and More Trees
Pedestrian: Wider Sidewalks and More Trees
Trees & parking alternate
Feature not always present
S-A1
S-A2 S-A3
27 131 of 719

Alternatives
Evaluation
• Evaluation is corridor-wide
• Low means doesn't meet criteria,
Medium meets some, High meets all
• Results will be tallied to determine
which alternatives rank highest
• Addressing community input will be
based on Phase 1 and 2 engagement
findings
• Caltrans is ultimate decision maker
28 Concept Alternatives
ExistingTransit
Pedestrian
Bicycle

132 of 719

Next Steps: San Mateo

133 of 719

Phase 2 Community Engagement
30 Activities Underway
Activity Date How we are communicating this
Online survey January 12 – February 28 City and SamTrans social media, city newsletters, signs at bus stops, printed materials, mailers
Community-based organization meeting
outreach
Mid to late January Focused engagement with community-based organizations
Pop-up community outreach at the San
Mateo Downtown Library
January 12, February 7 City and SamTrans social media, city newsletters Virtual listening sessions February 4, 11, and 12 Focused engagement with target audiences through commissions/chambers, mailers
Business mailers January 26 – February 28 Mailers to businesses on El Camino Real City Council presentation with GBI February 23 City and SamTrans social media, city newsletters Virtual community workshop February 26 City and SamTrans social media, city newsletters, printed materials

134 of 719

Council Input Milestones
31 Project Phase Proposed Timeline Topic of Discussion
Phase 1 Engagement-
Central El Camino Plan
May – Aug 2025 Existing Conditions
Phase 2 Engagement –
Central El Camino Plan
Jan – Feb 2026 Concept alternatives
Phase 3 Engagement –
Central El Camino Plan
Aug - Sept 2026 Narrowing down alternatives
Project Initiation Document
(PID)
2026-2027 Refining alternatives
Project Approvals and
Environmental Document
(PA&ED)
2027-2028 Selecting a preferred
alternative
Project Specifications and
Estimates (PS&E)
2028-2029 Feedback on specific design
details

135 of 719

San Mateo Supplemental Outreach
32 Request for Local San Mateo Funds
• $70,000 Local Measure A Funds to support
additional community engagement efforts
• Expanded Parking Occupancy Study on El Camino Real
(including cross streets)
• Door-to-Door engagement for businesses and gather
additional feedback on proposed alternatives

136 of 719

137 of 719

Thank You!
Scan here to take the survey!
Visit samtrans.com/CentralElCamino for more
information.

138 of 719

139 of 719

140 of 719

141 of 719

142 of 719

143 of 719

144 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 8 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS Account Number: 25-3112 File ID: 26-10887 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2026
SUBJECT:

Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Project — Direction
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a presentation on the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Project, receive public comments, and provide staff with direction on how to proceed with updating the City’s Zoning Code.

BACKGROUND:

Project Overview and Objectives
Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 (“General Plan”) was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024. The General Plan is the City’s long-range planning document that guides decision-making and establishes policies and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan includes a Vision Statement and Guiding Principles, along with goals, policies, and actions that outline how the City will address key community issues such as land use, circulation, public services and facilities, and housing. The General Plan includes several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Code. In November 2024, San Mateo voters passed Measure T, which increased height and density limits within ten specified study areas, and allowed for the full implementation of the General Plan’s Land Use Element. Building on the foundation of the General Plan, the Planning Division is working towards a comprehensive update of the City’s existing Zoning Code (Title 27). This will be the first comprehensive update of the City's Zoning Code in over 40 years. This update would include implementation of all applicable goals and policies in the General Plan, the 2023-2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”), as well as address compliance with State law, meet current best practices and include internal consistencies for an effective and user-friendly Zoning Code.

Over time, the City's Zoning Code has been updated and amended in various ways. While these updates addressed the City's evolving needs, they have also resulted in inconsistencies and redundancies within other sections of the Code. These issues will be addressed as part of this comprehensive update. Beyond General Plan implementation, this comprehensive update will focus on alignment with the Housing Element; establishing a clear, intuitive, and user-friendly framework; eliminating conflicts to create an internally consistent document; complying with recent state legislation; modernizing the Zoning Code to reflect best practices; and focusing on streamlining the entitlement process. The update will also support balanced and equitable housing production, economic development, transportation access, and sustainability. Additionally, this effort will include an updated zoning map to ensure consistency and usability for the property owners, applicants, and City staff.

The Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Project will focus primarily on Title 27 (Zoning) of the San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC). This title is most frequented by City staff and the public; thus the goal is to create a user-friendly Zoning Code that will make it easier for all stakeholders to navigate and understand the development regulations in our community. This study session is intended to provide an update on the progress made and the overall project timeline, summarize the outreach and engagement strategy, and seek high level direction on several key topics.

145 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
This report focuses and summarizes the major updates, and principal conclusions based on input gathered from interviews and discussions with City staff, stakeholder surveys to date, and a review of the current Zoning Code, General Plan, Housing Element, and applicable provisions of State law, as well as research on best practices from other jurisdictions.

The focus has been on the following topics:
Code Accessibility and Usability
Administrative Procedures
Land Use Regulations
Zoning Districts and Development Standards
Related Planning Efforts
As part of the Zoning Code Update, the team is reviewing the various adopted plans that interact and/or are referenced in the Zoning Code, such as specific plans, area plans and master plans, to assess what needs be updated in the Zoning Code.

The team will also assess each of these adopted plans for consistency with the General Plan and identify what needs to be updated, but the work to bring each plan into alignment with the General Plan will happen separately from this Project.

There are other related planning efforts that are happening separately but will be incorporated into the Zoning Code Update.

Such efforts include the following:

ADU Ordinance
The City's Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 27.19) was just recently updated to comply with State law, address local needs and improve ordinance functionality. This updated chapter will be incorporated into the Zoning Code but is not planned for any further updates or amendments at this time.

Historic Preservation Ordinance
Staff is currently working on amendments to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 27.66), which will set updated requirements and procedures for designation and administration of historic resources. This work is part of the implementation of the General Plan and will be incorporated into the Zoning Code once the effort is completed.

Housing Element
The Housing Element includes multiple policies and programs that require Zoning Code amendments to implement. For code amendments that have already happened, this work will be incorporated into the Zoning Code. For other necessary code amendments that have not happened yet, this work is being incorporated into the Zoning Code Update.

High Density Zone Districts
The current Zoning Code does not allow for the higher-density residential and mixed-use development envisioned by the General Plan through the establishment of the Mixed-Use Medium II, Mixed-Use High, Residential Medium II, and Residential High land use designations. It was necessary to establish new zoning districts to allow for timely implementation of the General Plan’s adopted land use designations. The proposed high density zone ordinance would implement the General Plan’s land use framework by establishing clear and objective standards for permitted uses, development form, and intensity. The work on this ordinance is ongoing, and staff anticipates that this effort will move forward in the first half of 2026 ahead of the Zoning Code Update.

Zoning Code Update Timeline
In March of 2025, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a qualified consultant to support the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Project. Staff received a total of four proposals in response to the RFP. Based on overall professional experience, quality of proposal, responses to interview questions and composition of the consultant team, staff identified PlaceWorks as being the best qualified to support the Zoning Code Update. On June 16, 2025, the City Council voted to appropriate funding to complete the Zoning Code Update Project and to execute a professional services agreement with PlaceWorks to support this effort.

Following approval, PlaceWorks and City staff held the project kick-off meeting beginning of July, 2025. Since the kick-off meeting, PlaceWorks has worked closely with staff in assessing the current Zoning Code regulations and other background

146 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
research. After a full review and assessment of the existing regulations, the team, in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office, developed a plan for how to organize and restructure the existing Zoning Code for efficiency and legibility.

Concurrently, the team evaluated and identified best practices that could help inform this Code Update and conducted background research on multiple zoning-related topics, which led to the identification of six key issues to solicit community input on. White papers were then developed for each of the six key issues, which are summarized in the next section of this report. These white papers and associated online surveys will be used to receive community input on a variety of issues.

A Community Outreach and Engagement Plan (discussed in detail later in the report) has been developed to guide how community and stakeholder input is solicited, and how it will help guide the drafting and development of the updated Zoning Code. The goal is to have a draft ready for public review in the Fall of 2026.

Concurrently with this Code Update work, the team is analyzing parcels that have inconsistencies between the current Zoning Map and the General Plan 2040 Land Use Map to develop a list of Zoning Map amendments. Focused outreach to owners and tenants of properties identified for Zoning map amendments will occur, followed by study sessions with the Planning Commission, to ensure awareness and collaboration before final recommendations are developed. Final adoption hearings for the updated Zoning Code and Zoning Map are anticipated in the Summer of 2027. The proposed timeline for the Zoning Code Update is included as Attachment 1.

DISCUSSION:

Key Issue White Papers
While the General Plan provides a broad and long-term vision for the City, the Zoning Code specifies how each individual property can be used to achieve those objectives. Zoning codes are the body of rules and regulations that control what is built on the ground, as well as what uses occupy buildings and sites. They determine the form and character of development, such as the size and height of buildings, and include provisions to ensure that new development and uses will fit into existing and surrounding neighborhoods. Zoning codes are also used to implement the community goals and policies expressed in the General Plan. However, there are some things that development codes cannot do, since they are limited in some respects by State law and other legal precedent. Further, not all issues outlined in the General Plan are addressed in the Zoning Code; instead utilizing other sections of the Municipal Code or other planning tools, such as specific plans and design standards and other adopted policies, to implement.

As mentioned earlier, the team identified six key issues to focus early community and stakeholder discussions and input. A white paper has been prepared for each of these six key issues, which include:
Building Height Limits
Commercial Uses and Regulations
Single-Family Residential Regulations
Public Noticing Requirements
Open Space Requirements
Setbacks/Buffers
The white papers include an overview of community goals, key issues, current regulations, General Plan direction and policies, applicable State laws, best practices, and questions for public input. A summary for each topic is included below, with the full white papers included as Attachment 2.

Building Height Limits
Building height limits in San Mateo have been regulated by voter approved initiatives (Measures H, P, and Y) since 1992, and this topic was a key issue of community discussion during the General Plan update process. In November 2024, following adoption of General Plan 2040, Measure T was approved by the voters, which allowed for the City’s height limits to increase as outlined in the Land Use Element. The Zoning Code Update will establish updated height limits to align with the story limits contained in the General Plan. In the meantime, the Council adopted Zoning Code section 27.02.220 (Consistency with Measure T, General Plan Ballot Measure). This provision specifies that in the event of a conflict between the General Plan and the Zoning Code, the uses, densities, intensities and heights specified in the General Plan shall control.

147 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Nearly all of the building height regulations noted in Title 27 of the Municipal Code refer to the General Plan 2030 Building Height Plan rather than being included directly in the Zoning Code. One of the objectives of the Zoning Code Update is to clarify the height measurement rules for correlating the story limits set by the General Plan to the maximum allowed height in terms of feet. In addition, the Zoning Code Update process will evaluate development feasibility to align with the densities (units per acre) and intensities (floor area ratio) identified in the General Plan while providing reasonable and context- sensitive transitions between zoning districts and development projects in San Mateo.

Commercial Uses and Regulations
Commercial uses and the associated regulations are a cornerstone of supporting San Mateo’s economic vitality and neighborhood livability. The location, scale and mix of commercial activities play a key role in shaping neighborhood character and advancing the General Plan goals to support the local economy, enhance neighborhood fabric and quality of life, and provide a wide range of uses to meet the community's needs. Through the Zoning Code update process, the City will examine how commercial land use regulations can balance economic vitality with neighborhood compatibility to support vibrant, walkable neighborhoods and meet the full spectrum of needs of the San Mateo residents and visitors.

This white paper includes a review of the existing commercial use regulations in the Zoning Code, directions and policies in the General Plan, best practice options, and questions for public consideration. Reassessment of the commercial zoning districts will include an analysis of what uses are currently allowed in the districts, what specific regulations should be added or removed, and whether any uses should be added, revised, or removed in these zoning districts. The updated regulations for the commercial districts will be applied to other zoning designations that allow for commercial activities, such as Mixed- Use and Office designations.

Single-Family Residential Regulations
Single-family, low-density residential districts are evolving to meet the changing needs of San Mateo’s residents and households. To address housing shortages, the State has adopted a significant number of new housing laws that aim to support the evolving housing needs of residents and address statewide housing shortages. Some of these laws focus on increasing housing opportunities in single-family residential districts, including measures like Senate Bill (SB) 9, SB 1123, and more flexible accessory dwelling units (ADUs) regulation. The City’s housing stock is also aging and in need of updates and investment, and updated regulations that reduce antiquated requirements and support current housing and family needs will support and encourage homeowner investments in their properties.

The City’s Single-Family Residential (SFR) Districts have not been comprehensively updated since 1992. The City has several goals for updating the current SFR regulations, including complying with recent state housing laws, converting subjective design guidelines into transparent and objective standards in the code and accompanying Objective Design Standards, simplifying development standards, and streamlining the approval process. This white paper notes best practices and questions for public consideration.

Public Noticing Requirements
As part of the Zoning Code update, the administrative and procedural requirements for public notification for new development will be updated to comply with recent state laws. Best practices for facilitating equitable community engagement, a General Plan priority, will also be considered. Appropriate public noticing periods are vital for the administration and procedural regulations in Zoning Codes, and this is an opportunity to clarify and right-size community engagement and public input expectations and opportunities. The appropriate level of participation from residents and stakeholders will be updated so that expectations are clear from the earliest stages of project initiation. Updates to this section of the Zoning Code will also consider streamlining the notice and entitlement process, especially for single-family and low-density residential projects.

This white paper includes a review of the existing public noticing requirements in the Zoning Code, directions and policies in the General Plan, the current related Zoning Code provisions, recent state requirements, best practice options, and questions for public consideration.

148 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Open Space Regulations
The Zoning Code Update will follow the General Plan’s direction to expand public access to open spaces and to encourage a variety of open space types, including privately-owned public open space, community gardens, multifamily open space, and public facilities such as parks and recreation centers. The white paper presents options for how open space, both private and publicly accessible, can be incorporated into new development. It also includes a review of the existing open space regulations in the Zoning Code, goals and policies in the General Plan, recent state bills, and best practice options and considerations.

Setbacks/Buffers
Building setbacks and buffers play a critical role in shaping the physical form of San Mateo’s neighborhoods, influencing streetscape and architectural character, access to light and air, and privacy. Building setbacks establish the required distance between structures and property lines, streets, or other site features, and are a fundamental tool for regulating the scale, placement, and massing of new development. This white paper addresses the setback and buffer regulations for the City’s zoning districts. The white paper summary also includes an overview of applicable goals and policies in the General Plan, recent state laws, best practice options/considerations, and questions for public consideration.

Community Outreach and Engagement Plan
As part of the Zoning Code Update scope, the team has developed a Community Outreach and Engagement Plan (Attachment 3). The Engagement Plan provides the City with tools and strategies to solicit input from the San Mateo community and its stakeholders, through various outreach programs which will help inform what goes into the Zoning Code Update. This Plan is different from the approaches used during the General Plan update process as citywide goals and policies have now been set; and this effort is now working on developing the best ways to implement them.

The overarching objective of this Plan will be to engage the San Mateo community and key stakeholder groups to share information about the Zoning Code Update and gather ideas and input about how to approach and address key issues.

Outreach strategies in the Engagement Plan include:
Two virtual and two in-person community meetings
Up to four online surveys
Up to 12 stakeholder meetings
Up to five study sessions with the Planning Commission or City Council (excluding public hearings for adoption) The first virtual community workshop was held on January 15, 2026, at 6:30 p.m., and included an online survey (which was made available in English, Spanish, and Simplified Chinese). The survey was used to collect input on the key issues the Zoning Code Update should address. There were approximately 34 attendees at the workshop, and the main objective was to provide an overview of the project and gather input on key issues the Zoning Code Update should address. The workshop included time for questions and answers, and small group discussions that covered topics related to single-family residential districts, commercial uses, and building height. Highlights from the small group discussion included:
Find ways to ensure that there’s sufficient parking in single-family districts Implement objective design standards that preserve community character Consider allowing small-scale commercial uses in residential districts and discourage incompatible commercials adjacent to residential areas
Incorporate design requirements that reduce building massing On January 26, 2026, two in-person focus group meetings were hosted at City Hall for architects, builders, and brokers who frequent the Zoning Code. The white papers on the six key identified issues helped guide discussions with the focus group attendees.

The City plans to host several other community workshops prior to finalizing the Zoning Code. To support community awareness about the project and engagement opportunities, the team will use a variety of methods, including print newsletters, flyers, social media, eNews and eBlasts, press releases, and updates to the project website (www.

StriveSanMateo.org).

149 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Next Steps
Public participation will be ongoing throughout the Zoning Code Update process, and the public is invited to contact staff directly at any point outside of the scheduled workshops and activities. Once administrative drafts have been reviewed for public comment and changes made, the Planning Commission will be asked to review the administrative draft Zoning Code and give feedback to staff on what should be added, kept as proposed, modified, and/or removed altogether to help frame next steps with the update process. The final Zoning Code document will be brought before the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to Council for review for final adoption. Staff anticipates the final adoption hearings for the Zoning Code Update to take place in the Spring and/or Summer of 2027.

CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION:

Based on the information shared in this agenda report, staff is seeking direction from Council on the following questions:

1. Any specific direction on the six white paper topics (Building Height, Commercial Uses, Open Spaces, Public Noticing, Setbacks/Buffers and Single-Family Regulations)?

2. Are there additional topics that should have in-depth analysis in a white paper?

3. Does the proposed Outreach and Engagement Plan align with project objectives and meet Council expectations?

4. Any other direction for the team as the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update effort moves forward? BUDGET IMPACT:

This work is being completed as part of the professional services agreement with PlaceWork that was approved by City Council on June 16, 2025. This project is being funded by the Advance Planning Fund (Fund 225) and does not have an impact on the City's General Fund.

NOTICE PROVIDED:

All meeting noticing requirements were met. In addition, meeting notifications were sent out to the interested parties list, included in the City’s weekly eNews and pushed out through the City’s social media channels.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, because the activity, which consists of discussion of updates to the City’s Zoning Code but no actions or amendments, will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and Section 15060(c)(3), because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, since it has no potential for resulting in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Zoning Code Update Schedule
Att 2 – Key Issue White Papers
Att 3 – Community Outreach and Engagement Plan

STAFF CONTACT
City of San Mateo Consultant – PlaceWorks
Sung H. Kwon Amy Sinsheimer Joanna Jansen
Deputy Director, Community Development Project Manager Managing Principal [email protected]
(650) 522-7203

150 of 719

LEGEND:

CC = City Council
PC = Planning Commission
2025 20272026
Zoning Code Evaluation/
Background Research
Zoning Code Update Schedule
Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Prepare Draft Zoning Code Update
Environmental Review
Final Zoning
Code
Draft Zoning
Code
General Plan EIR
Addendum
Final Zoning Code
Stakeholder
Meetings
Stakeholder
Meetings
CC Study Session
PC Study Session
PC Study Session
Stakeholder
Meetings
CC Study Session
Community
Workshop
Community
Workshop
PC Meetings
CC Meetings

151 of 719

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 16, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Building Height
Introduction
Building height limits was a key issue of community interest during the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 adoption process. Dating back to 1991, the City’s height limits were set by voter initiative (Measures H, P and Y) and implemented through the General Plan. With the adoption of General Plan 2040 in Ma rch 2024, and the subsequent voter approval of Measure T in November 2024, the City’s height limits were effectively increased with reduced height regulation contained in the General Plan.

As part of General Plan implementation, the Comprehensive Zoning Co de Update (CZCU) project will establish updated height limits within the City’s Zoning Code (Title 27) to align with the story limits contained in the General Plan. Height regulations are most typically contained in a jurisdiction’s zoning code, and this transition is intended to align with that best practice and implement an updated approach for how the City sets and regulates height.

Prior to starting the CZCU project, the City drafted four new high -density districts for residential and mixed-use zones to implement the highest allowed densities referenced in the General Plan (99 units/acre and 130 units/acre). Public hearings to consider adoption of these new high density districts are planned for the first half of 2026. The work to draft these updated standards included assessments of appropriate building height limits for this level of density, and helped to inform the height requirements and regulations discussed in this white paper.

This white paper includes a review of the existing height regulations in the Zoning Code, directions and policies in the General Plan, a recent state bill related to height and proximity to public transportation, best practice options and considerations, a nd questions that will be asked for the public to provide input.

City and Community Goals
The City is seeking to update the Zoning Code’s building height regulations to ensure development feasibility for the identified densities and/or intensities, while providing reasonable and context - sensitive transitions between zoning districts and development projects in San Mateo. The City wants

152 of 719

January 16, 2026 | Page 2
to clarify the height measurement rules for correlating the story limits set by the General Plan to the maximum allowed height in terms of feet. Additionally, the City wants to improve the clarity of the code and make the building height regulations more u ser-friendly and better aligned with current construction practices. For the new high density districts (discussed in detail below), the City asked for building height sections to help visualize the potential height and massing of buildings and illustrate how stories translate to feet for different building types (i.e., residential, mixed-use, commercial, etc.).

Overview of Key Issue Topic
In zoning codes, building height regulations are established to dictate the maximum allowed height in terms of feet and/or the number of stories, define how height is measured, provide parameters for allowed design features, and outline specific height exc eptions. These regulations must balance multiple planning objectives, including meeting residential density requirements from the General Plan, accommodating appropriate building types, complementing the existing neighborhood character, and ensuring economic feasibility for developers.

Properly setting height limits requires analyzing a community's existing regulations and conditions. It also means considering the California Building Code (CBC), which links building height to specific construction materials and methods. Failing to review these conditions can inadvertently make desired development types economically unfeasible, hinder density goals, and/or result in building styles that do not align with the community’s vision.

To create projects that align with community objectives, height regulations often provide limits in both feet and the number of stories. Height is typically measured from the existing grade (i.e., the ground's surface level before construction, or the proposed exterior grade, whichever is lower) to the top of the roof structure.

Adopting effective building height regulations requires them to correlate with density requirements, provide clear and adaptable rules, and allow for flexibility in design.

High Density District Analysis
As part of the process for drafting the four new high density districts, the Project Team analyzed how the General Plan’s new higher density requirements aligned with the existing height standards in the Zoning Code. This process involved developing a methodology to correlate building height, measured in both feet and the number of stories – the latter being specified in the General Plan – with density and other development standards. The Project Team worked together to arrive at assumptions for floor heights for different types of projects to calculate maximum height for each of the new districts based on the maximum number of stories allowed in the corresponding General Plan land use designation.

Based on these height guidelines, the Project Team created illustrations for three types of example projects: (1) an eight -story residential-only project; (2) an eight -story mixed-use project with ground - floor retail, office space on the second, third, and fourth stories, and residential on the fifth through eighth stories; and (3) an eight -story office-only project. The illustration below shows the residential- only project type for an eight-story building, representing the General Plan’s Residential High land use designation. The building height standards in this illustration were designed based on a 13-foot floor-

153 of 719

January 16, 2026 | Page 3
to-floor height standard for the first story , 11 -foot floor-to-floor height standard for all subsequent floors above, and a consistent 14-inch floor thickness throughout the building, which is not marked on the illustration. The first floor is designed with a higher floor-to-floor height to accommodate common area lobby activities and amenities, mechanical and utility spaces, and to provide a more flexible ground-floor presence along the street.

Source: PlaceWorks (2025)
For non-residential-only projects and mixed-use projects that include non-residential uses, the ground- level and typical floor ceiling heights are calculated based on similar assumptions, with higher ceiling heights allowed for ground -level and non-residential floors. After specific heights were calculated for the four project types, the City made the decision to round the building height to the nearest “0” or “5” number in the ones-place to make the Zoning Code more user-friendly. For example, for the proposed Mixed-Use 4 District that would implement the General Plan’s Mixe d-Use High land use designation, the maximum allowed building height for feet was increased from 98 feet to 100 feet to accommodate eight stories for a mixed-use project with residential units. The proposed height limits for the four high density districts are as follows:

154 of 719

January 16, 2026 | Page 4

Proposed
Zoning
District
Name
Residential Height Limit

Mixed-Use with Residential
Height Limit
Non-residential Height
Limit
Measured in
Number of
Stories
Measured in
Feet
Measured in
number of
stories
Measured in
Feet
Measured in
Number of
Stories
Measured in
Feet
R6 6 70’
(11.7’/story)

N/A N/A N/A N/A
R7 8 90’
(11.25’/story)

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mixed-Use
3 6 70’
(11.7’/story)
6 75’
(12.5’/story)
4 60’
(15’/story)
Mixed-Use
4 8 90’
(11.25’/story)
8 100’
(12.5’/story)
5 75’
(15’/story)
Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
The current regulations in the Zoning Code that address building height are summarized below:
• The SMMC includes building height regulations throughout Title 27 (Zoning). However, building height regulations for nearly all of the zoning districts refer back to the General Plan 2030 Building Height Plan rather than being included directly in the Zoning Code. • The R1 and R2 Districts are the only districts with specific height regulations provided in the Zoning Code. Section 27.18.050 (Building Height and Daylight Plane) provides the following two required maximum height limits: walls can have a maximum height of 24 feet, and the highest point of the roof can have a maximum height of 32 feet. Both of these limits are measured from the existing grade and apply in the R1 and R2 Districts. Existing homes that exceed the height limit are allowed to construct additions to the existing roof line height. The Section also provides daylight plane
0F1 regulations in the R1 and R2 Districts for both the primary buildings and structures. The daylight plane is intended to prevent buildings from overshadowing their neighbors while allowing for encroachment features (e.g., dormers, architectural elements, antennas), hillside parcels, and other specific conditions.

1 Section 27.04.143 (Daylight Plane) defines “daylight plane” as an “inclined plane, beginning at a stated height above grade and extending into the site at a stated upward angle to the horizontal, which may limit the height or horizontal extent of structures at any specific point on the site where the daylight plane is more restrictive than the height limit or the minimum yard applicable at such point on the site.

155 of 719

January 16, 2026 | Page 5
• Section 27.02.060 (Height Limitations and Exceptions) provides supplemental building height regulations and exceptions to maximum allowed height regulations for accessory features, such as parapet walls, elevator enclosures and mechanical equipment, for individual zoning districts, except for the R1 and R2 Districts. This Section includes exceptions to maximum height and bulk regulations for improvements or additions to existing nonconforming buildings. This Section also gives the Zoning Administrator authority to require applications to go through additional review by the Planning Commission for specific project features. • Chapter 27.40 (Building Height and Bulk) has a chapter title that presumably is applicable for building height regulations citywide. However, the regulations in the chapter only apply to the Downtown Specific Plan area.
• Section 27.04.080 (Building Height) defines the term “building height” in the SMMC as the following: The vertical distance, measured from existing grade at any point along the perimeter of a building, to the highest plateline of the structure directly above that point, regardless of whether that point is on the same plane as the building where it touches the ground. Different setback requirements as a result of different building heights shall be applied to different portions of the building. Setback requirements determined by building height may utilize the height of an intermediate plate height of the building plane that touches the ground where the building above that intermediate plate height is set back a distance equal to 25 percent of the width of the structure at that point from the building plane that meets the ground, as illustrated in the following figure:

156 of 719

January 16, 2026 | Page 6
General Plan’s Direction and Policies
The General Plan introduced four new land use designations (Residential Medium II, Residential High, Mixed-Use Medium II, Mixed-Use High) to allow for higher densities. The General Plan also provides the maximum number of stories, but not the corresponding maximum height measured in feet, that will be allowed for each of these four new land use designations. This was an intentional policy choice that was made in order to move specific height regulations out of the General Plan and into the Zoning Code.

The following lists these four new land use designations and their corresponding allowed density, height limits, and floor area ratio (FAR) regulations, where applicable:
• Residential Medium II: 51 – 99 units/acre | 4 – 6 stories | N/A • Residential High: 100 – 130 units/ acre | 5 – 8 stories | N/A • Mixed-Use Medium II: 51 – 99 units/acre | 4 – 6 stories | 4.0 • Mixed-Use High: 100 – 130 units/acre | 5 – 8 stories | 4.5 These General Plan height limits and densities are in effect, but the City does not have corresponding zoning districts or development standards that align with these higher heights and densities. To address this, the City will present four new high density districts to the Planning Commission and City Council to consider for adoption in the first half of 2026 to provide clarity to the higher densities and corresponding building height limits that are already in effect. These high density districts will be subsequently incorporated into the CZCU.

State Law Compliance
Senate Bill ( SB) 79 will become effective on July 1, 2026. This law requires all jurisdictions in eight counties, including San Mateo County, to approve qualified transit -oriented development (TOD) housing projects near certain major transit stops, effectively increasing allowable density in those areas.

Additionally, SB 79 sets specif ic density and height limits for projects that provide the required percentage of affordable housing units for lower -income households. The height limits range from 55 feet to 95 feet depending on one of two TOD stop types and the project distance from the stop. As part of the CZCU, the City will need to analyze the building height regulations in the Zoning Code to meet the requirements of SB 79. More information about SB 79 and how it applies to sites within the City of San Mateo can be viewed here: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4922/State-Legislation-Information- and-Resour.

157 of 719

January 16, 2026 | Page 7
communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consistent, and adaptable to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in this white paper include the cities of Costa Mesa, Milpitas, Sacramento, and Stockton, and Santa Clara County. • Costa Mesa was chosen because part of the code was recently updated and was seen as a good example by city staff.
• Milpitas was chosen because it was just comprehensively updated in 2025, the city has a similar built environment to San Mateo and is located nearby, and the code includes clear writing and consistent organization.
• Sacramento was chosen because it was seen as a good example by city staff and contains a detailed list of administrative and permit processes and procedures. • Stockton was chosen because it was just comprehensively updated in 2025, includes Clear and concise writing, the use regulations and development standards are clear and well-written, and there are detailed and easy-to-use site development and specific to use regulations. • Santa Clara County was chosen because it is located nearby, it contains clear writing and organization, and is w ell-organized by different residential district types (e.g., Rural, Urban Residential).

The following considerations will help inform how the San Mateo’s building height regulations are updated:
• The definition for “building height” should be clarified. The current definition both defines the term and also provides the rules of measurement for the standard. Other jurisdictions separate the definition of “building height” and then provide the rules of measurement in a different section of the Zoning Code. The definition would also benefit by being simplified to improve clarity for the reader . Specifically, building height is measured from the existing grade rather than from the lower of the existing or proposed grade, which could result in an actual building height that exceeds the height calculated under the code. Furthermore, building height is measured to the top of the roof plate, which might differ from the requirements adopted in many other jurisdictions.
• Most comparable jurisdictions reviewed include building height regulations that are measured in both feet and the number of stories. This practice is currently being utilized for the new high density districts and should continue to be implemented for all zoning districts in the CZCU.
• Building height regulations for nearly all zoning districts (not including the R1 and R2 Districts) reference the General Plan rather than directly including height limits in the Zoning Code.

However, all comparable jurisdictions align with standard zoning code practice by including height requirements directly in the zoning code rather than cross-referencing to the General Plan. This is convenient for users and mirrors other quantitative measurements provided in the City’s Zoning Code. Therefore, height regulations should directly be included in the Zoning Code. As noted above, General Plan 2040 supports this approach by not including any specific height limits, other than story ranges.

158 of 719

January 16, 2026 | Page 8
• As discussed in the “Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations” section above, the maximum height in the R1 and R2 Districts are currently provided and measured by two separate standards: the maximum height of the walls, which is 24 feet, and the highest point of the roof, which is 32 feet. However, all comparable jurisdictions measure maximum height only in terms of the maximum height of the building itself, rather than by separate wall plate and roof heights. Based on this review, in San Mateo’s R1 and R2 Districts, the City may want to adopt an updated limit that is only measured in terms of the maximum height of the building. Additional height measurement regulations and exceptions may be provided within the definition of building height in the new definition chapter of the Zoning Code.

Additionally, further research will be conducted to determine and align the current maximum height of the R1 and R2 Districts with the maximum height provided in General Plan 2040.

Since General Plan 2040 provides maximum height in terms of the number of stories only, the maximum allowed height in terms of feet will need to be aligned with the maximum number of stories for the R1 and R2 Districts.
• The list of supplemental building height regulations and exceptions to maximum allowed height regulations for accessory features provided in Section 27.02.060 (Height Limitations and Exceptions) will need to be reviewed. As many other jurisdictions take a more balanced approach or establish explicit height limits for height exemptions, the City should determine if reconsidering the height exemption for mechanical systems is needed or consider setting up limitations on height exemptions for mechanical systems. The review could determine whether there are additional accessory rooftop and roofline features that should be incorporated into these regulations, such as rooftop telecommunication facilities. Additionally, this review will evaluate how height limitations and exceptions can support and facilitate high- quality architectural design. Furthermore, this Section will need to be further reviewed to determine if any specific exceptions should be adopted to allow rooftops to be utilized as common usable open spaces for residents of a development project. • The existing maximum allowed building heights are not high enough to accommodate the higher densities allowed in the current code for the R4, R5, R4-D, R5-D, and R6-D zoning districts. The maximum allowed building heights will need to be updated to align with the story ranges and required densities contained in General Plan 2040. • Additional research is needed to determine how to best address the current daylight plane regulations in the Zoning Code.

Measuring Building Height
As discussed above in the “High Density District Analysis” section, the Project Team drafted the updated regulations by establishing assumptions about building height standards based on a review of the current City’s regulations and industry best practices . The Project Team considered how to correlate building height measured in both feet and the number of stories for multi-family residential, mixed-use, and office project types in relation to the number of required floors for each General Plan land use designation.

159 of 719

January 16, 2026 | Page 9
For determining the height for all other zoning districts during the CZCU process, the Project Team is seeking additional input whether to continue with a similar or alternative approach to either simplify or be more exact when determining building height for a zoning district. Additional regulations the Project Team will add into the Zoning Code include, but are not limited to, flexibility for hillside and sloping sites and accommodations for rooftop features (e.g., mechanical equipment and parapets).

Potential Questions for Public Input
• What are the biggest challenges with the current building height regulations? o Maximum height is too low
o Maximum height is too high
o Inconsistent standards between zoning districts
o Confusion from General Plan references
o No challenges
o Other (please specify):
• Which of the following best reflects your top priority when determining building height limits? o Encouraging more housing options and affordability
o Supporting mixed-use and commercial development
o Preserving neighborhood character and existing scale
o Promoting sustainable, transit-oriented development
o Other (please specify):
• What types of building and property design features make taller buildings more appealing? (Please select all that apply.):
o Step-backs and varied rooflines
o High-quality materials and façades (ornamentation)
o Street trees and wide sidewalks
o Ground-floor commercial uses
o Visual changes between taller building elements
o None, I prefer lower heights regardless of design
• When interpreting a zoning code’s definition and measurement rules for “building height,” are there any particular challenges you frequently come across when submitting an application? If yes, what are those challenges from the definition and measurement rules? • In San Mateo’s current Zoning Code (Title 27 of the San Mateo Municipal Code), to measure a building's height, one must measure the vertical distance from the existing grade at any point

160 of 719

January 16, 2026 | Page 10
on a building's perimeter to the highest plateline1F
2 directly above that point. Which of the
following building height definitions/measurement methods would you recommend adopting in San Mateo’s zoning code update? And, should the measurement be taken from existing grade, finish grade, or whichever point is lower?
o Vertical distance from grade to the highest point on the roof, including roof-top mechanical equipment and screening.
o Vertical distance from grade measured as the average elevation at the front of the building, to the plateline where the roof meets the wall. o Vertical distance from grade to an imaginary plane that is the allowed distance above and parallel to the finished grade, or as provided by the California Building Standards Code.
o Vertical distance from grade to the top of a building or structure. On sloping lots, height is measured from a hypothetical surface representing the average grade. o Vertical distance from grade to the highest point on the roof above. For a sloped, gable, hipped, or gambrel roof, the measurement is taken to the midpoint between the highest point on the ridge and where the eave meets the wall. o Other (Please specify the jurisdiction and/or the definition):
• Are there examples in other cities that provide clear, easy-to-use, and feasible regulations for correlating building height in terms of feet and the number of stories?

2 In SMMC Section 27.04.386 (Plateline), the term “plateline” is defined as “the line established by the horizontal girder which supports the trusses or rafters of a roof.” In other words, a plateline is where a roof meets the exterior wall of a building.

161 of 719

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 9, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Commercial (C1, C2, C3, and C4) Zoning District Uses Introduction
The San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) includes four commercial zoning districts in Title 27 (Zoning) (i.e., the Zoning Code). The current commercial zoning districts incorporate a range of uses that are allowed to develop by right and uses that require a Special Use Permit (SUP), often requiring additional development and/or operating standards to permit a specific use on a parcel. The commercial zoning districts would benefit from a review of what uses are currently allowed in the districts, what specific additional regulations are required, and whether any uses should be added, revised, or removed in these zoning districts.

This white paper includes a review of the use regulations in the commercial zoning districts in the Zoning Code, directions and policies in the General Plan, recent state bills, best practice options and considerations, and questions that will be asked during public input.

City and Community Goals
The City is seeking to update the uses within the C1 District (Neighborhood Commercial), C2 and C3 Districts (Regional/Community Commercial), and C4 District (Service Commercial). 1 This update is intended to align with the current local -serving commercial retail and service uses and General Plan land uses, and address the economic needs and trends in San Mateo. The updated commercial districts will be developed to align with and implement the City’s 2026-2029 Economic Development Work Plan, which strives to build a more welcoming, adaptable, inclusive, and resilient business and visitor community in order to support community vibrancy and long-term fiscal stability. This can be achieved by incorporating appropriate categories and types of uses to allow for future commercial growth and change and incorporate administrative and procedural regulations that help streamline permitting and review processes. The City intends to clarify ambig uities in the existing Zoning Code, particularly the distinction between different terminologies used to refer to the following two general categories for commercial uses: (1) office -/employment-based commercial uses, and (2) retail, restaurant, personal

1 The downtown commercial uses are not being included in this white paper because they are governed by the Downtown Area Plan, which will be subject to a separate update process kicking off in 2026.

(@ PLACEWORKS
PLACEWORKS.COM • Orange County • Sacramento • Bay Area • Central Coast • Los Angeles • Inland Empire

162 of 719

January 9, 2026 | Page 2
services, and entertainment uses. Overlapping definitions and inconsistent terminology in a zoning code often leads to unintended consequences, such as permitting high -traffic retail uses in office corridors or creating parking shortages. Clarifying these distinctions will ensure that development standards are appropriately aligned with the specific scale and function of each use.

The City also wants to modernize the existing uses in these districts, improve the formatting of the Code, and address potentially controversial uses in commercial districts, such as service stations and on -site 24-hour convenience stores, by establishing buffer requirements and performance standards for specific uses to better serve residents and business owners. Issues raised previously by the community regarding these uses include allowing them to operate overnight, an d associated lighting, design aesthetics, and public safety concerns where these uses occur.

Overview of Key Issue Topic
In commercial zoning districts, adopting clearly defined uses is crucial for developing resident - and visitor-friendly areas for building the business and retail community. By designating specific types of commercial uses in a zoning code, such as retail s tores, service uses, restaurants, entertainment facilities, and offices, the City can shape the character of redeveloped and new commercial areas and foster economic development in San Mateo to align with goals and objectives of the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040. Commercial use regulations should be forward-looking and flexible to accommodate the development of new and emerging uses, including, but not limited to, market halls, fitness activities, cloud kitchens (i.e., a commercial kitchen used only for takeout or delivery, food preparation , and/or cooking facilities), small entertainment venues, and other uses not yet envisioned but compatible with appropriate districts. They should also minimize conflicts between incompatible types of commercial uses (for example, auto service adjacent to pedestrian -oriented reta il) and integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods.

In addition to establishing a zoning district’s character, suitable use regulations can promote economic growth and create an environment that reflects community, business, and economic goals, objectives, and needs. The City can tailor commercial zones to focus specific types of businesses or industries in a defined area and citywide, leading to a diverse local economy. Furthermore, by requiring specific development standards and buffers based on the type of use, the City can design commercial areas to be compatible with both the surrounding environment and the community's vision.

Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
The current zoning regulations in the Zoning Code that address uses in the C1, C2, C3 and C4 Districts are summarized below:
• Chapter 27.30 (C1 Districts—Neighborhood Commercial):
o The C1 District is intended to maintain and enhance neighborhood shopping areas with standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential properties. ~ PLACEWORKS

163 of 719

January 9, 2026 | Page 3
Permitted uses are designed to include retail sales, limited office space, and personal services for the local area.
o The C1 District lists uses that are permitted and those that require a SUP. The permitted uses range from personal services (e.g., barber shops), small offices, retail stores, restaurants, affordable housing (i.e., low -barrier navigation centers) required by state law, and mixed-use developments (i.e., residential units above ground floors).

The uses that require a SUP range from automobile gasoline service stations, fast food establishments without drive-through facilities, parking facilities, community services (i.e., religious institutions), firearms dealers, and a range of residential uses (e.g., community care facilities, nursing homes, boarding houses, etc.). • Chapter 27.32 (C2 Districts – Regional/Community Commercial):
o The C2 District is intended to maintain and enhance major commercial centers accommodating a broad range of office, retail, and personal services of community - wide or regional significance.
o The C2 District lists uses that are permitted and those that require a SUP. The permitted uses include all permitted uses allowed in the C1 District, as well as additional uses such as offices, emergency shelters, hotels and motels, art and media uses (e.g. art galleries, publishing establishments), and retail and commercial services (e.g. automotive accessory stores, laundries, and catering services). The uses that require a SUP include all special uses permitted in the C1 Districts, such as automobile gasoline service stations, as well as additional uses such as clubs, hospitals, public transportation facilities and terminals, recreational vehicle storage, and theaters. • Chapter 27.34 (C3 Districts – Regional/Community Commercial):
o The C3 District is intended to maintain and enhance major commercial centers accommodating a broader range of office, retail, and personal services of community- wide or regional significance compared to the C2 District. o The C3 District lists uses that are permitted and those that require a SUP. The permitted uses include all permitted uses allowed in the C1 and C2 Districts, as well as additional uses such as ambulance service ; automobile, boat, and truck sales and rental; car wash and detailing facilities; and laboratories. The uses that require a SUP include all special uses permitted in the C1 and C2 Districts, such as automobile gasoline service stations, as well as additional uses such as restaurants with drive - through facilities and uses for public events (i.e., auditoriums, stadiums, arenas, armories, and gymnasiums).

~ PLACEWORKS

164 of 719

January 9, 2026 | Page 4
• Chapter 27.36 (C4 – Service Commercial):
o The C4 District is intended to create and maintain a broad range of citywide and regional service uses, including major automobile and truck repair, construction materials yards, and limited processing of materials.
o The C4 lists uses that are permitted and those that require a SUP. The permitted uses include all permitted uses allowed in the C1, C2, and C3 Districts, except for residential uses, including low -barrier navigation centers and emergency shelters. Office u ses located on properties located along Palm Avenue between Twentieth and Twenty-fifth Avenues are prohibited. The uses that require a SUP include all special uses permitted in the C1, C2, and C3 Districts (except residential uses), as well as additional uses such as fuel bulk stations and the storage of impounded motor vehicles on an open lot. • In addition to listing the uses in these four zoning districts, each chapter provides the development standards that projects are required to follow. The development standards provided include building height, floor area ratios, setbacks, buffers, and buil d-to-line requirements.

General Plan’s Direction and Policies
This section provides an overview of the General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and actions (GPAs) that will inform the updated uses that go into the Zoning Code’s commercial districts. The General Plan GPAs will help inform how to allow and develop the range of uses that will go into each of the updated districts. How the commercial districts are delineated will also support the City’s economic development goals.

A Diverse Range of Land Uses
To support San Mateo’s existing and future businesses and to maintain the City as a vibrant place to live, work, visit, and invest, it is essential to plan for a diverse mix of land uses that bolster the City’s commercial businesses and activities. By conc entrating commercial uses near transit and complementary types of land uses, the City’s commercial districts and neighborhoods can facilitate economic development, attractive commercial corridors, and retail areas where businesses can grow.

In addition, re sidents and visitors can conveniently access goods and services and cultural and entertainment activities.

Goal LU-3
Goal LU-3 in the General Plan’s Land Use Element was incorporated as a guiding principle for the City’s future economic activities and growth. Goal LU-3 states that the City will “provide a wide range of land uses, including housing, parks, open space, recreation, retail, commercial services, office, and industrial to adequately meet the full spectrum of needs in the community.” The Comprehensive Zoning Code ~ PLACEWORKS

165 of 719

January 9, 2026 | Page 5
Update (CZCU) is a core tool to implement this Goal by modifying the City’s existing land use regulations and determining how to regulate existing and new uses.

To implement Goal LU-3, the General Plan includes several policies to allow for a diverse range of land uses in San Mateo. Policies LU 3.3 through LU 3.8 collectively advance the General Plan’s goal of maintaining a diverse mix of land uses that strengthen San Mateo’s commercial districts and support vibrant, connected neighborhoods. Policies LU 3.3 (Neighborhood Commercial and Service Uses) and LU 3.4 (Neighborhood Commercial Preservation) focus on preserving and enhancing neighborhood - serving commercial areas by retaining local retail and service uses, particularly on the ground floor of new development, to ensure residents can conveniently access goods and services directly in their neighborhoods. Policy LU 3.5 (Support Service Uses) expands this vision by encouraging a broad range of service-oriented businesses, prioritizing their location in areas where they best support residential and commercial uses, including equity priority communities.

Policy LU 3.6 (Service Commercial/Light Industrial) reinforces the importance of service commercial and light industrial uses by preserving these areas for businesses that meet local needs and discouraging incompatible uses. Policies LU 3.7 (Hotels) and LU 3.8 (Visitor Economy) further diversify the commercial landscape by encouraging hotel development in commercial areas and allowing small hotels in mixed- use districts when they are consistent with the density of adjacent uses, and strengthening the visito r economy by encouraging and incentivizing a mix of entertainment, cultural, and retail activities that draw both residents and visitors.

Action LU 3.18 (Permitted Uses) provides a key implementation framework for these policies by directing the City to update and modernize the list of permitted uses and uses that require a special use permit in all commercial districts. Through the CZCU, this Action and the Policies above ensures that the City’s land use regulations remain aligned with evolving economic conditions and modern types of commercial uses.

A Sustainable Economy
San Mateo’s long-term fiscal health and overall livability depend on sustaining a diverse and resilient commercial economy supported by a strong tax base and reliable commercial retail and service uses.

As regional industries continue to attract jobs to the Peninsula, housing demand has outpaced supply, leading to increased costs and financial constraints that affect both residents and the local workforce that serves the City’s commercial industry.

Goal LU-11
Goal LU-11 was incorporated in General Plan 2040 as a guiding principle to create a more sustainable, resilient local economy in San Mateo. Goal LU-11 states that the City will “cultivate a diverse, thriving, inclusive, and green economy.”
The CZCU aims to strengthen and modernize uses in the City’s Commercial Districts to leverage the regional job market to create quality jobs, support the growth of local businesses, and ensure that workers at all income levels can live closer to employment centers. The CZCU plays a key role in creating ~ PLACEWORKS

166 of 719

January 9, 2026 | Page 6
a thriving, adaptable commercial environment that supports businesses, increases access to goods and services, and contributes to the City’s economic future.

The CZCU will advance Goal LU -11 by aligning the City’s commercial district regulations with policies that strengthen, diversify, and stabilize San Mateo’s economic base. By modernizing permitted uses, clarifying development standards, and supporting the r etention and growth of local businesses, the CZCU will help address Policies LU 11.1 (Economic Development) and LU 11.4 (Diverse Economic Base) by creating an environment where a broad mix of commercial, service, and employment -generating uses can be located. These changes will also promote a better jobs -to-housing relationship consistent with Policy LU 11.5 (Jobs to Housing Balance) by allowing a wider range of commercial activities in locations accessible to residential neighborhoods, reducing commuting distances, and supporting local employment opportunities.

Action LU 11.10 (Small Business Support) calls for reducing regulatory barriers, updating outdated use definitions, and improving the clarity and usability of the Zoning Code, which in effect can help small businesses better navigate requirements, avoid displacement, and expand operations. Additionally, streamlined permitting and clearer regulations will support implementation of Action LU 11.11 (Commercial Displacement) by helping allow businesses to continue operating during redevelopment and by encouraging the return of displaced businesses to new or renovated commercial spaces.

Together, these policies and actions reinforce the General Plan’s commitment to a resilient lo cal economy.

The CZCU will also implement Policy LU 12.1 (Revenue Generators) by supporting land uses that diversify tax revenue sources and by aligning commercial regulations with the City’s broader efforts to sustain essential public services. Through the CZCU, San Mateo can better retain a strong mix of local- serving and regionally oriented businesses, respond to economic trends, and develop diverse types of commercial uses that advances the City’s economic development and sustainability goals.

Shopping Areas in Transition and Environmental Justice
As San Mateo’s commercial areas continue to adapt to changing market conditions, community needs, and long -term land use goals, the CZCU provides an opportunity to implement regulations that strengthen neighborhood -serving uses, promote equitable access to services, and guide the redevelopment of key shopping areas.

GOAL LU-7 establishes the City’s commitment to supporting the transition of existing shopping areas into vibrant, mixed -use districts that provide a range of housing, shopping, services, jobs, and community amenities. Consistent with Policy LU 7.1 (Shopping Areas in Transition), the CZCU will help guide the redevelopment of older commercial centers and corridors by allowing higher-density, mixed- use redevelopment that integrates restaurants, services, diverse commercial uses, housing, and open space while continuing to preserve essential neighborhood-serving uses.

GOAL LU-8 emphasizes promoting equitable health opportunities across all San Mateo neighborhoods, especially in equity priority communities. In line with Policy LU 8.14 (Retail Food Sources), the CZCU will ~ PLACEWORKS

167 of 719

January 9, 2026 | Page 7
support efforts to retain and expand access to affordable, healthy food options, including grocery stores, specialty food markets, farmers markets, community gardens, and convenience stores offering fresh food to areas with the most need. By updating the existing use definitions, broadening permitted food-related uses, and reducing regulatory barriers in commercial districts, the CZCU will support attracting a diverse range of food options in San Mateo.

State Law Compliance
There are no recent state laws related to uses regulated in commercial zoning districts that need to be addressed in the CZCU.

Best Practice Options and Considerations
This section outlines best practices and key considerations drawn from City staff input, state guidance, and comparable jurisdictions. The Project Team reviewed best practices from comparable jurisdictions to ensure the updated regulations reflect current planning standards successfully applied in comparable communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consistent, and adaptab le to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in the white paper include the cities of Milpitas and Stockton. The following considerations will help inform updates to the C1, C2, C3, and C4 Districts use regulations:
• The list of permitted uses and uses that required a SUP in the C1, C2, C3, and C4 Districts would benefit from being modernized. For example, these four Districts include a use called “printing, lithographing, or publishing establishments for newspaper and business cards,” which is an overly specific use name. Instead, this use can be consolidated within a broader category with similar uses and impacts. Per Policy LU 3.3, Neighborhood Commercial and Service Uses, Action LU 3.18, Permitted Uses, and Policy LU 11.1, Economic Development, the City will evaluate all permitted uses and uses that require a SUP in these Districts while also retaining and modernizing local-serving retail and service use types. • The lists of permitted and special uses would benefit from being consolidated and reorganized into a comprehensive, user -friendly use table organized with broader use categories (e.g., Residential, Commercial, Vehicle-Related, Industrial, etc.). Many existing uses are outdated and difficult to navigate in these four Districts (as well as the rest of the SMMC) because they are presented as individual sections rather than grouped in a table. Additionally, several uses include supplemental regulations that wou ld be more effectively presented as either (1) reference notes within a use table , or (2) moved and organized as their own section of the Zoning Code in a “Specific to Use” chapter, instead of being listed as text in separate subsections.
• The current organization of uses in the commercial district chapters follows a cumulative structure, where each successive district includes all uses permitted in the previous one (i.e., ~ PLACEWORKS

168 of 719

January 9, 2026 | Page 8
the C2 District includes all C1 uses, the C3 District includes all C1 and C2 uses, and the C4 District includes all C1, C2, and C3 uses). Replacing this structure with a modern, comprehensive use table would align the SMMC with best practices, improve clarity, and reduce confusion. A new approach would also better distinguish the permitted uses and development standards unique to each district and could, through more intentional selection of uses, better achieve the intent of each of the General Plan’s distinctive use classifications. This update is especially important given the City’s current challenges interpreting parking regulations in the C3 District, which is intended for larger-scale, auto-oriented commercial uses but also allows neighborhood-serving uses typical of the C1 District.
• The CZCU will adopt provisions to regulate potentially controversial or impactful uses, such as service stations, 24 -hour convenience stores, fast -food restaurants, and drive -through establishments. For example, the CZCU will distinguish when these uses are permitted by right versus when they require a conditional use permit (the anticipated new term for SUPs), which will vary where and how the use is allowed based on the purpose of the specific zoning district.

The CZCU will also include a chapter dedicate d to providing development and operational requirements specific to uses deemed potentially controversial or impactful. Specific regulations for these potentially controversial or impactful uses will include, but not be limited to, distance requirements to other uses, hours of operation requirements, and site maintenance regulations. These changes support maintaining vibrant and compatible commercial areas consistent with Policy LU 3.4, Neighborhood Commercial Preservation, Policy LU 3.6, Service Commercial/Light Industrial, and Policy LU 12.1, Revenue Generators. • As discussed in the previous note, the CZCU will include development and operational requirements for uses that may be deemed potentially controversial or impactful, such as service stations. Given the shift away from fossil fuels and toward electric vehicles, the Project Team will research comparable jurisdictions and best practices for allowing and regulating service stations for non -gas-fueled vehicles. The Project Team will review different types of service stations to allow, such as those for electric vehicles, and consider allowing revenue - generating ancillary uses on the same sites, such as convenience markets and vehicle washing.

The Project Team will also assess how to shift away from ancillary uses at service stations that may be more similar to industrial uses, such as vehicle repair. Additionally, the Project Team will assess development and operational requirements for drive-through establishments given the changing landscape of how these facilities function with online ordering and mobile pick - up options (e.g., Uber Eats and DoorDash). This assessment will consider factors such as site circulation and queuing, pedestrian safety, impacts to adjacent uses, and noise levels. The Project Team will also review comparable jurisdictions and emerging best practices for regulating drive -through operations to ensure that standards align with evolving business models, new technologies, and community goals.
• As part of the CZCU, the City is aiming to support and incentivize grocery stores and other key neighborhood-serving commercial uses. To address this goal of supporting and incentivizing ~ PLACEWORKS

169 of 719

January 9, 2026 | Page 9
other key neighborhood-serving commercial uses, the City will consider adopting the following provisions in the CZCU:
o Modernize the purpose statement sections of the commercial districts, except for Service Commercial, to address the City’s stated goals; o Allow uses by right in appropriate commercial zoning districts to reduce barriers to receiving entitlements;
o Modify development standards (e.g., setbacks and height limits) and design standards (e.g., landscaping and shading) to increase the feasibility of project development; o Allow for ministerial or expedited review processes for qualifying grocery stores and small markets;
o Update use definitions to be flexible and incorporate a wide range of modern types of grocery stores (e.g., small markets and food cooperatives); and/or o Provide incentives to encourage grocery stores in large mixed-use developments. The Project Team will research what types of incentives may be offered to developers to increase the number of food store options in San Mateo. • As part of the CZCU, the City is aiming to support and incentivize the development of hotel and lodging uses, which are critical to the City’s regional and visitor economy and an important revenue source. To address this goal, the City will consider adopting the following provisions in the CZCU, which advances Policy LU 3.7, Hotel , and Policy LU 3.8, Visitor Economy , by facilitating new hotel development and reinforcing the visitor economy:
o Modernize the purpose statement for applicable commercial districts to reflect the City’s economic development and tourism objectives;
o Consider a lodging/hospitality overlay that allows hotel and lodging uses by right in appropriate commercial zoning districts and/or areas of the City to reduce barriers to receiving entitlements;
o Modify development standards (e.g., setbacks and height limits) to increase the feasibility of new hotel development and reinvestment in existing lodging options; o Establish ministerial or expedited review processes for qualifying hotel projects to shorten approval timelines;
o Update use definitions to be flexible and incorporate a broad range of modern lodging uses (e.g., boutique hotels and extended-stay accommodations); and/or o Provide incentives within large mixed -use developments or opportunity areas to encourage the inclusion of hotels and a range of lodging options in project developments.
~ PLACEWORKS

170 of 719

January 9, 2026 | Page 10
• While the new commercial zoning districts will allow a range of modern, frequently utilized, and revenue-generating uses, the allowed uses will be compared for consistency with the goals of the Economic Development Work Plan, such as expanding and diversif ying the City’s tax revenue sources, enhancing entertainment and cultural opportunities, and supporting and increasing employment training opportunities, which are efforts aligned with Policy LU 3.5, Support Service Uses, and Policy LU 3.8, Visitor Economy. • As part of the CZCU, the City will research the distinctions between office - and employment- based uses, and retail, restaurant, personal services, and entertainment uses in the existing Code, and review how comparable jurisdictions address this distinction in their use definitions and development and operational standards. The CZCU will ensure that regulations are clear and applied consistently to the appropriate allowed uses across commercial districts, and that development standards are appropriately aligned with the specific scale and function of each use.

Potential Questions for Public Input
• For uses such as fast-food restaurants, drive-through establishments, service stations, and convenience stores, how should the City approach where these uses are allowed? (Select all that apply.):
o Allow them in all of the commercial districts
o Allow them only in regional commercial areas
o Require a conditional use permit
o Require a revokable administrative permit with performance standards o Prohibit them entirely
o Other (Please specify.):
• What types of commercial retail and service uses should be prioritized to be preserved to better serve San Mateo’s neighborhoods?
• What types of commercial uses should be allowed in San Mateo that might help the City’s local economy?
• What are the biggest challenges you experience when using San Mateo’s Zoning Code for commercial development projects?
• How could the City improve the permitting process for new or innovative commercial projects that meet established City objectives?
• What type of incentives should the City offer to encourage desired uses like grocery stores and hotels?
~ PLACEWORKS

171 of 719

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 22, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Single-Family Residential Regulations Introduction
Single-family, low-density residential districts are evolving to meet the changing needs of Bay Area households. Today, more residents are working from home, families experiencing housing affordability constraints are more likely to include multiple generations living under one roof, and more older adults are choosing to age in place. To address these changes, California has introduced an increasing number of new housing legislation that aims to support the evolving needs of residents and address statewide housing shortages. Some of these laws aim to increase housing opportunities in single-family residential districts, including measures like Senate Bill (SB) 9, SB 1123, and more flexible accessory dwelling units (ADUs) regulation.

The regulations for the Single -Family Residential (R1) District are found in Chapter 27.18 in the City’s Zoning Code in Title 27 of the San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC). This chapter, which has not been comprehensively updated since 1992, aims to create, pr eserve, and enhance single-family areas with larger yard areas. To comply with state law (SB 9), the City adopted Chapter 27.21 in 2022, creating a Two-Unit Development Residential Overlay District for R1 zones. This overlay provides specific regulations for two-unit developments and urban lot splits. The upcoming Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU) will update the R1 District (Chapter 27.18) to reflect recent best practices and state law, while retaining the existing SB 9 overlay district, which is currently consistent with State law.

This white paper includes a review of the existing single-family residential (SFR) regulations in the Zoning Code, directions and policies in the General Plan, recent state bills, best practice options and considerations, and questions to help facilitate public input on this topic.

City and Community Goals
The City has several goals for updating the current SFR regulations, including complying with recent state housing laws, converting subjective design guidelines into transparent and objective standards in the code and accompanying Objective Design Standard s, simplifying development standards, and streamlining the approval process. Building a single -family home should be a clear and relatively easy

172 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 2
process for someone unfamiliar with development who may only ever build or remodel a home once in their life. The City is seeking feedback on ways to simplify this process for property owners and provide flexibility to meet the needs of the City’s diverse housing types and households, while ensuring new homes fit in with their neighbors. As part of this effort, the City is assessing parking regulations to determine the right requirements for single-family properties, studying similar cities to understand how they have made it easier to build and adapt homes, and learning from the public about what they want when it comes to site design, public noticing, special cases and exceptions, and how to treat special uses and neighborhood-serving commercial uses.

Overview of Key Issue Topic
As a result of recent state laws and regulations, jurisdictions must comply with statewide housing legislation which focuses on reducing constraints for housing development across different zoning districts and streamlining review of housing. Jurisdictions are required to comply with state housing law, which is implemented through local Zoning Codes. Single-family residential (SFR) regulations that are clear and well- designed are important for building context -sensitive neighborhoods and providing diverse housing types.

Adopting Zoning Code regulations based on the current environment and future community goals can lead to the development of new housing opportunities while being designed to blend in with the visual and social fabric of existing neighborhoods. Incorporatin g development standards, such as building height, setbacks, and lot sizes, that are sensitive to the existing community can help ensure new housing is compatible with the surrounding environment. At the same time, adopting development standards that reflect recent state laws provides property owners opportunities to develop a greater variety of housing types on their own lots to increase the housing supply for family, caregivers, and individuals seeking rental opportunities.

In addition to the development standards in SFR neighborhoods, adopting clear and appropriate administration and procedural requirements for the Planning Application review process helps streamline the approval process for owners seeking additions, remodels and/or new construction.

When the process for developing single -family homes is clear and easy -to-use, the cost of projects typically decreases and projects are approved faster, benefiting the property owners, residents, and the City alike as this can support increased homeowner investment in their neighborhoods. Well- written SFR regulations ensure compliance with state law requirements, promote community growth, and help provide a framework to streamline development while aligning with neighborhood priorities.

Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
In the current Zoning Code, Chapter 27.18 (R1 Districts – One Family Dwellings) establishes regulations for SFR development within the R1 District. Chapter 27.18 outlines the purpose of this District, permitted and special uses, and development standard regulations. The Chapter provides standards for

173 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 3
SFR development including, but not limited to, building height and daylight plane, parcel size standards, floor area ratio, and setbacks and exceptions to setbacks (i.e., encroachments).

This Chapter also contains the following development regulations unique to the City’s Zoning Code for SFR projects, organized under the following sections:
• Section 27.18.035 (Substantial Removal of Existing Residence): This Section states that a Special Use Permit is required for the substantial removal of an existing residence without a change in use. This Section also outlines related requirements and exemptions. • Section 27.18.115 (San Mateo Park Planning Area): This Section provides setback regulations for the San Mateo Park Planning Area, which requires new residential products to be built at a deeper setback than allowed in other areas of San Mateo.

The City also adopted the “Single-Family Dwelling Design Guidelines” in 2001, which were most recently revised in 2006. While these guidelines are required to apply to SFR projects through the Single-Family Dwelling Design Review (SFDDR) process per Sectio n 27.08.032(b)(1), they exist as a standalone document that has not been codified in the SMMC. Because the guidelines are not written as objective design standards, often as considerations or suggestions rather than firm requirements, they can be difficult to interpret and enforce objectively, which may lead to inconsistencies in how requirements are applied to different projects.

General Plan’s Direction and Policies
This section provides the General Plan 2040 policies and action that will be considered and taken into account when drafting the updated SFR regulations in the SMMC.

Policy LU 3.1 - Housing Diversity
Policy LU 3.1, Housing Diversity, directs the City to “promote safe, attractive, and walkable residential neighborhoods with diverse types and sizes of homes for individuals, families, and households of all income levels.”
To address this policy, the CZCU will establish clear and objective development and design standards for housing projects for a variety of types and sizes, to meet the needs of households of all income levels in San Mateo. Additionally, the City will review and revise the permitted housing types to encourage innovative and flexible housing opportunities.

Policy CD 7.1 - Low-Density Residential Development
Policy CD 7.1, Low Density Residential Development, directs the City to require new homes in the Low- and Very Low -Density residential zoning district (i.e., single -family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and ADUs) to be consistent with the obje ctive design standards outlined in the City’s Residential Design Standards.

174 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 4
To address this policy, since these design guidelines are overall subjective in nature, the City will need to adopt new objective design standards for single- family development in San Mateo. However, the adoption of these new standards will occur after the completion of the CZCU. Until the new regulations are adopted, the City will maintain the current practice of referencing and applying the existing design guidelines document.

Policy CD 7.2 - Single-Family Design
Policy CD 7.2, Single Family Design, directs the City to “encourage single -family additions and new dwellings that address the preservation and enhancement of neighborhood visual and architectural character through context -sensitive building scale, materials, architectural style and details, and privacy.”
To address this policy, the CZCU will include clear and balanced development and design standards for SFR projects that consider the various neighborhood contexts of San Mateo. While these standards will consider the City’s existing architectural design, they will also recognize that high-quality, context - sensitive design does not always equate to maintaining the existing architectural style of a neighborhood. In some San Mateo neighborhoods, such as those with primarily post-war ranch homes, a variety of architectural styles may resu lt in a better neighborhood design. In others, deviation from more traditional architectural styles could be accomplished by using modern materials and incorporating similar proportions and roof forms. Together, the CZCU will support both cohesive and diverse architectural design styles to ensure flexibility for innovative design styles when determining the development and design regulations for SFR districts. As discussed above in Policy CD 7.1, while there will be some design standards in the Zoning Code, single-family design will primarily be addressed through the development of objective design standards, which is planned to happen after the adoption of the CZCU.

State Law Compliance
SB 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires jurisdictions to ministerially approve either up to two primary dwelling units on a parcel in a single -family zone (i.e., two -unit housing developments), the subdivision of a single parcel into two parcels (i.e., urban lot splits), or both. In 2022, the City adopted a new Two-Unit Development Residential Overlay District (Chapter 27.21). Since this Chapter has been recently updated, the CZCU process will not be updating the City’s SB 9 regulations.

SB 1123 (Chapter 294, Statutes of 2024) expands upon SB 684 (2023) to further streamline the development of small-scale infill housing projects in SFR zones. SB 684 streamlined approvals for infill developments of up to 10 homes on vacant lots in multi-family residential districts. SB 1123 extends the provisions of SB 684 to allow construction of up to 10 homes on qualifying single -family parcels near commercial zones, schools, transit, and other amenities. The CZCU will assess how other jurisdictions have incorporated regulations to address SB 1123 and determine how to best apply these new regulations in the CZCU.

175 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 5
Additionally, the City’s current parking requirements for SFR uses need to be further reviewed and updated in accordance with recent state legislation. This includes Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (2022), which generally restricts jurisdictions from imposing minimum parking requirements for residential, commercial, and certain other development types within one-half mile of a major transit stop.

The following considerations will help inform how to update the City’s SFR regulations:
• As discussed in the “Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations” above, Section

27.18.035 (Substantial Removal of Existing Residence) states that a Special Use Permit is required for the substantial removal of a residence that does not change the use of the structure. However, if the City decides to retain the Single Family Dwelling Design Review (SFDDR) process, substantial removals and remodel should be identified as a rebuild or a new single-family residence to establish a clear expectation for which project is subject to the process. The CZCU will also evaluate whether to remove planning application level review for substantial removal of walls or roofs if no second-story addition is proposed because single- story detached residences on stand-alone lots typically generate little, if any, controversy, particularly when designed in compliance with the current design guidelines and forthcoming objective design standards. Additionally, if an existing residence does not currently comply with all development standards, the CZCU process will clarify if substantial removal of a residence requires the proposed building to fully conform to all current development standards (i.e., if the existing building is non-conforming to any development standards) or if a substantial removal shall require an applicant to rebuild the subject development. • The current Zoning Code outlines identical requirements of limits on front paving setback areas in Sections 27.18.070(d) (Front Yard) and 27.18.080(b)(4) (Side Yards). The CZCU process will determine how to combine these regulations under one section to be written more

176 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 6
clearly and reflect how comparable jurisdictions organize similar regulations. Additionally, these sections do not provide specific landscaping and vegetation requirements within heavily paved areas. The CZCU will establish requirements that set a maximum amount of impervious surface allowed in front yards that applies equally to walkways and driveways. It will also consider setting a minimum amount of impervious surface needed to access garages and building entrances, particularly on narrow lots where access is challenging. This approach would give residents flexibility in how they allocate their allowed impervious surface allotment. Furthermore, it would specifically support senior residents by providing additional paved area to address walking and accessibility concerns, such as connecting ramps into existing homes. In addition, the CZCU will evaluate options for accommodating additional off- street parking on paved areas in situations where AB 2097 limits parking requirements and when garages are converted to ADUs or JADUs.
• Section 27.18.080 (Side Yards) and Section 27.18.070(b) (Garage Setback) require a minimum of a 20-foot setback for garages on street side yards and front yards. The CZCU process will evaluate if this requirement should be retained. Some other jurisdictions, such as the City of Milpitas and the City of Sacramento, do not provide additional requirements for setbacks or garages on street side yards and front yards, while the City of Stockton does also require a minimum of 20-foot setback.
• The City will consider if projects proposing extensions of walls within nonconforming side yards should still follow the Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) process as required in Section 27.18.080(c)(4). Although comparable jurisdictions also require a site plan and architectural review process for the extensions or expansions of nonconforming features in SFR zoning districts, the SMMC also includes the SFDDR process. The SFDDR should be evaluated to determine if this process is a better option for SFR projects with proposed extensions of nonconforming walls within side yards.
• The CZCU will determine how to update the parking requirements in Section 27.18.110 (Off- Street Parking) related to single-family development. For example, allowing tandem parking for SFR developments, making covered parking requirements more flexible, assessing the number of parking stalls required for larger homes, and looking at ways to incentivize off- street parking in areas where parking requirements cannot be enforced. • The CZCU will review all single-family setback requirements (front, side and rear) to assess how San Mateo’s requirements compare with other similar jurisdictions and if any changes or updates are warranted.
• To support General Plan Policy CD 7.2, Single-Family Design, the City will be looking at a future effort to convert the single-family design guidelines into objective design standards (ODS). For the most part, the Zoning Code will not include architectural design standards; however, the Code does have the ability to support design objectives, and to that extent, the CZCU will be assessing opportunities for appropriate inclusion of requirements to support single-family design goals.
• The SMMC does not currently have provisions that address requirements for double frontage or through lots. Comparable jurisdictions such as the City of Milpitas and the City of Stockton

177 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 7
include a description of front lot lines for through lots in the definitions section. The CZCU will adopt a similar approach to incorporate the definition for double frontage or through lots. • The SMMC currently provides very limited regulations that address irregularly shaped lots.

Chapter 27.21 (Two-Unit Development Residential Overlay District – R1 Districts), which provides the City’s regulations to comply with SB 9 requiring jurisdictions to allow two-unit developments and urban lot splits in low-density residential districts, includes a definition for flag or panhandle lots (Section 27.21.020(f)) and incorporates minimum width requirements for access strips or easements for flag lots and landlocked parcels created through urban lot splits. Except for these regulations, the SMMC does not include standards that address irregularly shaped lots for the purposes of ensuring consistent and compatible development patterns, preserving the existing building configurations, and avoiding access issues as a result of atypical lot shapes. Comparable jurisdictions such as the City of Milpitas and the City of Stockton allow the Director to determine lot depth, width, and setbacks for irregularly shaped lots in the definitions or Rules of Measurement sections. The CZCU will take a similar approach to incorporate regulations for irregularly shaped lots. • Small lots that do not meet current minimum lot requirements in the SMMC can pose challenges for development potential, nonconforming status, and consistency with existing neighborhood context. To address this issue, the CZCU will further research pathways to accommodate those parcels.
• The permitted and special uses in the R1 District contain outdated use names (e.g., sanitariums) and regulations that apply to specific types of uses, such as the regulations for cemeteries, mausoleums, and columbaria (Section 27.18.120). The CZCU will add categories of uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) to organize permitted and special uses to be easier to apply, reflect current practices, comply with state law, and provide regulations for specific uses allowed in that may benefit from additional development and operational standards.
• The City has extensive noticing requirements which exceed state requirements and those of other comparable jurisdictions around the Bay Area. Redwood City follows state requirements (see the “State Law Compliance” section of the Public Noticing white paper for details on recent legislative changes) with the exception of additional requirements for the Downtown Specific Plan. Sunnyvale sends out notices to property owners with 300 feet. By comparison the City of San Mateo requires notice to property owners and tenants within a radius of up to 500 feet from the project site. There is a significant cost to the distribution of these notices, which limits residents’ ability to invest in their homes and neighborhoods. The CZCU will assess and recommend updates to the City’s notification requirements, in particular for single-family projects, to reduce cost burdens and better align with best practices while being mindful of community outreach expectations.

178 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 8
Potential Questions for Public Input
• How should the City manage garage setbacks (the required distance between a garage and the property line) for front and exterior side yards in single-family residential areas? (Select all that apply.):
o Maintain the current setback requirements
o Decrease the required setbacks for garages
o Allow reductions for specific cases (e.g., narrow lots, alley access, design compatibility)
o Not sure/ No opinion
o Other (Please specify.):
• How should the fence height requirements for single-family properties be updated? (Select all that apply.)
o Maintain existing fence height limits
o Allow taller fences in side or rear yards
o Allow greater fence height along street frontages with design standards o Require setbacks or landscaping for taller fences
o Allow reductions for specific cases (e.g., narrow lots, alley access, design compatibility)
o Other (Please specify.):
• What types of single-family projects should the City continue to require public noticing for? (Select all that apply.):
o New one-story single-family residence
o Existing residence alteration with a Special Use Permit o Second story addition of 200 square feet floor area or greater to a single-family residence, if it is not a substantial removal of existing residence o New two-story single-family residence or existing residence alteration with a Special Use Permit
o Alteration, addition, or demolition of a single-family residence designated as historic resource, eligible for historic designation, or located in historic districts o All of the above
o None of the above
• When a single-family home project requires a public notice, how far from the property line should the City and applicants be required to notify neighbors?:
o Adjacent properties only

179 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 9
o Properties within 100 feet
o Properties within 200 feet
o Properties within 300 feet
o Not sure/ No opinion
o Other (Please specify.):
• Which of the following design features or architectural elements best reflect the character of San Mateo’s single-family neighborhoods?:
o Varied rooflines and building heights
o Front porches or covered entryways
o Use of natural materials (e.g., wood, stone, stucco)
o Well-landscaped front yards
o Detached garages or driveways with landscaped setbacks o Large front or bay windows
o Other (Please specify.)
• Which of the following design standards should the City adopt, if any, to regulate the visibility of garage doors along the street frontage? (Select all that apply.):
o Require the garage door to be setback a minimum distance from the front of the house
o Limit the percent of the front facade that a garage door can occupy o Limit the width and height of the garage door
o Require the use of similar materials and architectural detail of the primary dwelling o Require the garage to be accessed from a side street or alley when possible o Other (Please specify.):
• Would you like to see neighborhood-oriented, small-scale commercial uses (such as cafés or small markets) allowed in single-family residential areas? o Yes, they would make neighborhoods more walkable and convenient o Maybe, but it depends on the type of commercial use and/or only if carefully designed and limited in size and hours
o No, single-family areas should remain strictly residential o Not sure / No opinion
• Should tandem parking (where one car parks directly behind another in a driveway or garage) be allowed in single-family residential developments?
o Yes, tandem parking provides flexibility and helps reduce driveway widths o Maybe, but only for certain lot sizes or situations

180 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 10
o No, it’s inconvenient and can block access for residents of the property o Not sure / No opinion
• What types of exceptions to the required setbacks are acceptable? For instance, do you think a neighbor should be allowed to build a deck, balcony, trellis/arbor, or outdoor kitchen in a required side yard? Should a neighbor be able to install a greenhouse window or bay window projecting into the yard and by how much?
• What SFR requirements do you think are most important to maintain? Are there any requirements that you think should be changed or removed?

181 of 719

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 22, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Public Noticing
Introduction
Following adoption of Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, the City of San Mateo started the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU) project to implement and achieve consistency with the General Plan. As part of the CZCU, the administrative and procedural r equirements of the San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) will be updated to comply with recent state laws and best practices for facilitating equitable community engagement, which is a General Plan priority. Appropriate public noticing periods are vital for the administration and procedural regulations in zoning codes. It is also vital that community members understand the ways in which they may be able to participate in the development review process and provide input on a proposal before it is approved, as well as what understand the authority the City has to approve, deny, or regulate a project. The CZCU offers an opportunity to update the City’s public noticing requirements to clarify and right -size community engagement and public input from residents and stakeholders so expectations surrounding this part of the application process are clear from the earliest stages of project initiation. It will also include application process requirements that can assist applicants in streamlining the application process and increase their ability to receive project approval in a timely manner.

This white paper includes a review of the existing public noticing requirements in the zoning code, directions and policies in the General Plan, the current related zoning code provisions, two recent state bills related to public noticing requirements, bes t practice options and considerations, and questions that will be asked for the public to provide input.

City and Community Goals
The City’s current public noticing requirements for projects are more extensive than many nearby comparable jurisdictions, especially when it comes to single -family projects. The CZCU provides an opportunity to assess how best to provide the community with opportunities for public input and feedback in advance of new development and major policy decisions while managing expectations about how that input can be used to shape outcomes. Another objective is to find an appropriate balance that keeps residents well-informed about proposed development projects in compliance with

182 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 2
state law and consistent with the General Plan while also not adding excessive time delays and costs to projects. With evolving and changing forms of communication, the City is also seeking to update the methods used to provide effective public notification and community engagement.

Overview of Key Issue Topic
In zoning codes, public noticing requirements ensure that residents are able to learn about and provide input on new projects and policies, make the community aware of public meetings and hearings, and ensure that the City meets legal requirements under st ate law. Properly notifying the public of upcoming public meetings and involving all relevant stakeholders early in the application review process keeps the public informed on changes happening in the community, provides applicants the opportunity to explain their proposed projects to residents and stakeholders, and allows residents and stakeholders to share feedback with applicants and decisionmakers. California law also includes several requirements that jurisdictions and property owners must adhere to fo r public noticing procedures, such as project timelines, distribution methods, and specific content required to be included in public notices.

Local agencies have the option to exceed minimum legal public noticing requirements in an effort to broaden and deepen community engagement. However, in some cases, particularly regarding applications for housing developments, state law limits local agencies in what community engagement they can require of an applicant, as well as in what discretion the local agency has to regulate a project.

In practice, the additional local efforts beyond the minimum legal requirements often are implemented by using multiple methods for outreach, hosting public workshops and study sessions, and distributing informational materials to residents and stakeholders. By understanding the preferred options for how residents and stakeholders receive notices of what type of events and occurrences happening in San Mateo, the zoning code can be tailored to adopt public noticing requirements and procedures that inform residents and stakeholders about the development projects happening citywide.

Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
The City follows specific procedures to notify residents about proposed projects. These procedures are outlined in Section 27.08.050 (Notice of Application) and other sections in the SMMC. Section 27.08.050 (Notice of Application) includes the required methods for distributing public notices, radius for distribution, content required for inclusion in the notice, notice period requirements, and other public notice requirements. Additionally, this Section provides brief guidelines on what happens if the City fails to give notice in accordance with this Section and if public notice is not received by someone within the proposed project distribution radius.

While the Section provides several public notice requirements for public hearings, the Zoning Code lacks specific guidelines for public meetings (e.g., Neighborhood Meetings). Furthermore, the Section does not define noticing radii for different types of applications or provide other regulations that would be beneficial to support applicants and the community. These requirements have been adopted by the

183 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 3
City Council through resolutions with the most recent update in July 2024 (Resolution No. 65 (2024) - Early Community Engagement Process).

Planning Application Guide
To implement the Early Community Engagement Process adopted by the City Council, the City published the Planning Application Guide (PAG) in March 2025, which explains the planning application process and provides an overview of the public noticing requirements in the zoning code and resolution. The current process requires applicants to provide mailed notices to property owners and tenants either adjacent to the proposed project or within radii of 500 feet or 1,000 feet, depending on project type, and email notices to the City’s maintained interested parties list. Based on the project type, applicants may also be required to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting the application. Projects of a certain size are also offered the opportunity to attend an optional Planning Commission study session.

The PAG organizes projects by four -tier levels that are based on the notice radius required and the corresponding approval body (Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council) for the project types listed. The PAG also provides direction on the review procedures, neighborhood notification and meeting process, materials for public study sessions, sample meeting notices, and additional resources for applicants.

Currently, according to the PAG, an applicant might be required to go through at least two, and up to three or four, rounds of public noticing procedures, not including CEQA requirements or an appeals process. The Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and City Council each have the power to make the final decision on different application types.

General Plan Direction and Policies
The General Plan update process included the development of “10 Big Ideas” to highlight the guiding principles for the City over the next 20 years, blending goals and ideas from the past general plan with new concepts to address current challenges. One of these Big Ideas, "Strengthen Community Outreach," is a central principle for both the General Plan and the upcoming CZCU. This commitment requires prioritizing extensive community engagement through culturally sensitive methods to encourage early communication and broad representation. To achieve this in the CZCU process, the City will offer information in the predominant community languages, schedule meetings at convenient times and locations for community members and utilize multiple methods and mediums t o support public awareness and participation.

The following General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and actions on community engagement will inform the updated public noticing procedures that go into the zoning code.

Goal LU-9
Goal LU-9 was incorporated in General Plan 2040 to guide the City’s approach to inclusive community outreach and resident participation in planning decisions. Goal LU -9 states that the City will “include

184 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 4
everyone in community development decisions for a shared, sustainable future.” The CZCU will implement this goal by clarifying the community engagement process of public noticing requirements and streamlining the application process for project approval.

Implementing Policies and Actions
To implement Goal LU-9, the General Plan includes several policies to facilitate equitable and inclusive processes for public input during the project approval process. Policy LU 9.1 (Inclusive Outreach) and Policy LU 9.2 (Equitable Engagement) address the General Plan’s principle to prioritize community engagement through culturally sensitive methods and equitable approach to engaging with low-income and historically underrepresented communities. Policy LU 9.3 (Development Projects) and Policy LU 9.4 (Applicant Communications) ensures that the public input process during project review is clearly communicated with community members and stakeholders. Related to these efforts, Policy LU 13.2 (Public Education), which falls under Goal LU-13 in the General Plan, requires the City to promote public awareness of the development review and permitting process.

Actions under Goal LU -9 address the implementation of inclusive and equitable community engagement and public input processes. Action LU 9.5 (Community Partners) ensures that the City works with community partners to engage with equity priority communities in planning and policy decisions. Action LU 9.6 (Community Surveys) directs the City to periodically conduct community surveys representative of the City’s demographics to gauge service needs, policy preferences, and effective communication methods.

Action LU 9.7 (Communications Strategy) directs the City to “develop a communications strategy that outlines goals and tactics to engage a broad cross-section of the community.” The Action includes a list of specific actions the City commits to undertaking in order to implement the communications strategy.

Specifically, the Action commits the City to the following:
• Prepare public notices and other materials in the predominant language(s) spoken in the community and provide interpretation services at meetings as needed; and • Make public notices and other important documents available in print at local libraries, community centers, or other gathering places.

While implementation of these policies and actions go beyond the CZCU, including preparation of a communications strategy and conducting community surveys, they do serve to inform and guide the updated notification requirements in the zoning code. This includes assessment of requirements for preparing public notices in the determined predominant languages spoken in San Mateo and distribution methods that can be most effective in reaching targeted residents and stakeholders.

State Law Compliance
Recent changes in state housing legislation and Brown Act updates may affect local planning and zoning processes. The following briefly summarizes key updates from recent bills:

185 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 5
• AB 2904 (2024) updates public noticing requirements, extending the review period for public hearings from 10 days to 20 days when considering changes to allowed land uses or development standards (zoning code amendments).
• AB 1007 (2025) shortens the timeline for a responsible agency to act on qualifying residential and mixed-use project applications under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). (A responsible agency is any public agency, other than the lead agency, that holds discretionary approval authority over all or any part of a project.) The bill reduces the deadline to approve or deny a project from 90 days to 45 days, triggered by whichever of the following occurs last: (1) the lead agency’s approval of the project, or (2 ) the responsible agency’s determination that the application is complete. Certain state agencies (e.g., such as the California Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission) remain subject to the original 90-day timeline. Ultimately, AB 1007 expedites the approval process for these projects, cutting the previous PSA requirement in half.
• SB 158 (2025) builds on the PSA by clarifying which housing projects qualify for streamlined approval under state law and shortens the approval timeline for certain projects that are exempt from environmental review. The PSA requires local jurisdictions to expedite the approval process for development projects by establishing time limits to approve or deny permit applications. In part, SB 158 clarified the definition of a "housing development project" to identify which projects qualify for the expedited app roval timeline under the PSA. These housing projects include infill development, affordable housing when providing a certain percentage of units to lower-income households, and mixed-use projects that provide a certain percentage of total square footage for residential units.

Best Practice Options and Considerations
This section outlines best practice options and key considerations drawn from City staff input, state guidance, and comparable jurisdictions. T he Project Team reviewed best practices from comparable jurisdictions to ensure the updated regulations reflect current planning standards successfully applied in comparable communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consistent, and adaptable to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in this white paper include the cities of Costa Mesa, Milpitas, Sacramento, Stockton, and Santa Clara County.
• Costa Mesa was chosen because part of the code was recently updated and was seen as a good example by City staff.
• Milpitas was chosen because it was just comprehensively updated in 2025, the City has a similar built environment to San Mateo and is located nearby, and the code includes clear writing and consistent organization.

186 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 6
• Sacramento was chosen because it was seen as a good example by C ity staff and contains a detailed list of administrative and permit processes and procedures. • Stockton was chosen because it was just comprehensively updated in 2025, the use regulations and development standards are clear and well-written, and there are detailed and easy-to-use site development and specific to use regulations.
• Santa Clara County was chosen because it is located nearby, it contains clear writing and organization, and is well- organized by different residential district types (e.g., Rural, Urban Residential).

The following considerations will help inform updates to the City’s public noticing requirements:
• AB 2904 and SB 158 were updated recently and the City’s public noticing requirements do not fully comply with these state bills. While none of the comparable jurisdictions were found to have incorporated the latest housing laws yet either, the City should update the public noticing requirements to be in compliance with these two bills. Effectively, this will require a change from at least 10 days to 20 days of public notice before a hearing for projects that include a land use change or code amendment.
• Comparable jurisdictions use various methods for public notices. Methods include emails and newsletters, website postings, social media posts, mailers, newspapers, and other online and printed materials. Comparable jurisdictions also distinguish public not ices by type, such as mailed notices, published notices, posted notices, and additional notice types. Since the zoning code currently only includes mail and e -mail as the two public noticing methods, the code should be updated to expand the public noticing method options. • Per General Plan Action LU 9.7 (Communications Strategy) public notices and related materials should be translated to the predominant language(s) spoken citywide. To address this Action, the City is developing a Language Access Plan that will be starting in January 2026. The goal of the Language Access Plan is to ensure that the City provides meaningful access to information, programs, benefits, and services to people with limited English proficiency and ensure that language is not a barrier to accessing vital city services. • As discussed above, the current zoning code does not specify the radius requirements for different permit types. Instead, the City published guidelines for public noticing requirements by project type as the PAG. While the PAG does provide the specific rad ius requirements, the zoning code does not include most of the regulations written in the PAG. The Project Team will seek City Council direction to determine what radius requirements to codify. • Based on current requirements, an applicant might be required to take part in the following public notice periods:
o Notice for a pre-application neighborhood meeting (mailed);

187 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 7
o Notice of a public hearing notice for Planning Commission and City Council, if required, (mailed and property posting);
o Notice of pending decision (mailed) and notice of decision (emailed); and o Notice of an appeal hearing (if filed) (mailed and property posting).

While this number of noticing periods is generally consistent with comparable jurisdictions, it should still be assessed for consistency with General Plan goals and policies, effectiveness, and cost/time burden in relation to the value of communication efforts.

Potential Questions for Public Input
• Which of the following public notice method(s) do you prefer to receive information about projects? (Select all that apply.):
o Mailer
o City’s website
o Newspaper notice
o Email or digital newsletter
o On-site signage or posted notice
o Social media post
o Other (please specify):
• How would you rate the clarity of current public notices?:
o Very clear
o Somewhat clear
o Somewhat unclear
o Very unclear
o Not sure/no opinion
• Based on your experience, which of the following best describes the current number of public noticing periods you have been made aware of in San Mateo:
o I haven’t received any public notices
o Too few
o About right
o Too many

188 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 8
• Who should receive public notices to stay informed about development projects? (Select all that apply.):
o Only the property owner whose land is being developed o All those who own property within a certain radius
o All those who live or own a business within a certain radius o Other (Please specify.):
• When a multifamily project requires a public notice, how far from the property line should the City and applicants be required to notify neighbors?
o No notices should be required
o Adjacent properties only
o Properties within 100 feet
o Properties within 250 feet
o Properties within 500 feet
o Properties within 1,000 feet
o Not sure/ No opinion
o Other (Please specify.):
• When a site alternation project (e.g., fences or swimming pools) requires a public notice, how far from the property line should the City and applicants be required to notify neighbors? o No notices should be required
o Adjacent properties only
o Properties within 100 feet
o Properties within 250 feet
o Properties within 500 feet
o Properties within 1,000 feet
o Not sure/ No opinion
o Other (Please specify.):
• Besides English and Spanish, what language(s) do you think public noticing materials should be translated to in San Mateo?
• How can the City make it easier for you to stay informed and receive information about public noticing periods?

189 of 719

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 22, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Open Space
Introduction
Open space is a defining element of the City of San Mateo’s identity, shaping the character of its neighborhoods, supporting environmental health and enhancing the overall quality of life for residents, workers and visitors. San Mateo’s open spaces provide essential places for recreation and community connection, directly supporting the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 goal to enhance San Mateo’s neighborhood fabric and quality of life. As the city continues to evolve, preserving and thoughtfully integrating open space into new development will be critical to preserve nature as the foundation of the city – another goal of the General Plan. Understanding the community’s core goals and values as related to open space will be vital to ensuring that future gro wth strengthens both livability and the city’s natural environment.

Prior to starting the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU) project, the City drafted four new high density districts for residential and mixed -use zones to implement the highest allowed densities referenced in the General Plan (99 units/acre and 130 units/acre). Public hearings to consider adoption of these new high density districts are planned for the first half of 2026 to provide clarity to the General Plan story limits that are already in effect. The work helped inform the private open space requirements and regulations discussed in this white paper. In addition, this white paper presents options for how open space, both private and publicly accessible, can be incorporated into new development.

This white paper includes a review of the existing open space regulations in the zoning code, goals and policies in the General Plan, recent state bills, best practice options and considerations, and questions that will be asked for the public to provide input.

City and Community Goals
The City is following the General Plan’s direction to expand public access to open spaces and to incentivize a variety of open space types, including privately -owned public open space, community gardens, multifamily open space, and public facilities such as parks and recreation centers. Guided by this framework, the City is seeking to have a public discussion on open space requirements in the Zoning

190 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 2
Code to address regulations that include, but are not limited to, public versus private open space requirements and providing open space on rooftops. The City has raised a question about whether some of the current SMMC open space regulations (e.g., ground -level housing units having doors opening directly to open space areas) are a constraint for infill development projects. The City is also interested in researching methods to achieve additional open space areas in more urbanized, built -out environments, and the subsequent regulations to support this goal. Throughout this process, the City is aiming to provide both passive and active types of open space regulations in the zoning code.

Overview of Key Issue Topic
Open space regulations in zoning codes must balance multiple interconnected planning objectives.

These include being calibrated to accommodate residential density requirements from the General Plan, supporting the development of appropriate building types, providing amenities and benefits for residents of specific projects as well as the entire city, and ensuring economic feasibility for developers.

Effective regulations also rely on a clear understanding of a community’s existing conditions and address key development considerations such as access to light, ventilation, fire safety, and privacy.

Public and private open space regulations vary based on location, building type, and development intensity. Private open space may be required for individual residential units, such as balconies, patios, and yards, in order to provide residents with their own private usable outdoor areas. Private open space may also be allowed in different forms in the indoor and outdoor common areas of buildings, such as community gardens and rooftops, community lounges and rooms, and fitness centers. Effective private open space regulations correlate with density requirements, provide clear and adaptable rules, and allow for flexibility in design.

Publicly accessible open spaces, including those provided on private property, play a crucial role in enhancing connectivity and recreational opportunities. These open spaces commonly include courtyards and plazas, paseos, gardens, atriums, widened sidewalks, and rooftop areas. These open spaces are invaluable public assets that serve as a shared resource for both residents and visitors. They support ground-floor commercial vibrancy and offer outdoor areas for residents to gather, work, and relax.

Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
As Part of a Development Project
The current SMMC includes private open space requirements for higher density residential development projects, but this is not applicable to all projects as these requirements only apply to a few zoning districts. The R3 District (Multiple Family Dwellings - Medium Density) provides private minimum open space requirements for multifamily developments. Section 27.22.100 (Open Space Requirements) requires that a minimum of 200 square feet of “open parcel area” is pro vided for the first bedroom in each dwelling unit, plus a minimum of 100 square feet is provided for each additional

191 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 3
bedroom. These calculations do not include required off-street parking areas or driveways. The Section also provides the following guidelines that distinguish how ground-level units and upper-floor units each can meet the open space requirements:
• Open space for ground-level units:
o Must be contiguous to the unit;
o Must have a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction; and o May include setback areas.
• Open space for upper-floor units:
o May be met by open roof decks, balconies, lanais, or other open areas if the area provides a minimum usable area of 100 square feet and is not less than six feet in any direction;
o Allowed to be combined for several units as common usable open space; and o May be located entirely or partially on the ground level, if there is a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction, and does not need to be contiguous to the building.

For residential high -rise buildings in the R5 District (Section 27.26.080 (Development Bonuses for Residential High-rise Buildings)), providing certain indoor and outdoor private recreational open space areas are an option for developers to be granted bonu ses for additional floor area. Additionally, the Downtown Residential Districts (Chapter 27.28 (Downtown Residential Districts)) provide open space requirements for private and common usable open space areas. For the three Downtown Residential Districts (i.e., R -4D, R-5D, and R -6D), open space can be provided as either private or common open space. Private open space requirements range from a minimum of 80 to 100 square feet per dwelling unit and must comply with minimum dimensional requirements. Common ope n space requirements can be provided instead of private open space requirements by providing 150 percent of the private open space requirement as shared common open space. For example, when the private open space requirement is a minimum of 100 square feet, a project can instead provide 150 square feet of shared common space open space.

Open Space Standards Analysis and Formula in the Proposed High Density Residential Zone Chapters
As discussed in the “Overview” section above, four new HDRZ Districts (two residential- only districts and two mixed-use districts) have been drafted in order to comply with the density requirements for the four new land use designations that came into effe ct through the adoption of Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040. As part of these new districts, new development standards were developed using the City’s existing open space regulations in the R3 and R5 Districts and best practices from comparable jurisdictions as reference examples; however, it should be noted that the resulting open space requirements are distinct and specifically calibrated for the four new draft HDRZ chapters.

192 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 4
Based on this work, the open space requirements in these districts include the same formula for all four HDRZ districts, which offers flexibility for developers to provide private usable or common usable open space or a combination of both open space types based on the number of housing units in a development project. Applicants may meet the open space requirements by providing either or a combination of the following:
• Private open space only: A minimum of 50 square feet of private usable open space per unit; or
• Common open space only: A minimum of 75 square feet of common usable open space per unit; or
• Combination of private and common open space:
o At least 30 square feet of private usable open space per unit; and o An amount of common usable open space equal to 150% of the shortfall between the 50-square-foot private open space requirement and the amount of private open space actually provided.
• Example:
o If a development provides 30 square feet of private usable open space per unit, the remaining shortfall is 20 square feet (50 − 30).
o The required common usable open space would therefore be 30 square feet per unit (20 × 150%).

The SMMC does not include specific regulations for POPOS in Title 27 (Zoning) or anywhere else in the Municipal Code. However, Section 27.04.350 (Open Space) includes the following definition for the term “Commercial/executive common usable open space:” “open space in the form of a plaza, square, court, or other urban space which is at least 75% open to the sky, free from automotive traffic, and accessible to the public at large.” While this term is included as a definition, it is not mentioned nor are there any relevant regulations elsewhere in the SMMC.

General Plan’s Direction and Policies
Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 includes several policies that direct the City on how to incorporate and address public and private open space areas. The five policies discussed in this section provide guidance on how to incorporate public and private open space regulations during the CZCU process.

Privately-Owned Public Open Space (POPOS)
Taken together, Policy LU 3.12, Publicly Accessible Spaces; Policy COS 6.3, Privately Owned Public Spaces; and Policy CD 6.7, Public Open Space Design direct the City to expand public access to open spaces by integrating both publicly and privately owned and maintained spaces into new developments and public buildings. Furthermore, Policy COS 5.10, Community Gardens , directs the City to support community gardens on sites with quasi-public uses and on public land, such as City parks or facilities, or

193 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 5
as part of new private development, provided it is feasible and appropriate. To ensure these areas are functional, welcoming, and accessible to everyone, all policies require clear signage indicating public access, creative and innovative design, and the r emoval of physical or visual barriers. The combined purpose of these policies is to create a vibrant, interconnected network of public and private open spaces that improves the character and quality of San Mateo for all residents.

The CZCU will introduce new open space regulations that apply to both private developments and new public buildings. The policies will require these developments to include publicly accessible unique, and functional open space areas, such as community gardens. To incentivize compliance, it will be determined whether to incorporate into the CZCU the option for developers to receive special incentives for including a specified amount of open space. The design requireme nts for these spaces would include clear signage, enhanced user amenities, easy access, and features that promote a safe, welcoming, and functional environment that are open for public use. Furthermore, it will be considered whether it will be required for the open space areas to incorporate specific types of design elements, such as landscaping, sunlight access, seating, and user safety and security measures.

Policy CD 7.5 – Multifamily Open Space
Policy CD 7.5, Multifamily Open Space, directs the City to “require that a portion of required open space for new multifamily projects be useable for passive or active recreation.” To address this policy, the CZCU’s new open space requirements for multifamily residential projects will require a certain percentage of private common open space to be passive and/or active recreational areas.

Policy PSF 5.7 – Incentives for Public Facilities
Policy PSF 5.7, Incentives for Public Facilities, directs the City to “provide incentives to developers for projects that include needed space for public facilities in new development.” To address this policy, the CZCU’s new open space requirements will provide a list of incentives to encourage developers to provide dedicated space regulated by the percentage of the lot area reserved for public facilities in new development. The CZCU will also include a list of options of the public facilities, such as parks and community and recreation centers, that will qualify for the incentives.

State Law Compliance
There are no recent state laws related to open space requirements that need to be addressed in the CZCU.

194 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 6
Best Practice Options and Considerations
This section outlines best practice options and key considerations drawn from City staff input, state guidance, and comparable jurisdictions. T he Project Team reviewed best practices from comparable jurisdictions to ensure the updated regulations reflect current planning standards successfully applied in comparable communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consistent, and adaptable to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in this white paper include the cities of Milpitas, Oakland, and San Francisco. The following considerations will help inform updates to the City’s open space regulations:
• As discussed in the “Open Space Standards Analysis and Formula in the Proposed High Density Residential Zone Chapters” section above, the four draft HDRZ districts include requirements for private and common open space in new developments. The proposed ope n space requirements were guided by the General Plan and considered input from the development community in San Mateo. The proposed open space standards for the HDRZ chapters will be considered when determining the open space requirements for the other zon ing district chapters.
• As discussed in the “Privately Owned Public Open Space (POPOS)” subsection above, the term “commercial/executive common usable open space,” which might benefit from being clarified, allows POPOS to occur in the form of plazas, squares, courts, or other urb an open spaces in some areas of the city. Renaming and shortening this term would improve the ease of use of the standards and clarify what types of POPOS fall under this term in the SMMC. There are also several other types of POPOS that the SMMC does not refer to and that are allowed in comparable jurisdictions, such as playgrounds, parks, urban gardens, view terraces, greenhouses, atriums, indoor parks, and pedestrian walkways. The CZCU will consider allowing these types of POPOS in the municipal code, as well as renaming the term. • General Plan Policy LU 3.12, Publicly Accessible Spaces, directs the City to incorporate privately owned and maintained publicly accessible spaces into new development projects. While the SMMC identifies private and common usable open space categories, the Zoning Code does not include any POPOS regulations for development projects. To incentivize privately owned and maintained publicly accessible open spaces, the CZCU may consider incorporating said regulations for new developments similar to those provisio ns included in the City of San Francisco (see Section 138 (Privately-Owned Public Open Space (POPOS) Requirements)). • General Plan Policy CD 6.7, Public Open Space Design, directs the City to promote innovative and creative designs to create functional spaces in new developments and public buildings.

These regulations are currently not provided in the SMMC. The CZCU proce ss will include reviewing the design requirements for public open spaces adopted in zoning codes of comparable jurisdictions.
• General Plan Policy COS 6.3, Privately Owned Public Spaces, directs the City to enhance the accessibility, usability, and overall quality of privately owned public spaces. These regulations

195 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 7
are currently not provided in the SMMC. The CZCU should include regulations to ensure that privately owned public spaces are accessible and safe for public use. Specific guidelines in the CZCU may refer to the City of San Francisco’s regulations in Section 138, which require adequate ingress and egress access, well- designed landscapes, lighting, and clear signage indicating public access. In mixed-use districts, additional standards may address public access hours and amenities such as waste collection and publicly accessible potable water sources. • General Plan Policy CD 7.5, Multifamily Open Space, directs the City to require multifamily projects include a portion of the open space area be useable for passive or active recreation.

The CZCU process will include reviewing comparable jurisdictions to d etermine (1) what percentage of the required area will be dedicated for usable passive and/or active recreation, and (2) what types of passive and active recreation will be allowed in these areas. • General Plan Policy PSF 5.7, Incentives for Public Facilities, directs the City to provide incentives to developers that dedicate space in new developments for public spaces. The CZCU process will include reviewing comparable jurisdictions to determine the percentages of the lot area that must be allowed for public facility areas, as well as a list of options of the public facilities that will qualify for the incentives.
• Most comparable jurisdictions include rooftops as a form of private open space and provide regulations to guide their development. Jurisdictions like the City of Milpitas provide specific standards for rooftop open spaces, such as required landscaping and accessibility to rooftop amenities. The CZCU process will consider reviewing the City of Milpitas and other comparable jurisdictions to determine the rooftop open space regulations that may be adopted in San Mateo.
• In high -density residential districts, open space can be provided with higher intensities of development by using flexible, alternative types of open or recreational space that support both active and passive recreation. These spaces may accommodate passiv e uses such as landscaping, seating areas, and small gathering areas, as well as active uses, such as playgrounds, community rooms, or fitness areas. For example, the City of San Francisco and the City of Milpitas establish usable open space requirements per dwelling unit to encourage open spaces in multifamily developments. The CZCU process will consider incorporating passive and active types of open space areas in higher-density districts. • For projects that propose new residential units that are not single-family dwellings or ADUs, a separate section of the Municipal Code (Chapter 26.64 and Section 13.05.070) requires payment of an in -lieu/impact fee (identical formula) for City park and recreation facilities.

However, private park and recreation facilities provided as part of a project can be used as partial credit against the in -lieu/impact fee. Section 26.64.030(b) describes the types of park and recreational facilities that are eligible for credit. The CZCU will consider how to best align the open space requirements in the Zoning Code with these other code sections to ensure that the facilities eligible for credit are clear, compatible with development and easy to understand.

196 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 8
Potential Questions for Public Input
• Which of the following types of private usable open space should be provided for residential and mixed-use development projects? (Select all that apply.):
o Ground-level patios or garden areas
o Balconies, decks, or terraces
o Rooftop decks or patios
o Interior courtyards
o Designated community garden plots
o Any combination of the above choices
• Which of the following types of common usable open space should be provided for residential and mixed-use development projects? (Select all that apply.):
o On-property park and landscaped areas with seating
o Rooftop promenades, terraces, or viewing decks
o Plazas and courtyards that are also accessible to the public o Balconies, decks, or terraces
o Pedestrian pathways and paseos throughout the property and connectivity to public sidewalks and streets
o Any combination of the above choices
• What amenities are most important for privately owned publicly accessible open spaces (POPOS) to include? (Select all that apply.):
o Seating and shaded areas
o Landscaping and trees
o Public art
o Water features (e.g., fountains)
o Waste and recycling bins
o Lighting
o Restrooms
o Other (Please specify.):
• Which of the following design features would make you feel most comfortable using a privately owned publicly accessible space? (Select all that apply.):
o Clear public signage
o Visibility from the street
o Accessible entrances and pathways

197 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 9
o Lighting and security measures
o Other (Please specify.):
• The Project Team determined a formula for calculating private usable and common usable open space requirements for projects with residential units for high density residential and mixed-use districts. The proposed regulations require projects to include at least 50 square feet of private usable open space per unit, at least 75 square feet of common usable open space per unit; or a combination of private usable and common open space. Should there be a consistent formula for determining open space across all zoning districts, or should there be a specific requirement or formula depending on the density allowed in each zoning district? • What incentives would be beneficial to encourage the inclusion of publicly accessible spaces in private development projects?

198 of 719

MEMORANDUM
DATE January 22, 2026
TO City of San Mateo
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Key Issues White Paper – Setbacks and Buffers
Introduction
Building setbacks establish the required distance between structures and property lines, streets, or other site features, and are a fundamental tool for regulating the scale, placement, and massing of development. Building setbacks play a critical role in shaping the physical form of San Mateo’s neighborhoods, influencing streetscape character, access to light and air, and privacy. When thoughtfully designed, setback standards help create safe, comfortable, and visually cohesive neighborhoods, directly supporting the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 goal to enhance San Mateo’s Neighborhood Fabric and Quality of Life. As the city continues to evolve under the guidance of the General Plan, understanding how setback requirements function across different contexts will be vital to ensuring that standards for future development are compatible with existing neighborhoods and contribute to high-quality design.

Prior to starting the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU) project, the City drafted four new high-density districts for residential and mixed-use zones to implement the highest allowed densities referenced in the General Plan (99 units/acre and 130 units/acre). Public hearings to consider adoption of these new high density districts are planned for the first half of 2026 to provide clarity to the General Plan story limits that are already in effect. The work helped inform the setback and buffer requirements and regulations for the City’s higher density zoning districts and uses discussed in this white paper.

This white paper also addresses the setback and buffer regulations for the lower-density residential districts and all commercial, office, and manufacturing districts. The lower-density residential zoning districts (i.e., R1 and R2) provide setback regulations (referred to as “yards”) for front, side, and rear areas. This white paper includes a review of the existing setback and buffer regulations in the Zoning Code, directions and policies in the General Plan, recent state bills, best practice options and considerations, and questions that will be asked for the public to provide input.

199 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 2
City and Community Goals
The City wants to ensure the setback, buffer, and build-to-line requirements in the SMMC meet their desired objectives while also allowing for flexibility to support a range of project types. The City’s current setback and build-to-line standards are very prescriptive with a variety of requirements based on location and adjacent zoning districts. In addition, the setback standards need to be calibrated to ensure that they support the new density regulations in General Plan 2040. The buffer standards should balance encouraging development with maintaining appropriate buffer distances between less compatible uses. Additionally, the City wants to ensure that setback standards for smaller parcels do not make the parcels undevelopable.

Overview of Key Issue Topic
In zoning codes, setback, buffer, and build-to-line regulations must each balance multiple planning objectives. These include being calibrated to accommodate residential density requirements from the General Plan, supporting the development of appropriate building types, complementing the existing neighborhood character, ensuring adequate light, ventilation, fire safety, and privacy provisions are provided for residents, and ensuring economic feasibility for developers. In addition, these standards must be calibrated differently for lower-density residential project types, such as those in R1 and R2 Districts, versus medium- and higher-density residential districts to ensure that each district can feasibly achieve its intended density and design. Properly establishing setbacks, buffers, and build-to- line standards based on the intended purpose and density of a zoning district requires analyzing the City’s existing regulations and conditions.

To create projects that align with community objectives, setback and buffer regulations often vary depending on the location and building type. Setbacks are often regulated in the front, interior side, street/corner side, and rear areas for a parcel and are typically measured as the minimum distance from a property line, street, or other boundary that a structure must be located. Buffers, often landscaped areas, are designed to separate and mitigate incompatible land uses, such as residential uses from industrial uses. Build-to-line standards can be viewed as being the opposite of setback standards. Where setbacks measure the minimum distance from a boundary, build-to-line standards measure the minimum distance from a street where a building’s façade or architectural feature is required to be built in order to encourage a walkable, active, and safe street area. For higher-density residential and non-residential zoning districts, build-to-line standards and reduced setbacks often support transit-oriented and walkable urban development, while lower-density districts typically rely more on traditional setbacks and landscaped buffers to maintain a less urban single-family residential neighborhood character.

Brief Summary of Current Title 27 (Zoning) Regulations
The following list provides the sections in the SMMC that address setbacks, buffers, and build-to-line standards:

200 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 3
• The lower-density residential zoning districts (i.e., R1 and R2) provide setback regulations for front, side, and rear areas. In the R1 District, these regulations vary by subdistrict, with different standards applied in the R1-A District compared to the R1-B and R1-C Districts. The R2 District applies the same setback regulations as the R1 -B and R1-C Districts. Setback and buffe r regulations for the R1 and R2 Districts also include provisions for garage front setbacks, landscaping requirements, and limits on the maximum area allowed for paving.
• Additionally, the R1 and R2 Districts both contain specific standards governing exceptions to the setback requirements regarding how certain elements, such as awnings, patios, decks, bay windows, flagpoles, and chimneys, may project into or encroach on required setback areas.

Section 27.18.100 (Structures and Building Projections in Required Yards) in the SMMC outlines the respective standards for various types of building projections and features permitted in all yards and specific standards for the projections permitted in front yards. • The medium- to higher-density residential zoning districts (i.e., R3, R4, R5, R4-D, R5-D, and R6- D) also provide setback regulations for front, side, and rear areas. The setback standards provided for the R3 District are also applicable to the R4 and R5 Districts. The R3, R4, R5, R4- D, and R5-D districts also provide build-to-line regulations for properties within the Gateway area as defined in the Downtown Specific Plan.
• The commercial zoning districts (i.e., C1, C2, C3, and C4) provide requirements for building buffers. The C1 District also provides setback regulations for parcels fronting on El Camino Real from 9th Avenue to Belmont and build-to-lines for parcels fronting on El Camino Real from State Route 92 (SR 2) to Belmont and the Central Business District, respectively. • The office zoning districts (i.e., E1 and E2) provide setback regulations along street frontages.

The office zoning district regulations also require landscape buffers when parcels with office uses are contiguous to residential districts.
• The manufacturing district (i.e., M1) provides front and side setback regulations. The manufacturing district regulations also require buffers for manufacturing use parcels contiguous to residential and open space districts. Additionally, the manufacturing district provides buffer regulations for fast-food establishments from residential districts, as well as buffers from other fast-food establishments except when they are located in shopping centers.

General Plan’s Direction and Policies
This section provides the General Plan 2040 policies and actions that will be considered and taken into account when drafting the new setback and buffer development standards in the SMMC.

Commercial Development
Policy LU 3.2, Commercial Development, and Policy CD 8.3, Respect Existing Scale and Rhythm, address the incorporation of context-sensitive design and appropriate transition for new mixed-use and commercial developments. Policy LU 3.2 provides types of transition that include intensity of use, height, bulk, and design. Policy CD 8.3 also provides examples of context-sensitive design that include

201 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 4
providing breaks in the building face at spacings common to buildings in the area and stepping back upper floors.

To address these policies, the City will review Zoning Code changes for the current buffer requirements for the commercial, executive park, and manufacturing zoning districts in order to include new, clearer, and more comprehensive buffer requirements for new development next to residential areas. The CZCU will ensure that updates to standards are guided by context-sensitive design to facilitate appropriate transition from residential to commercial developments.

In addition, Policy LU 3.2 directs the City to ensure that “commercial development adjacent to residential areas appropriately address circulation, traffic, truck loading, trash/recycling, noise, visual impacts, public safety, hazardous materials storage, fire safety, air pollutant emissions, and odors in a way that minimizes impacts on neighboring uses.” To address this, the CZCU will update standards to better address these topics in order to minimize impacts of commercial uses on neighboring uses. It will also be determined whether these additional buffer regulations will be incorporated within each district’s regulations or be placed in a separate section that includes a list of performance standards that will apply to all zoning districts.

Action CD 8.7, Commercial Development Adjacent to Residential, directs the City to “Develop and adopt objective design standards that define and require appropriate design transitions from commercial to residential zones.” The CZCU will develop objective design standards that include buffer regulations to ensure appropriate transition from commercial to residential zones.

Single-Family Design
Policy CD 7.2, Single-Family Design, directs the City to “encourage single-family additions and new dwellings that address the preservation and enhancement of neighborhood visual and architectural character through context-sensitive building scale, materials, architectural style and details, and privacy.”
To address this policy, the CZCU will review Zoning Code changes for the current buffer and setback requirements for the single-family residential districts to ensure that single-family neighborhood visual character and privacy are preserved and enhanced.

State Law Compliance
There are currently no relevant state laws that address requirements for setbacks and buffers.

202 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 5
Best Practice Options and Considerations
This section outlines best practice options and key considerations drawn from City staff input, state guidance, and comparable jurisdictions. The Project Team reviewed best practices from comparable jurisdictions to ensure the updated regulations reflect current planning standards successfully applied in comparable communities. These references help identify approaches that are clear, consistent, and adaptable to San Mateo’s goals and current built environment. The comparable jurisdictions referenced in this white paper include Santa Clara County, City of Milpitas, and City of Stockton. The following considerations will help inform updates to the City’s setback, buffer, and build-to-line regulations:
• For projects in the R1 and R2 Districts, Section 27.18.100 (Structures and Building Projections in Required Yards) provides the standards for permitted projections and encroachments into required setbacks. Relative to comparable jurisdictions (i.e., City of Stockton, City of Milpitas, and Santa Clara County), the City’s existing projection regulations are a combination of being overly specific for the list of encroachments included and also broad for how they are regulated. For example, while garden ornaments and play equipment are explicitly permitted, the Section does not specify how far they may encroach into a setback. In contrast, comparable jurisdictions utilize broader categories of projection types while maintaining clear, specific distance limits for various setback types. For example, the City of Stockton includes “architectural features” as one broad category that covers balconies, chimneys, and window types. The City of Stockton and City of Milpitas use “ramps and similar structures that provide access for persons with disabilities,” which could replace the City’s existing encroachment type of “steps which are necessary to provide access to the first floor of a permitted building, or to a parcel from a street or alley” (Section 27.18.100(a)(8)). The CZCU will consider consolidating and modernizing the existing list of allowed encroachments by grouping similar types into broader categories and adding or removing types based on this review. • As discussed above in the “City and Community’s Goals” section, the current setback requirements in the SMMC might be overly restrictive. There are also some specific setback, buffer, and build-to-line provisions that are unique to the SMMC compared to zoning codes of comparable jurisdictions and would benefit from being standardized for ease of use and clarity. These regulations, such as determining interior side and street side (corner lot) setbacks according to project type (e.g., one-family detached dwellings) in the R3, R4, and R5 Districts and measuring setbacks based on measures such as half of the building or the size of the lot are not utilized as a measurement method in comparable jurisdictions and could pose challenges to development feasibility. The CZCU will consider updating the current setback regulations to increase development feasibility and improve the clarity of the regulations. • The current setback, buffer, and build-to-line standards for all zoning districts are included in the Zoning Code as individual subsections and are written as short sentences or longer paragraphs. Including the standards in this manner increases the difficulty for readers of the Zoning Code. Instead, setback requirements will be included directly in tables for each zoning district to be more user-friendly.

203 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 6
• The current build-to-line regulations are currently specified only in the C1 District and are cross-referenced to apply across the C2, C3, and C4 Districts.0F0F 1 The current build-to-line
regulations only apply to properties with frontage on El Camino Real from State Route 92 to the Belmont city limit and the Q5 (Qualified Overlay District 5) District, at the Hillsdale Shopping Center . Although most comparable jurisdictions do not include build-to-line regulations, the City of Sacramento includes build-to-line regulations that apply to their highest density residential, central business district, and hospital zones. The CZCU will consider reviewing the build-to-line to determine if the regulations will continue to apply to all commercial districts. The CZCU will also determine if build-to-line regulations will apply to the highest density residential zones.
• General Plan Policy LU 3.2, Commercial Development, will be referenced when updating buffer requirements for the commercial, executive park, and manufacturing zoning districts.

The City will amend the current buffer requirements for new development next to residential areas to be clearer and more comprehensive. Additionally, based on this Policy, the CZCU will include updating existing and incorporating additional buffer regulations, including traffic, trash/recycling, and noise requirements, in order to minimize the impacts of commercial uses on neighboring uses. For these regulations, the CZCU will either incorporate these regulations within each district regulation or be placed in its own section with a list of performance standards applicable to all zoning districts. Based on a review of comparable jurisdictions, it is suggested to include these buffer regulations in one section. For example, the City of Stockton consolidates buffer requirements in one section in the Zoning Code, providing a clear, user- friendly format.

Potential Questions for Public Input
Questions that apply to all zoning districts:
• Question: Which of the following setback and/or standards most affect project feasibility in San Mateo? (Select all that apply.):
o Front setbacks
o Side or corner setbacks
o Rear yard setbacks
o Landscape buffer requirements
o Not sure/no opinion

1 The SMMC only refers to “build-to-lines" in the sections that address commercial zoning districts. In the Downtown Specific Plan area, functional build-to-lines are established for residential uses in the Gateway area with minimum and maximum setback distances defined. However, updates to the Downtown Specific Plan will not be a part of the CZCU.

204 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 7
• Question: The San Mateo Zoning Code includes setback requirements that may be too restrictive for certain project types. Which of the following alternative methods should be considered to provide greater flexibility for setbacks on a property?? (Select all that apply.):
o Allow different setbacks based on lot size or shape
o Allow small setback reductions (i.e., deviations) through an administrative review process
o Allow certain building features, such as porches, to extend into setbacks o Replace minimum setbacks with an allowed build-to-line range for the front property setback
o Other (Please specify.):

Low Density Residential Districts (R1 and R2)
Setback standards in low density residential districts help shape neighborhood character, provide privacy between homes, encourage landscaping and greenery, and manage transition between private and public spaces. The following questions inquire about existing standards and their applicability in the R1 and R2 Districts.
• Question: How effective do you think the current setback requirements are in supporting new development projects in low-density residential districts?:
o Very effective, they provide clear guidance and allow flexibility for well-designed projects
o Mostly effective, they work in most cases, but can be clarified or simplified o Somewhat effective, they are sometimes constraining but are developable o Not effective, they constrain the ability to develop
o Not sure, I’m not familiar enough with the current regulations • Question: Which of the following challenges do the current setback standards create in low- density residential districts? (Select all that apply.):
o Inconsistent requirements across residential districts o Outdated or unclear calculation methods
o Reduce maximum buildable area
o No significant challenges come to mind
o Not sure/no opinion
Medium- and High-Density Residential Districts (R3, R4, and R5) In medium- and high-density residential districts, setback standards accommodate multi-family housing and manage building scale, lighting, and privacy. The following questions inquire about existing standards and their applicability in R3, R4, and R5 Districts.

205 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 8
• Question: How effective do you think the current setback requirements are in supporting new multifamily development projects in medium- and high-density residential districts?:
o Very effective, they provide clear guidance and allow flexibility for well-designed projects
o Mostly effective, they work in most cases, but can be clarified or simplified o Somewhat effective, they are sometimes constraining but are developable o Not effective, they constrain the ability to develop
o Not sure, I’m not familiar enough with the current regulations • Question: Which of the following challenges do the current setback standards create in medium- and high-density residential districts? (Select all that apply.):
o Inconsistent requirements across residential districts o Outdated or unclear calculation methods
o Reduce maximum buildable area
o No significant challenges come to mind
o Not sure/no opinion
• Question: The San Mateo Zoning Code uses an atypical method for determining interior side and street-side setbacks in the R3, R4, and R5 Districts, defining them by project type (e.g., one-family detached dwellings) instead of by property lines. If the City continues using a project-based approach to setback measurements, which development standards or methods should determine setback requirements? (Select all that apply.):
o Building height measured in feet
o Building height measured in the number of stories
o Floor area ratio (FAR)
o Lot coverage
o Continue using project type
o None of the above
o Other (Please specify.):

Non-Residential Districts
Setback and buffer standards in non-residential districts help manage building placement, circulation, and transitions to nearby uses, including residential areas. The following questions inquire about current setback and buffer regulations for non-residential districts, including commercial and manufacturing districts.
• Question: How effective do you think the current setback requirements are in supporting functional and well-designed developments in non-residential districts?:

206 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 9
o Very effective, they provide clear guidance and allow flexibility for well-designed projects
o Mostly effective, they work in most cases, but can be clarified or simplified o Somewhat effective, they are sometimes constraining but are developable o Not effective, they constrain the ability to develop
o Not sure, I’m not familiar enough with the current regulations • Question: Which of the following challenges do the current setback standards create in non- residential districts? (Select all that apply.):
o Inconsistent requirements across zoning districts
o Outdated or unclear calculation methods
o Reduce maximum buildable area
o No significant challenges come to mind
o Not sure/no opinion
• Question: How effective do you think the current buffer requirements are for supporting new development projects in non-residential districts?:
o Very effective, they provide clear guidance and allow flexibility for well-designed projects
o Mostly effective, they work in most cases, but can be clarified or simplified o Somewhat effective, they are sometimes constraining but are developable o Not effective, they constrain the ability to develop
o Not sure, I’m not familiar enough with the current regulations • Question: Which of the following challenges do the current buffer standards create? (Select all that apply.):
o Inconsistent requirements between zoning districts
o Outdated or unclear calculation methods
o Reduce maximum buildable area
o No significant challenges come to mind
o Not sure/no opinion
• Question: Build-to-line standards (i.e., requiring buildings to be located close to the sidewalk) are uncommon in the comparable jurisdictions that were reviewed. How should San Mateo approach this type of standard?:
o Keep or expand standards to encourage pedestrian-oriented development o Limit standards to certain commercial or mixed-use areas o Remove them to allow for more flexibility

207 of 719

January 22, 2026 | Page 10
o Not sure/no opinion
• Question: The San Mateo Zoning Code currently includes specific setback and build-to-line standards that pertain to El Camino Real. Based on your experience, please select the following options that describes these current regulations:
o Very effective, they provide clear guidance and allow flexibility for well-designed projects
o Mostly effective, they work in most cases, but can be clarified or simplified o Somewhat effective, they are sometimes constraining but are developable o Not effective, they constrain the ability to develop
o Not sure, I’m not familiar enough with the current regulations o Other (Please specify.):

208 of 719

Draft Community Engagement and
Outreach Plan
San Mateo Zoning Code Update

City of San Mateo
February 2026

Prepared by:

City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
Contact: Sung H. Kwon,
Deputy Community Development Director
650.522.7212
[email protected]
www.cityofsanmateo.org
With assistance from:

PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
510.848.3815
www.placeworks.com

209 of 719

SAN MATEO ZONING CODE UPDATE

CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH PLAN
1 A. Introduction
This Community Engagement and Outreach Plan (the Outreach Plan) describes tools and strategies to solicit input from the San Mateo community on updates to the Zoning Code.

Strive San Mateo continues its transformative work with a comprehensive update to the City’s Zoning Code (Title 27). The update will align the Zoning Code with the long-term vision in the adopted General Plan 2040, creating a clearer, more intuitive framework to support mixed-use development, economic development, environmental justice, and sustainability.

General Plan 2040 guides decisions about zoning, development, and other land use or regulatory matters, and is built around goals, policies, and actions that must be implemented to achieve the community’s vision for the future. Preparation of the General Plan included extensive community outreach and engagement. The City of San Mateo (City) held or participated in over 80 community meetings to discuss the General Plan with residents, community advocates, stakeholders, and public officials. Input and direction from the public and City Council were incorporated into each component of the General Plan. Community input also resulted in changes needed to the Zoning Code to reflect the updated General Plan Land Use Map and other policy directions. Implementing General Plan 2040 is a significant focus of the comprehensive Zoning Code update.

This Outreach Plan serves as a guide for engaging key stakeholders, community, the Planning Commission, and the City Council as part of the Zoning Code update. Table 1 provides an overview of the outreach approach, with the steps that comprise the Zoning Code update process and specific outreach objectives, activities, and target groups for each step. A brief discussion of engagement for the main target groups follows the table. The Outreach Plan is a “living document” that may be modified over the course of the work program.

210 of 719

SAN MATEO ZONI N G CODE UPDATE

CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH PLAN
2 TABLE 1: ZONING CODE UPDATE PROCESS AND OUTREACH TIMELINE

PHASE ZONING CODE ASSESSMENT AND EARLY

AMENDMENTS

DRAFTING ZONING CODE PUBLIC REVIEW ADOPTION
TIMING QUARTER 3 2025 TO QUARTER 4 2025 QUARTER 1 2026 TO QUARTER 3 2026 QUARTER 3 2026 QUARTER 1 2027 Steps  Adoption of high-density zoning district amendments  Zoning Code analysis and assessment of existing Title 27  Prepare Administrative Draft Zoning Code
 Prepare Public Draft Zoning Code
 Public review of Zoning Code updates  Zoning Code adoption Focus of Outreach  Raise awareness of Zoning Code update process, purpose, and progress
 Seek feedback from key stakeholders on key issues for Zoning Code update
 Seek initial community input on key issues for the
Zoning Code update
 Publicize opportunities for public involvement and
input
 Educate on proposed significant changes to Zoning
Code
 Solicit substantive comments on draft Zoning Code
 Communicate how comments were incorporated
 Facilitate adoption of final Zoning Code
Outreach Activities  StriveSanMateo.org updates (QR code to this website available at every outreach event)
 Article in City newsletter
 Informational flyer and posting at City facilities
(coordinated with Historic Policy outreach)
 Eblast announcement(s)
 Social media posts
 Editorial meetings (Daily Journal, Business Times)*
 A-Frame (Caltrain Stations, Ped-mall, Hillsdale)*
 Banners (movie theater, El Camino)*
 Media calendar/press release*
 Stakeholder input
o 1:1 interviews
o Small-group meetings (including chambers)
o Online surveys (2)
 Preparation of Materials for Planning Commission and
City Council hearings on high-density zoning district
amendments including a survey slide for City Clerk to
share before PC and Council meeting.
 Planning Commission hearing on high-density zoning
district amendments (1)
 City Council adoption hearing for high-density zoning district amendments (1)
 StriveSanMateo.org updates(QR code to this
website available at every outreach event)
 Article in City newsletter
 Informational flyer and posting at City facilities
(coordinated with Historic Policy outreach)
 Eblast announcement(s)
 Social media posts
 Editorial meetings (Daily Journal, Business Times)*
 A-Frame (Caltrain Stations, Ped-mall, Hillsdale)*
 Banners (movie theater, El Camino)*
 Media calendar/press release*
 Stakeholder input
o 1:1 interviews
o Small-group meetings (including chambers)
o Online surveys (2)
 Virtual Town Hall – introduction of ZO Update, key
issues (high-density zoning standards), schedules,
and General Plan consistency
 Public noticing to property owners with proposed
Zoning Code changes*
 Planning Commission Study Session (2)
 City Council Study Session (1)
 StriveSanMateo.org updates (QR code to this
website available at every outreach event)
 Citywide Mailer
 Outreach flyer and posting at City facilities
(coordinated with Historic Policy outreach)
 Eblast announcement(s)
 Social media posts
 Editorial meetings (Daily Journal, Business Times)*
 A-Frame (Caltrain Stations, Ped-mall, Hillsdale)*
 Banners (movie theater, El Camino)*
 Media calendar/press release*
 Online Survey(1) - Create a survey slide for City
Clerk to share before PC and Council meeting
 Hybrid neighborhood meetings – draft zoning
ordinances (key active neighborhoods)
 Planning Commission Study Session (1)
 City Council Study Session (1)
 StriveSanMateo.org updates (QR code to this
website available at every outreach event)
 Eblast announcement(s)
 Social media posts
 Editorial meetings (Daily Journal, Business Times)*
 A-Frame (Caltrain Stations, Ped-mall, Hillsdale)*
Banners (movie theater, El Camino)*
 Outreach flyer and posting at City facilities
 Planning Commission hearing(s) (up to 2)
 City Council adoption hearing(s) (up to 3)
Target Groups
Public ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Key Stakeholders ✔ ✔ ✔
Property Owners with
Proposed Zoning Changes ✔ ✔ ✔
Planning Commission ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
City Council ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Note: Quarters are deﬁned as: Quarter 1 = January through March; Quarter 2 = April through June; Quarter 3 = July through September; Quarter 4 = October through December. *An asterisk indicates potential City led outreach items that staff may pursue depending on timing and needs of the project.

211 of 719

SAN MATEO ZONI N G CODE UPDATE

CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH PLAN
3 B. Target Groups
San Mateo Community
Engagement with the public will include up to two community meetings held virtually and two in-person community meetings to facilitate participation from residents and other members of the public. The focus of the meeting is educating the public on what is regulated in the Zoning Code, the proposed significant changes to the Zoning Code, with information provided on how the changes reflect planning priorities the public identified during the General Plan update process.

The project team will publish the virtual community meeting and other opportunities for public involvement and input via eblast announcements, StriveSanMateo.org updates, social media, flyers, eblasts, and notification through a citywide mailer.

Key Stakeholders
The Zoning Code is a very detailed and technical document. Some important changes will be nuanced and complex to discuss. One outreach channel will focus on key stakeholders who are frequent users of the current code, informed about its challenges, and have worked with other codes in other jurisdictions.

Potential key stakeholders include:
 “Expert Users” (e.g., applicants and property owners familiar with the c ode and the City’s regulations and processes)
 Chamber of Commerce
 Affordable Housing Developers
 Market-Rate Housing Developers
 Commercial, Office, and/or Mixed-Use Developers
 Housing Advocates
 Industrial Users (?)
 Real Estate Agents
 Business Owners
 Other community-based organization representatives
 Property owners particularly in key areas of change for the zoning map  Residents in areas where a zoning code policy change could have a particular effect

212 of 719

SAN MATEO ZONI N G CODE UPDATE

CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH PLAN
4 Engagement with key stakeholders could include targeted discussions regarding development standards (e.g., residential development standards), allowed land uses and standards for certain uses, and permit processing requirements. Some stakeholder input may be most effectively gathered in one-on-one interviews. Developers, for example, are likely to be more forthcoming on a one-on-one basis rather than in a room with their competitors. However, there will be opportunities to provide updates to the development community at the City’s quarterly developer round table meetings.

Online surveys or email questionnaires may be used as initial contact to help narrow the topics or options for discussion, or as follow-up to refine or clarify content that has already been discussed.

It is expected the stakeholder meetings and interviews will be by invitation and not open to the public to provide a venue for candid input on certain topics in a focused setting.

PlaceWorks will prepare the following material:
 Draft email invitations for City staff to send to invitees  Meeting agendas
 Discussion questions
PlaceWorks will facilitate the small group meetings and conduct the one-on-one interviews which may use the same discussion questions as the small group meetings. City staff are welcome to attend these meetings. The scope of work includes a total of 12 stakeholder meetings and/or one-on-one interviews. PlaceWorks anticipates these meetings will occur during the Zoning Code Assessment and Drafting Zoning Code phases as shown in Table 1.

Property Owners with Proposed Zoning Changes
General Plan 2040 changed land use designations on many parcels in the 10 study areas.

This will result in the need for zoning changes to bring zoning designations into consistency with the General Plan. The Zoning Code update team is currently completing an analysis to identify specific parcels that will need zoning changes and the appropriate new zoning designation. Once that analysis is completed, the team will consider the most effective way to contact all property owners affected by zoning designation updates. In addition, targeted focus groups with certain areas where there are more property owners impacted by the proposed changes for consistency are an option for outreach surrounding the proposed zoning changes.

213 of 719

SAN MATEO ZONI N G CODE UPDATE

CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH PLAN
5 Planning Commission and City Council
Engagement with the Planning Commission and City Council could include one-on-one briefings conducted by City staff and public study sessions. The scope of work includes five total Planning Commission or City Council study sessions.

For the first City Council study session, the project team will provide a project overview and present the proposed outreach plan, general organization of the new Zoning Code, and approach to Specific Plans. Potential topics for subsequent meetings are listed below.

All Planning Commission and City Council discussions will lead with explanations of how the City is implementing the Zoning Code in the adopted General Plan 2040 and responding to the input received during the General Plan update process.

POTENTIAL ENGAGEMENT TOPICS
 Initial input on the key issues the code update should tackle  Findings from best practices tasks
o Best practice/key issue “deep dives” into six to eight particularly complex or challenging topics, such as building height, shared and unbundled parking, use classifications for current and future uses, or bird-safe regulations. o Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transit-Oriented Communities Policy compliance
 Proposed changes to the structure/organization of Title 27  Input on the Public Draft Zoning Code
 Report on input received from stakeholders and the public at each study session

214 of 719

215 of 719

2 I also hope you carefully consider SB79 as a template for the zoning update. Using the SB79 parameters will simplify things as the city would be coordinated with the state regulations, making life a lot easier and simpler for us in the design and building in industry. This would help speed up construction of housing and lower cost.

SB79 was carefully considered to place higher density within walking distance of high-quality transit like Caltrain and the future bus rapid transit line on El Camino Real. By placing housing in density near these transit lines, it would increase the writer ship, which will then encourage the agencies to increase frequency and speed of service. This would encourage people to use transit versus driving and reduce traffic on our roads and reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

This is a win-win situation.

Sincerely,
Thank you and Best Regards,

Remi Tan, AIA LEED AP BD+C

Architecture, Green Building
Real estate investment and brokerage

Sent from my iPhone

216 of 719

1 From: Erin Pang
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 3:38 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Cc: Jenna Haut; Jennifer Hetterly; Susan DesJardin
Subject: Comment for Feb 23 City Council Study Session on Zoning Code Update Attachments: ZoningUpdateCouncilSession_2.23.26_SaveTheBay_SierraClub.pdf Dear City Council,
On behalf of Save The Bay and the Sierra Club Bay Alive Campaign, I’ve aƩached a comment leƩer to be considered in the upcoming City Council study session on the zoning code update. It relates to incorporaƟng sea level rise and ﬂood resilience into the zoning code update.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage!

Sincerely,

Erin Pang

POLICY ASSOCIATE

Pronouns: she, her

Protect and Restore San Francisco Bay
For People and Wildlife

217 of 719

February 19, 2026
San Mateo City Council
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Subject: Comments on Integrating Climate Resilience in the City of San Mateo Zoning Code Update Dear San Mateo City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on San Mateo’s Zoning Code update process. We believe the zoning code update is a crucial opportunity for the City to incorporate forward-looking sea level rise and flood resilience policies into the City’s guiding documents.

San Mateo has a significant amount of housing, commercial building, essential infrastructure, and roadway in low-lying areas near the shoreline that face increasing risk as sea levels rise and storms intensify. If sea levels rise by 3.3 feet, a conservative estimate for 2100, this would put at risk 12,005 residential parcels, 7 emergency shelter sites, 20 miles of highway, and many other assets.1 Additionally, rising groundwater may inundate contaminated sites near the shoreline, potentially posing a health risk to surrounding Bay ecosystems and community members (see maps attached).

At 6.6 feet of sea level rise, San Mateo will have 1,028 acres of Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies2 exposed to sea level rise and resulting groundwater rise (see maps attached). This means that more than 50% of the geographic areas where future growth in housing and jobs is likely to happen during the next 30 years will be at risk of flooding3. As these areas develop, it’s critical that new buildings and infrastructure be resilient to climate-driven flood risk.

In order to address this issue, we recommend that the City create a Sea Level Rise and Groundwater Rise Overlay Zone for the area that will be impacted by 6.6 feet of sea level rise and the resulting groundwater rise (see maps attached). This approach is strongly supported by OneShoreline’s 2023 3 Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Atlas https://rsap-atlas.bcdc.ca.gov/
2 “Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies”. 2021.
https://planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/PBA2050_Growth_Geographies_Oct2021_0.pdf?cb=01d08 5e9
1 “County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment”, 2018. Pg 157.

218 of 719

Shoreline Policy Planning Guidance
4 and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)’s Regional

Shoreline

Adaptation

Plan

(RSAP).
5 The RSAP sets standards for how all shoreline communities in the Bay will address sea level rise in subregional

shoreline

adaptation

plans,

required

SB-272.

The

RSAP

lists

overlay

zones

for

sea

level

rise

and

emergent

groundwater

suggested

strategy

meet

Adaptation

Strategy

Standard

“Preserve

natural

and

undeveloped

lands

for

shoreline

resilience,”

Adaptation

Strategy

Standard

“Minimize

flood

risks

areas

with

existing

and

planned

development,”

and

Adaptation

Strategy

“Promote

safe,

sustainable,

and

strategic

growth

and

density.”
6 Establishing

overlay

zone

during

this

Zoning

Code

update

would

allow

the

City

align

land

use

policy

with

its

forthcoming

subregional

shoreline

adaptation

plan

and

ensure

consistency

with

RSAP

requirements.

OneShoreline’s Planning Policy Guidance provides model language for Sea Level Rise and Groundwater Rise

overlay

zones

covering

areas

subject

the

future

conditions

associated

with

100-year

flood

plus

6.6 feet

sea

level

rise.

Within

such

overlay,

the

Guidance

encourages

cities

establish

design

and

performance

standards

requiring

new

developments

include

the

following:
● Establish a minimum lowest floor elevation of 3 feet above the current base flood elevation, ● Incorporate setbacks that place flood infrastructure as landward as feasible, preserving transition

space

for

habitat

migration

and

future

levee

widening

ecotone

slopes
7 ,
● Contribute to regional shoreline infrastructure funds OR build/maintain shoreline infrastructure that

provides

protection

the

FEMA

6 standard,

lesser,

provide

land

rights/easements

enable

the

city

OneShoreline

meet

that

standard,
● Evaluate and plan adaptations for future flood conditions for the project lifetime, ● Conduct a watershed-level groundwater rise analysis to understand and address impacts such as buoyancy,

seepage,

infiltration,

liquefaction,

and

corrosion,

and

plan

for

management

groundwater

rise

inboard

flood

protection

infrastructure,

and
● If located on or near a contaminated site, consider impacts of rising groundwater on contaminant

mobilization

and

have

monitoring

and

remediation

plan.

There is precedent in San Mateo County to adopt an overlay zone. Burlingame, South San Francisco, and East

Palo

Alto

are

examples

nearby

San

Mateo

County

cities

that

have

already

implemented

sea

level

rise

overlay

zones.

7 This

policy

also

aligns

with

the

RSAP

Guidelines.

Ibid.

Pgs

123,

157,

159,

197.

6 Ibid.

158-159.

5 Bay Conservation and Development Commission Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan, December 2024, Adaptation Strategy

Standards

2-6,

16,

pp.

156-159,

163.
https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/12/regional-shoreline-adaptation-plan.pdf

4 OneShoreline Policy Planning Guidance to Protect and Enhance Bay Shoreline Areas of San Mateo County, June 2023,

pp.

27-47.
https://oneshoreline.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/OneShoreline-Planning-Policy-Guidance-Final-June-21-202 3-For-Web.pdf

219 of 719

Additionally, this recommendation aligns with San Mateo’s existing planning documents. The Safety Element, in Section 3.13, commits to “e valuate establishment of a sea level rise and/ or flood overlay zone as a primary mechanism for establishing adaptation policies, rules, or construction codes.” Additionally,

Section

3.3 commits

"Ensure

that

new

development,

substantial

retrofits,

critical

facilities,

City-owned

buildings,

and

existing

and

future

flood

control

infrastructure

are

planned

and

designed

accommodate

climate

change

hazards,

including

increases

flooding,

sea

level

rise,

and

rising

groundwater,

based

the

best

available

science.”
Integrating overlay zones into the Zoning Code Update would operationalize these commitments and provide

durable

regulatory

framework

that

protects

residents,

infrastructure,

ecological

function,

and

future

adaptation

options.

look

forward

partnering

with

the

City

ensure

that

zoning

and

shoreline

adaptation

planning

proceed

alignment

and

position

San

Mateo

for

long-term

resilience.

Sincerely, David Lewis Executive Director Save The Bay Jennifer Chang Hetterly Bay Alive Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

220 of 719

San Mateo
San Mateo 0.8ft SLR
Esri, HERE, Garmin, Earthstar Geographics
Cities & Census Designated Places (Analysis) (CALFire 2022)

0.8 ft (2050) SLR Scenario (BCDC 2024)
Tidal Inundation (MHHW), Emergent Groundwater
Emergent Groundwater
Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year)
Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year), Emergent Groundwater Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year), Shallow Groundwater (0-9 ft below ground) Shallow Groundwater (0-9 ft below ground)
Existing Bay
2/10/2026, 1:06:29 PM
0 1 20.5 mi
0 1.5 30.75 km
1:58,319

221 of 719

San Mateo
San Mateo 3.1 ft SLR
Esri, HERE, Garmin, Earthstar Geographics
Cities & Census Designated Places (Analysis) (CALFire 2022)

3.1 ft (2100 Intermediate) SLR Scenario (BCDC 2024)
Tidal Inundation (MHHW), Emergent Groundwater
Emergent Groundwater
Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year)
Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year), Emergent Groundwater Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year), Shallow Groundwater (0-9 ft below ground) Shallow Groundwater (0-9 ft below ground)
Existing Bay
2/10/2026, 1:12:44 PM
0 1 20.5 mi
0 1.5 30.75 km
1:58,319

222 of 719

San Mateo
San Mateo 4.9 ft SLR
Esri, HERE, Garmin, Earthstar Geographics
Cities & Census Designated Places (Analysis) (CALFire 2022)

4.9 ft (2100 Intermediate-High) SLR Scenario (BCDC 2024) Tidal Inundation (MHHW), Emergent Groundwater
Emergent Groundwater
Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year)
Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year), Emergent Groundwater Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year), Shallow Groundwater (0-9 ft below ground) Shallow Groundwater (0-9 ft below ground)
Existing Bay
2/10/2026, 1:16:32 PM
0 1 20.5 mi
0 1.5 30.75 km
1:58,319

223 of 719

San Mateo
San Mateo 6.6 ft SLR (Recommended Overlay Zone Area)
Esri, HERE, Garmin, Earthstar Geographics
Cities & Census Designated Places (Analysis) (CALFire 2022)

6.6 ft (2100 High) SLR Scenario (BCDC 2024)
Tidal Inundation (MHHW), Emergent Groundwater
Emergent Groundwater
Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year)
Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year), Emergent Groundwater Tidal Inundation with Storm Surge (100-year), Shallow Groundwater (0-9 ft below ground) Shallow Groundwater (0-9 ft below ground)
Existing Bay
2/10/2026, 1:21:06 PM
0 1 20.5 mi
0 1.5 30.75 km
1:58,319

224 of 719

San Mateo
San Mateo 6.6 ft SLR and Contamination
Esri, HERE, Garmin, Earthstar Geographics
Cities & Census Designated Places (Analysis) (CALFire 2022) Contaminated Sites (DTSC Waterboard 2023)
Closed
Open-Active
Open-Eligible for closure
Open-Long term management
Other (e.g. Inactive)
Landfills (SFEI/Waterboard 2020)

225 of 719

San Mateo
Plan Bay Area Growth Geographies and 6.6ft SLR
Esri, HERE, Garmin, Earthstar Geographics
Cities & Census Designated Places (Analysis) (CALFire 2022) Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies (MTC 2021)
High-Resource Area (16-30 min bus)
Priority Development Area
Transit-Rich Outside HRA
Transit-Rich and High-Resource

226 of 719

1 From: Remi Tan
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 1:12 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Zoning Update
Subject: Public Comment: Promote Homes with Zoning Reform Hello city council members, my name is Remi Tan and I live in nearby Paciﬁca, but come to San Mateo oŌen for shopping and meeƟngs and events.

During next week's zoning study session, please support staﬀ's work to modernize the zoning code. I hope the code update will simplify the code as much as possible and allow the most new homes permissible under the General Plan.

As a local architect, who has done some projects in San Mateo, we hope that streamline zoning will make things easier for our clients who are trying to build housing in San Mateo.

I also hope you carefully consider SB79 as a template for the zoning update. Using the SB79 parameters will simplify things as the city would be coordinated with the state regulaƟons, making life a lot easier and simpler for us in the design and building in industry. This would help speed up construcƟon of housing and lower cost.

SB79 was carefully considered to place higher density within walking distance of high-quality transit like Caltrain and the future bus rapid transit line on El Camino Real. By placing housing in density near these transit lines, it would increase the writer ship, which will then encourage the agencies to increase frequency and speed of service. This would encourage people to use transit versus driving and reduce traﬃc on our roads and reduce polluƟon and greenhouse gas emissions.

This is a win-win situaƟon.

Sincerely,
Thank you and Best Regards,

Remi Tan, AIA LEED AP BD+C

Architecture, Green Building
Real estate investment and brokerage

Sent from my iPhone

227 of 719

1 From: Sung H. Kwon
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 10:16 AM
To: Chantal Eaton
Subject: FW: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Comments on Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU)
Attachments: SCLP letter to San Mateo re Zoning Code comments Feb 19 2026.pdf Hi Chantal,

Can you add this to the comments?

Sincerely,

Sung H. Kwon MCRP MBA AICP
Deputy Director | Community Development

From: Dashiell Leeds >
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 4:59 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Zoning Update <[email protected]> Cc: Gita Dev ; James Eggers ; Sue Chow

Subject: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Comments on Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU)

Dear Mayor Loraine and Members of the San Mateo City Council, Planning Commission and City Staff, The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.

SLU offers these comments as an overview of key issues that we believe need to be addressed in the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update (CZCU). Please read the attached letter for our full comments.

Sincerely,
Gita Dev, FAIA, Chair
Sustainable Land Use Committee
Chair, Conservation Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

228 of 719

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES

February 19, 2026 Via Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Subject: Key Issues for Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Dear Mayor Loraine and Members of the San Mateo City Council, Planning Commission and City Staff,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use

issues

San

Mateo

and

Santa

Clara

Counties.

SLU offers the comments below as an overview of key issues that we believe need to be addressed in the

Comprehensive

Zoning

Code

Update

(CZCU).

These

comments

are

consistent

with

the

comments

that

SLU

made

for

the

General

Plan

2040

(GP)

process

(see

letters

March

2024,

November

16,

2023,

September

2023,

August

2023,

and

March

28,

2023).

We have reviewed the White Papers on Open Space, Building Heights, and Setbacks & Buffers. They provide

good

start

the

CZCU

process.

1. Increase emphasis on the need for increased housing, particularly affordable housing. a. Streamline and reduce costs for development of housing. While the White Papers mention

this

several

areas,

specific

discussion

should

incorporated

into

this

policy

statement.

Simplifying

the

code,

clarifying

and

standardizing

requirements

and

not

being

overly

prescriptive

will

reduce

development

costs

and

increase

the

likelihood

developing

vitally

needed

housing.

enumeration

key

requirements

should

included

the

outset.

b. Increase focus on affordable housing. The affordable housing category is the most difficult

type

housing

develop,

evidenced

past

failures

meet

affordable

housing

goals,

while

the

goals

for

market

rate

housing

are

being

met.

This

points

the

need

simplify

and

streamline

even

for

fully

affordable

projects.

2. Open Space: Ensure that the increased building heights leads to more Open Space as well

quality

Open

Space.

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303

Page

1 of

3 229 of 719

a. Ensure Open Space for Nature and Urban Greening: The focus in the draft Open Space

White

Papers

recreation

and

gatherings,

which

are

important.

However,

open

space

that

specifically

for

the

value

nature

needs

significant

part

the

reason

and

use

for

urban

open

space

well.

Large

trees

and

vegetation

buffers

will

benefit

human

health,

both

physical

and

mental.

They

clean

urban

pollution,

provide

shading/cooling,

wind

breaks,

runoff

absorption,

noise

absorption,

and

wildlife

habitat.

Even

city

birds

and

bees

need

something

than

pruned

shrubs

and

courtyards.

The

urban

forest,

tall

trees

streets

and

alleys,

make

the

streets

far

livable,

increase

property

values

and

are

especially

desirable

for

walking

and

biking.

The

CZCU

needs

reflect

this

overarching

objective

for

greening

our

City,

and

the

Sierra

Club

SLU

Guidelines

Green

Streets

one

source

information

how

accomplish

this
1 .
b. Taller buildings can be linked to creating more open space: Mechanisms need to be included

the

CZCU

incentivize

developers

provide

for

and

better

Open

Space

for

parks/bike

lanes/green

streets/natural

areas/etc.

The

White

Paper

mentions

that

incentives

will

developed

part

the

CZCU.

SLU

suggests

that

one

possible

incentive

would

allow

higher

heights,

but

not

density
,

that

leads

common

open

space.

This

could

accomplished

setting

maximum

housing

density

and

open

space

requirements

given

zoning

district,

but

not

setting

maximum

building

height

and

possibly

adding

incentives

for

green

open

space

that

exceeds

the

minimum

such

expedited

plan

review

reduce

lag

time

development

costs.

3. Biological Safety Levels (BSL) adjacent to sensitive receptors a. Only Biological Safety Levels (BSL) 1 and 2 biolabs should be allowed in zoning for office,

commercial,

manufacturing,

Life

Safety,

similar

non-residential

uses.

Most

Industrial

Zoning

peninsula

cities

should

also

similarly

restricted

they

are

adjacent

residential

and

other

uses

with

sensitive

receptors.
b. Bio-lab uses should not be allowed within a specified distance of sensitive receptors including

housing,

schools,

hospitals

and

emergency

service

locations.

4. Focus on planning now for sea level rise and associated ground water rise. a. A Sea Level Rise (SLR) Overlay Zone should be considered for those areas with low ground

elevations

that

sea

level

rise

and

associated

ground

water

rise,

from

climate

change,

will

cause

inundation

public

infrastructure

such

roads

and

underground

utilities

well

private

homes

and

businesses.

The

overlay

zone

could

identify

specific

requirements

for

new

developments

including

requirement

raise

first

floor

elevations

above

established

flood

levels

better

prepare

for

future

SLR

and

also

time

line

for

capital

outlays

raise

roads

and

especially

utilities

out

corrosive

rising

brackish

ground

water.

b. The overlay zone could include areas directly impacted by SLR as well as related impacts

creeks

backing

with

higher

tides

and

causing

flooding.

1 See SLU White Paper on Green Corridor/Green Streets Guidelines which uses San Mateo as the example. sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303

Page

2 of

3 230 of 719

c. The Health and Safety Element of the General Plan may also need modification to recognize

the

impacts

flooded

infrastructure

and

other

health

and

safety

impacts

flooding

from

rising

sea

levels

and

ground

water

levels.

SLU looks forward to further discussions with you on the CZCU. Respectfully, Gita Dev, FAIA, Chair Sustainable Land Use Committee Chair, Conservation Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Cc: James Eggers, Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303

Page

3 of

3 231 of 719

Zoning Code Update
Study Session
Sung H. Kwon
Deputy Director, Community Development
February 23, 2026

232 of 719

Study Session Outline
Background
Highlights of Outreach Completed
Community Outreach & Engagement Plan Next Steps
Request for Council Direction

233 of 719

Zoning Code Update Background
History of the GP and adoption
Implementing policy updating the GP
Council appropriation for Zoning Code Update

234 of 719

235 of 719

Community Outreach and Engagement Plan
Plan's Objective: Ensure the Zoning Code Update is shaped by direct community feedback by turning the City's goals into regulations that reflect the priorities and needs of San Mateo.

Outreach Strategy Overview:

Community Meetings: 4 total (2 virtual and 2 in-person) Online Surveys: Up to 4 total
Stakeholder Meetings: Up to 12 total
Elected Official Meetings: Up to 5 Study Sessions with
Planning Commission and/or City Council (excluding adoption for public hearing)

236 of 719

Outreach Highlights
Virtual Community Workshop (~34 participants) – January 15, 2026:

Two In-Person Focus Groups (9 participants) – January 26, 2026 Online Survey – Launched January 15, 2026
StriveSanMateo.org – Zoning Code Update Webpages

237 of 719

White Papers
Building Heights
Commercial
Single-Family Residential
Open Space
Public Noticing
Setbacks

238 of 719

Outreach Highlights
Virtual Community Workshop Key Findings:
• Desire to ensure adequate parking in single-family residential districts
• Strong interest in objective design standards that preserve neighborhood character
• Support for small-scale commercial uses in residential areas when compatible
• Concern about incompatible commercial uses adjacent to residential neighborhoods
• Need for design requirements that reduce building massing

239 of 719

Online Survey
Launched January 15, 2026, alongside Community Workshop 114 Total Number of Respondents as of February 5:
• Building Heights – 30 respondents
• Commercial Uses – 13 respondents
• Open Space – 18 respondents
• Public Noticing – 12 respondents
• Setbacks and Buffers – 10 respondents
• Single-family Residential Regulations – 31 respondents

240 of 719

Next
Steps
Ongoing public participation throughout the Zoning Code Update process • Additional virtual and in-person community workshops to be held prior to finalizing the Zoning Code
• Equity Priority Communities
Future outreach tools to increase awareness and participation, including print newsletters and flyers; social media and eNews/eBlasts; press releases; and StriveSanMateo.org updates
Public Review Draft Zoning Code: Planning Commission Study Session will provide feedback and direction for changes
Final Zoning Code:
• Planning Commission review and recommendation
• City Council review and final adoption
Anticipated Zoning Code Update Adoption Timeline: Summer 2027

241 of 719

City Council Direction
1) Any specific direction on the six white paper topics (Building Height, Commercial Uses, Open Spaces, Public Noticing,
Setbacks/Buffers and Single-Family Regulations)?
2) Are there additional topics that should have in-depth analysis in a white paper?
3) Does the proposed Outreach and Engagement Plan align with project objectives and meet Council expectations?
4) Any other direction for the team as the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update effort moves forward?

242 of 719

Thank You!
Sung H. Kwon
Deputy Director, Community Development
[email protected]

243 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 2
0 8

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 9 Section Name: PUBLIC HEARING Account Number: 25-3112 File ID: 26-10876 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2026
SUBJECT:

General Plan - San Mateo's 2023-2031 Housing Element — Amendments RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to approve amendments to the General Plan’s Housing Element for the Sixth Housing Cycle (2023- 2031) that is compliant with State law, provides a plan for at least 7,015 new housing units, affirmatively furthers fair housing, and is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, based on the listed findings.

BACKGROUND:

In May 2024, the City adopted its 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element, which was subsequently certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in July 2024. The Housing Element includes an inventory of sites that can potentially be developed with housing (“Sites Inventory”). State law requires that the Sites Inventory include enough housing opportunity sites with sufficient capacity to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 7,105 housing units between 2023 and 2031.

Following adoption of the Housing Element, the Housing Action Coalition (HAC) filed a lawsuit against the City, claiming that the Housing Element did not satisfy state law because sites listed on the Sites Inventory were not likely to serve as locations for future housing construction because of existing and active uses. In July 2025, the parties entered into a settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). The City agreed to amend the Housing Element to remove certain sites from the Sites Inventory, limit the use of certain other sites for the purposes of “No Net Loss” calculations under Government Code Section 658631. In addition, since the adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, voters approved Measure T in November 2024, which increased residential densities around San Mateo and increased the City’s housing capacity by approximately 19,760 units. Also, since approval, the City has experienced a significant uptick in new development applications, with proposed projects with more than 5,200 residential units currently seeking entitlement.

As part of these amendments, only the main Housing Element document and Appendix C (Housing Resources and Sites Inventory) will be updated. All other Housing Element appendices that were adopted by the City and certified by HCD in July 2024 will remain unchanged. On December 18, 2025, HCD determined that the City’s proposed Housing Element amendments are in substantial compliance with California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. and can be certified once adopted locally. The HCD letter finding that the proposed Housing Element amendments will substantially comply with State Housing Element Law is included as Attachment 2.

A draft City Council Resolution to adopt the General Plan Amendments to the 2023-2031 Housing Element is included as Attachment 1. The findings included in the Resolution outline how the Housing Element is compliant with State law, provides 1 Under Government Code Section 65863 if the City approves a development of a parcel identified in the Housing Element sites inventory with fewer units than shown in the Housing Element, the City must make findings that the Housing Element’s remaining sites have sufficient capacity to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income level. Also, the City may not disapprove a housing project on the basis that approval of the development would trigger the identification or zoning of additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.

244 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 2
0 8
a plan for at least 7,015 new housing units, affirmatively furthers fair housing, and is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Importantly, the proposed Housing Element amendments would only go into effect upon formal recertification by HCD, and not immediately upon City Council approval. Findings to support the CEQA determination that the proposed Housing Element amendments are exempt from further environmental review are also included in the Resolution. The proposed Housing Element amendments are included as Attachment 3, with a tracked changes version included as Attachment 4.

DISCUSSION:

This section details the changes made to the Sites Inventory in the proposed amendments. The categories of these changes are:
Sites removed from the Sites Inventory consistent with the Settlement Agreement Sites remaining on the Sites Inventory but not counted for “No Net Loss” purposes, consistent with the Settlement Agreement
Sites added to the Sites Inventory where projects have been proposed (“Pipeline Projects”), adjusted since Housing Element adoption due to new, updated or withdrawn proposals Changes to the “realistic capacity” assumptions for many of these sites due to the passage of Measure T.

Sites Inventory Removals
Consistent with the Settlement Agreement with HAC, the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory (Appendix C, Table 2, see Attachment 5) was updated to remove the following seven sites:

1. The Bridgepointe Shopping Center Parking Lot (portion of APN 035-466-100)

2. 1826 and 1850 S. Norfolk St. (Parkside Plaza Shopping Center) (APNs 035-381-020 and -030)

3. 71-77 Bovet, and 1750 El Camino Real (Borel Shopping Center) (APNs 039-011-450, -460, -470, -480, -500, -510)

4. 229 W. 20th Ave., 205 W. 20th Ave., and 2010 Pioneer Court (Consolidated Site H) (APNs 039-052-350, 039-060-010, and 039-060-020)

5. 150 W. 20th Ave. (APN 039-030-220)

6. 4060 S. El Camino Real (Villa Plaza) (APN 042-241-180)

7. 5 N. San Mateo Dr., 123 Baldwin Ave., 117 Baldwin Ave., 26 N. San Mateo Dr., 27 N. San Mateo Dr. (Downtown Parking Lots) (APNs 032-312-250, -270, -150, -100 and -070) If the property owner for any of these seven sites objects to its removal from the Sites Inventory, then that location will remain on the inventory but will not be counted for “No Net Loss” purposes, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. This is what occurred with the Bel Mateo/Olympic Shopping Center site (No. 4 in the list immediately below) and 1311 S. El Camino Real (No. 5 below) that were originally planned for removal from the Sites Inventory.

Sites Remaining on the Sites Inventory but not Counted for “No Net Loss” Purposes The following sites will remain on the Sites Inventory, but will not be used for “No Net Loss” purposes. However, if any of these five sites become the subject of a housing development preliminary application or a formal application, then the site may be considered for “No Net Loss” purposes.

1. 1500 Fashion Island Blvd. (County Office Building) (APN 035-550-040)

2. 1900 S. Norfolk St. (The Atrium) (APN 035-391-090)

3. 1650 Borel Place (APN 039-011-400)

4. Bel Mateo/Olympic Shopping Center (APNs 042-242-050, -060, -070, -160; 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)

5. 1311 S. El Camino Real (APN 034-301-200)

245 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 2
0 8
Added to the Sites Inventory
Since adoption of the Housing Element in May 2024, several applications for new housing development projects have been submitted to the City seeking planning entitlements. These are now included as Pipeline Projects. The Pipeline Projects list includes all housing development projects that are under review (submitted applications), approved (entitled) and under construction (building permits issued). These include the following sites:

1. 600 E 3 rd Ave. (Gateway) (APN 034-188-140)

2. 230 S. El Camino Real (APN 034-093-050)

3. 1 E. 4 th Ave. (includes 15 E 4th Ave. and 25 E 4th Ave.) (APNs 034-143-260, -300, and -310)

4. 22 N. San Mateo Dr. (APN 032-321-340)

5. 2015 Pioneer Ct. (APN 039-060-860)

6. 3000 Clearview Way (APN 041-361-120)

7. Hillsdale Mall Sites (APNs 039-490-170, 039-353-010, -020, -030, and -040, 042-121-080 and -060) In addition to these sites, the City has added the site at 1770 S. Amphlett Blvd (former Marriott site; APN 035-241-220) to the Sites Inventory as new housing opportunity site.

Other Sites Inventory Changes
Some sites that were seeking planning entitlements and considered Pipeline Projects are no longer actively seeking those entitlements; therefore, they were removed as Pipeline Projects but remain as opportunity sites. In addition, some sites that were included as Pipeline Projects (with or without planning entitlement approvals) have resubmitted new applications for residential development projects with increased number housing units (due to the passage of Measure T). Those sites have been updated with the housing unit counts consistent with those new applications.

Measure T Voter Approval
As previously stated, in November 2024, San Mateo voters approved Measure T, implementing Policy H1.20 of the Housing Element, which provided for focused growth near transit, the downtown, and other targeted areas. This increased potential residential development capacity around the City by approximately 20,000 units. The Housing Element Amendment updates language throughout the document accounting for the adoption of Measure T and removing language that addresses any potential actions to be taken in-lieu of the passage of Measure T.

Realistic Capacities
“Realistic capacities” are used in the opportunity sites methodology to determine the estimated number of housing units a given site is likely to produce, which may be different from the number of units the site is allowed to produce according to its base zoning density. With the passage of Measure T, the densities of General Plan 2040 and the realistic capacities for many of the housing opportunity sites have been updated to account for the increased capacity from 50 dwelling units per acre to 99 or 130 dwelling units per acre, depending on the land use designation. The Sites Inventory numbers in the revised Appendix C (Attachment 5) and the Housing Element have been updated to reflect these increased capacities. A tracked changes version of the revised Appendix C is included as Attachment 6.

Also, since the update of General Plan 2040 and passage of Measure T, the City has received 14 preliminary/formal applications3 for residential development projects that largely take advantage of the increased densities and height limits in General Plan 2040. These new projects are being proposed at an average of 122% of base density 4. The City analyzed these recent projects along with other residential development projects previously analyzed, and adjusted the realistic capacities of each site accordingly. On sites that were previously assigned a realistic capacity of 75% of the site’s zoning district density, the realistic capacities were increased to 90% of the base density of the site’s General Plan Land Use designation. For Pipeline 3 At the time the Housing Element Amendment was being drafted. Since the draft was completed and publicly noticed, additional residential development projects have been submitted to the City, but will not be included in the Sites Inventory. 4 The average density does not include the housing development project proposals at the Hillsdale Mall site or the site at 3000 Clearview Dr. because these sites are significantly larger than 10 acres and are not representative of a majority of sites in the City that will likely develop during this planning period.

246 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 2
0 8
Projects, the project’s proposed unit count (affordable and market rate) was used.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the housing unit potential of the Sites Inventory based on all of the proposed updates.

This includes the removal of several sites from the Inventory, the addition of new sites, changes to pipeline projects, voter approval of Measure T, and changes to the realistic capacities in calculating the estimated unit potential on each opportunity site. It shows the housing unit potential and excluding those sites the City will not use for the purpose of calculating “No Net Loss” (NNL), referred to as “NNL Sites.” In the table, the “Opportunity Sites” row does not include parcels that the City agreed to exclude under its settlement agreement with HAC. If one were to include those parcels, the Opportunity Sites total would include potential for 9,334 housing units. The table shows that, even with the removal of sites and limitations on using sites for “No Net Loss” purposes, the potential housing units in the Sites Inventory significantly exceeds its remaining RHNA (RHNA minus Pipeline Projects) by a 32% to 484% buffer depending on income category. Furthermore, as of December 2025, the City had issued permits for over 300 new ADUs, which puts San Mateo on track to significantly exceed the estimated 440 new ADUs through the end of 2031, so that will further increase the buffer over the remaining RHNA.

Table 1 – Updated Housing Element Sites Inventory
Lower
Total Units Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
RHNA 7,015  1,777 1,023 1,175 3,040
ADUs 440 132 132 132 44
Pipeline Projects 4,7877 784 177 3,826
Remaining RHNA
(RHNA - Pipeline Projects) 2,228 2,016 998 (786)
Opportunity Sites
(excluding non-NNL sites) 7,362 3,003 1,310 3,022
Buffer Over Remaining
RHNA8
5,134
(230%)
1,014
(50%)
312
(32%)
3,808
(484%)
Other Amendments
Other minor revisions in the Housing Element amendments include updates to implementation plan action items for Policy H 3.1 (Prevent Homelessness) to reflect the recently established emergency rental assistance program ($150,000 annually) and minor updates to actions under Policies H 3.4 (Expand Tenant Protections) and H 5.4.1 (Establish Tenant Protections in Local Ordinance), for internal consistency and to better align with recent Council action. Additionally, Policy H 1.2 (Utilize Public Funding and Properties for New Affordable Housing) would be revised to give the City flexibility during budget deficit conditions from being required to set aside 20% of General Fund property tax revenues from former RDA areas (“Boomerang Funds”) to use for affordable housing development. However, the City’s housing funds are currently in a strong position, between the Housing Set-Aside Reserve ($6.3 million), the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund ($5.4 million), and the City Housing Fund ($1.4 million). As part of implementing Policy H 1.2, a City Council study session is planned for later this year to discuss the current use of these funds and a future strategy for leveraging other funding sources to support Housing Element implementation. Furthermore, the City’s current housing development pipeline includes over 5,200 housing units 9 with over 950 new affordable units, so compliance with the Housing Element’s affordable housing requirements is on track.

HCD Review
7 Number of pipeline units as of October 10, 2025; the date that the draft amendments were published for public review. 8 Remaining RHNA subtracted from Opportunity Sites (to be conservative, excluding “NNL” sites) 9 Pipeline project estimate as of the date of publication of this agenda report.

247 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 2
0 8
On October 10, 2025, the City published a draft of the Housing Element Amendments to the City’s website and sent a notification to the Housing Policy/Housing Element email distribution list to start the seven-day review period pursuant to Government Code Section 65585. No public comments were received that required changes to the draft Housing Element Amendments. On October 20, 2025, City staff sent the draft Housing Element Amendments to HCD for review. On December 18, 2025, City staff received the City received a letter from HCD determining that the City’s Housing Element - with the proposed amendments – would continue to be in substantial compliance with Government Code Section 65580 et seq. (Housing Element Law) and can be certified once adopted locally (Attachment 2).

Planning Commission Recommendation
Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65353(a) and San Mateo Municipal Code Section Subsection 27.06.040(b), the Planning Commission must first hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council on any proposed amendments to the General Plan. On January 27, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Housing Element Amendments. There were no verbal or written public comments. The Commission voted unanimously (5- 0) to recommend adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments to the City Council.

Findings for Adoption
Given HCD’s finding of substantial compliance and the Planning Commission’s favorable recommendation, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments, based on the following key findings, and as expanded upon in the Draft Resolution in Attachment 1.

1. In accordance with Govt. Code Section 65300.5, the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments are internally consistent with General Plan 2040 that was adopted on March 18, 2024.

2. The Housing Element Amendments substantially comply with the Housing Element Law, as provided in Govt. Code Section 65580 et seq., and contain all provisions required by the Housing Element Law as demonstrated in the Compliance with Statutory Provisions Table, adopted by City Council on May 20, 2024 in Resolution No. 37 (2024).

The Housing Element Amendments revise only specific sections of Appendix C of the previously adopted Housing Element. HCD has determined that the Housing Element will continue to be in substantial compliance with State law even after the Housing Element Amendments are adopted.

3. Based on substantial evidence in the record, the existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and/or do not need to be discontinued to accommodate the assigned housing units, and therefore do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the site during the planning period.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments will be sent to HCD for formal certification following the City Council’ s review.

BUDGET IMPACT:

Although there are no direct budgetary impacts to taking this action, the preparation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments has involved significant City staff and consultant time. Funding for this work has come primarily from the City’s Advanced Planning Fund (Fund 225), which is funded by a fee collected with each building permit. To implement the Housing Element, a funding source is identified with each Housing Element policy and the Community Development Department will allocate appropriate staff and budgetary resources to complete each effort.

NOTICE PROVIDED:

All meeting noticing requirements were met. A public hearing notice for consideration of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments was published in the San Mateo Daily Journal. Notice of the Housing Element Amendments availability was displayed on the home page of the City’s website, posted to the City’s Housing Element website and a physical copy was made available at City Hall. Notice was also included in the City’s E-Newsletter and sent out to various email distribution lists, including the Housing Policy/Housing Element email distribution list.

248 of 719

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 2
0 8
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments are considered exempt under the “common sense” exemption under state CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the project involves policies, programs, and actions to meet the City’s RHNA and AFFH goals that would not have any potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and identifies programs and actions to remove constraints and promote affordable housing development. The proposed amendments involve an update to the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory, associated text amendments to align with these Sites Inventory updates and minor updates to various policies, programs, and actions to support meeting the City’s RHNA and AFFH goals. The 2023-2031 Housing Element is strictly a policy document that does not provide entitlements to any specific development projects and would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. The proposed amendments are aligned with, and do not change, the Housing Element functioning as a policy document. Further, the proposed amendments do not include specific amendments to any land use regulations at this time, but rather update the policies and programs that will guide future implementation actions. Any subsequent implementation actions that include amendments to the City’s land use or zoning regulations would be subject to separate CEQA review at the time those amendments are prepared, if required. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to the City of San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element would not have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from CEQA review.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Att 2 – HCD Substantial Compliance Finding Letter
Att 3 – 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments
Att 4 – 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments (Tracked Changes) Att 5 – Appendix C – Housing Resources and Sites Inventory Amendments Att 6 – Appendix C – Housing Resources and Sites Inventory Amendments (Tracked Changes)

STAFF CONTACT
Steve Golden, Principal Planner
[email protected]
650-522-7215

249 of 719

1 2
9 3
1 CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2026)

ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED 2023-2031 HOUSING

ELEMENT, IN ORDER TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING AND TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW

WHEREAS, the Legislature has found that, “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5); and WHEREAS, the Legislature has further found that, “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5); and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states, “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years;” and
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a housing element for the eight-year period of 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of San Mateo (City) regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 7,015 housing units, comprised of 1,777 very low-income units, 1,023 low-income units, 1,175 moderate-income units, and 3,040 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, the City prepared its 2023-2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”) in compliance with State Housing Element Law and has identified sites that can accommodate sufficient housing units to meet the City’s RHNA plus a buffer; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2024, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment to repeal the previously adopted Housing Element and adopted the revised Housing Element for the Sixth Housing Cycle (2023-2031); and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2024, the City received a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) stating that the adopted Housing Element was in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, consistent with a settlement agreement with the Housing Action Coalition, the City of San Mateo is revising the Housing Element by updating the Housing Sites Inventory to remove seven sites, add additional sites, identify sites that cannot be used for “no net loss,” update site capacities based on the voter- approved Measure T and add new pipeline project sites, along with corresponding changes to Housing Element Appendix C (Housing Resources and Sites Inventory list). The amendments also include minor updates to Implementation Plan action items and text changes in the main document to reflect these changes. Collectively, these changes are referred to herein as the “2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments”; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et seq., adoption of the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65354 requires that the Planning Commission make a written recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of a General Plan Amendment; and

250 of 719

1 2
9 3
1 WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65353(a) and City of San Mateo Municipal Code Section

27.06.040(b) require the Planning Commission to review and provide a recommendation to the City Council on General Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Sections 65352 – 65352.5, on July 26, 2025, the City mailed a public notice to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and other entities listed; and
WHEREAS, no California Native American tribe requested consultation; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585(b), on October 10, 2025, the City published the Housing Element Amendments and requested public comment for a seven-day review period; and WHEREAS, after completion of the seven-day review period where the City did not receive any comments on the Housing Element Amendments, on October 20, 2025, the City submitted the Housing Element Amendments to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2025, the City received a letter from HCD determining that the City’s amended Housing Element would continue to be in substantial compliance with Government Code Section 65580 et seq. and would be found to be in substantial compliance with state law once the Housing Element Amendments were adopted locally; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to receive public comment and consider this Resolution and the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments, reviewed the Housing Element Amendments and amended Appendix C, including HCD’s comments, the agenda report and all attachments, and oral and written public comments and voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments based on the findings listed in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider this Resolution regarding the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments and amended Appendix C, including HCD’s comments, the agenda report and all attachments, the Planning Commission recommendation and oral and written public comments.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA HEREBY finds and determines that, based on substantial evidence in the record, that:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments were reviewed for conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are found to be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments (which propose no rezonings or intensification of land use) would not have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments involve an update to the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory, associated text amendments to align with these Sites Inventory updates and minor updates to various policies, programs, and actions to support meeting the City’s RHNA and AFFH goals. The 2023-2031 Housing Element is strictly a policy document that does not provide entitlements to any specific development projects and would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. The proposed amendments are aligned with, and do not change, the Housing Element functioning as a policy document. Further, the proposed amendments do not include specific amendments to any land use regulations at this time, but rather update the policies and programs that will guide future implementation actions. Any subsequent

251 of 719

1 2
9 3
1 implementation actions that include amendments to the City’s land use or zoning regulations would be subject to separate CEQA review at the time those amendments are prepared, if required. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to the City of San Mateo 2023-2031 Housing Element would not have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from CEQA review.

3. In accordance with Government Code Section 65300.5, the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments are internally consistent with the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 that was adopted on March 18, 2024; and as required by state law and San Mateo Municipal Code Section 27.06.040(b), the Planning Commission has reviewed and provided a written recommendation to the City Council on this General Plan Amendment.

4. The Housing Element Amendments substantially comply with the Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code 65580 et seq., and contain all provisions required by the Housing Element Law as demonstrated in the Compliance with Statutory Provisions Table, adopted by City Council on May 20, 2024 in Resolution No. 37 (2024). The Housing Element Amendments revise specific sections of the document and did not eliminate or materially change the content that was previously determined to be consistent with state law, and HCD has determined that the Housing Element will continue to be in substantial compliance with state law once the Housing Element Amendments are adopted.

5. Based on substantial evidence in the record, the existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and/or do not need to be discontinued to accommodate the assigned housing units, and therefore do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the site during the planning period. Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2) requires that any jurisdiction relying on non-vacant sites to meet more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households must make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use on the non-vacant site is not an impediment to residential development during the planning period. In the City of San Mateo, 95 percent of the RHNA for lower- income unit capacity is on non-vacant sites (190 of 199 sites are non-vacant). The City has provided such substantial evidence in Appendix C of the revised Housing Element that the existing uses will be discontinued and/or will not be an impediment to residential development during the planning period based on the physical characteristics, existing uses, redevelopment potential (including improvement to land value ratio, floor area ratio, age of structures, existing height, lot coverage and known developer/owner interest), location and context, local knowledge, and environmental and infrastructure constraints.

6. The City Council hereby adopts the 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendments in their current form, which have been found by HCD to be in substantial compliance with all applicable state statutes and HCD requirements. All other provisions of the Housing Element and its appendices shall remain effective and unchanged.

7. Sections 1-5 and 7-9 shall become effective upon adoption of this resolution by the City Council. Section 6 relating to the Housing Element Amendments shall become effective upon receipt by the City of written confirmation from HCD that the Housing Element, as amended by the Housing Element Amendments, substantially conforms with state law.

8. The City Manager or their designee is hereby directed to file all necessary materials with HCD for HCD to find that the Housing Element is in conformance with State Housing Element Law and is further directed and authorized to make all non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by HCD to achieve certification.

252 of 719

1 2
9 3
1 9. The Community Development Director or their designee is hereby directed to distribute copies of the revised Housing Element in the manner provided in Government Code Sections 65357 and 65589.7.

253 of 719

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

D
ecember 18, 2025

Z
achary Dahl, Director
Community Development Department
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

D
ear Zachary Dahl:

R
E: City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Amendment to the Housing Element

T
hank you for submitting the City of San Mateo’s (City) draft amendment to the housing element that was received for review on October 22, 2025. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.

On
July 23, 2024, HCD found the City’s housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq) and as of this writing, the City continues to comply with State Housing Element Law. This draft amendment does not impact HCD’s July 23, 2024 finding of substantial compliance. The element will continue to comply with State Housing Element Law once the amendment has been adopted, submitted to, and reviewed by HCD pursuant to Government Code section 65585.

P
ublic participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

254 of 719

Zachary Dahl, Director

Page 2 ends

San Mateo City CouncilFebruary 23, 2026

San Mateo City Council
February 23, 2026