1 From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 4:04 PM
To: Chantal Eaton
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Joanna Winter; Sung H. Kwon
Subject: Fw: Notice of City Council Public Hearing for PA-2025-025, 668 E 3rd Ave (Gateway)
SPAR & SDPA
Importance: High
Hi Chantal, Zach, Joanna, & Sung,
I was going through to see if any comments have been received on Gateway and it looks like I had missed this one from Friday 2/20. Is it possible to add this as a post-packet public comment?
Thank you,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Jacob Madden
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 5:56 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Notice of City Council Public Hearing for PA-2025-025, 668 E 3rd Ave (Gateway) SPAR & SDPA
Hi Liz,
This property has subsurface soil, water and vapor contamination that will require management and potential mitigation as part of development. We would request that you put a requirement that the developer submit a site management plan to our office for approval prior to final planning approval and before any grading permit is issued. If the developer or their environmental consultant has any questions, you can give them my contact information.
Thank you,
Jacob Madden, PG
Program Specialist
San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program
2 From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 2:52 PM
Subject: Notice of City Council Public Hearing for PA-2025-025, 668 E 3rd Ave (Gateway) SPAR & SDPA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of San Mateo County. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
Dear Interested Parties and Planning Project Subscription List,
This email serves as a notice of the upcoming City Council Public Hearing on Monday, March 2, 2026 at 7:00 PM. At this meeting, the Council will hold a public hearing for Planning Application PA-2025-025, for a proposed multifamily residential development located at 668 E 3 rd Avenue. Please see attached notice placard for detailed project description, staff and applicant contact information, and meeting details.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions regarding this Project.
Regards,
Liz Gagliardi
Liz Gagliardi (She/Her)
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e- mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 1 From: James Lloyd >
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 3:39 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom; City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: City Attorney's Office; Clerk; Community Development Distribution; City Mgr Subject: public comment re item 5 for tonight's Council meeting Attachments: San Mateo - 668 East 3rd Avenue - HAA - CC.pdf Dear San Mateo City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 5 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 128-unit housing development project at 668 East 3rd Avenue, which includes 10 very low-income units, and 10 moderate-income units.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
Mar 2, 2026
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
By Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 668 East 3rd Avenue
Dear San Mateo City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 128-unit housing development project at 668 East 3rd Avenue, which includes 10 very low-income units, and 10 moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 130.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d.), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) or render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) unless, again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.
Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed concessions and waivers with respect to height, blank walls, setbacks, stepbacks, entries, and parking. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov.
Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from environmental review pursuant to section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code. Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will provide badly needed affordable housing; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also provide important housing in the heart of Silicon Valley, a region that has seen an explosion of employment opportunities without the needed housing growth, resulting in crippling rent burdens and housing shortages. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction.
CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
2 of 3