Public Comment received after packet publication — San Mateo City Council, July 20, 2026

1 Simin Zakavand
From: [email protected]
Subject: FW: 715 723 N SAN MATEO DRIVE

From: Allen Slichter < >
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 10:53 AM
To: Greg Powell <[email protected]>
Subject: 715 723 N SAN MATEO DRIVE

Greg,

I'm a little late to the table but I'm trying to get a better understanding of this project. Yes. I'm a neighbor. Not opposed to the project in principle but would like to see that it's done right.

Can you help me locate a couple documents?

Traffic Study: I've seen references to it but I have yet to find the actual document. Can you steer me to that?

The underlying appeal that is the basis of the recommendation to Council to deny in tonights Council meeting.

A couple of follow on thoughts:

Has there been any discussion of permitting the parking in the surrounding neighborhoods? Concern being that new residents will leave second vehicles on surrounding city streets. With 181 units varying in type from studio to 2 bedroom there might be perhaps 300 people occupying the building?

Have construction details been evaluated? Specifically haul routes and parking? A concern here with neighborhood disruption from construction vehicles and construction worker parking while the project is getting built.

Thanks,
Mark Slichter

Thanks,
Mark

Jul 20, 2026

City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403

To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Cc: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

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 181-unit housing development project at 715 N. San Mateo Drive, which includes 19 very low-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 thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)

2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org

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 waivers and concessions with respect to height,
ﬂoor area ratio (FAR), setbacks/yards, landscape
buffers, blank walls, open space, and yard dimensions. 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 CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). 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: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; 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 help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-
ﬂung regions in the state (and out of state). 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

1 From: Steve Carlson
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 4:09 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fw: Appeal of PA2025-031 - 715 North San Mateo Drive Attachments: Appeal of 2025-031 Letter to Honorable Mayor and City Council.docx; PA 2025-031 ATTACHMENTS.docx; PA 2025-031 APPEAL.docx

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Steve Carlson
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2026 at 02:26:14 PM PDT
Subject: Appeal of PA2025-031 - 715 North San Mateo Drive

To whom it may concern,

Attached is supplemental material in support of the Appeal of PA 2025- 031 that is scheduled to be on
the City Council Agenda of July 20, 2026.

Respectfully,

Steve Carlson

Appeal of PA25-031
Residential Development at 715 North San Mateo Drive
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
The project does not comply with provisions of the General Plan, the SMMC Title 27 Zoning Ordinance nor other provisions of the SMMC and it is not documented that it is in compliance with pertinent State storm water requirements.

Neighborhood resident’s concerns stated at the Applicant’s Neighborhood meeting conducted on February 26, 2025 nearly a year and half ago have not been addressed by the applicant nor City. Residents attending the Applicant’s Neighborhood meeting supported conversion of the project site to residential use but, had issues with the project’s ambitious development intensity and the quality of the fit. They were concerned with the exposures of neighborhood residents to serious life safety and public health hazards, economic harm, public nuisances including excessive levels of noise, off-site glare into residential living quarters, objectional and toxic odors.

Studies that can address the resident’s concerns are either incomplete and inadequate or have not been undertaken. Studies that need to be conducted Revised Shading Study examining effect on adjacent residences, Energy Impact Study, Wind Alteration Study, Public Nuisance Study of noise, glare, effect on neighborhood ambient lighting, and odors associated with the State Street on-street garbage operation, Villa Terrace garage entry/exit and open recreation areas.

Revised Transportation Study including pedestrian and bicycle use, taxi and delivery service, Safe Routes-to-School and Transit, on-street loading operations, State Street on-street garbage operations, and Villa Terrace “blind intersection” garage entry/exit sight-line study, and On-Street Parking Study.

The Phase I Environmental Assessment, Preliminary Geotechnical Study and Recology letter need to be available to the public and reviewed by the City. Will serve letters from utilities serving the project need to be submitted Letters from Cal Water providing drought policies regarding both the pool and spa, and from the Regional Water Quality Board regarding compliance of the State Street on-street Appeal of PA25-031
Residential Development at 715 North San Mateo Drive

garbage operation and facilities and the storm water drainage treatment facilities piping into the drainage swales with storm water regulations and permit.

Pursuant to State law the project is exempt from environmental review. However, State law does not restrict the City from undertaking studies to provide relevant information shedding light on the project’s effects nor on life safety issues, economic harm and public nuisances that will assist the public and decision makers of making informed choices. As acknowledged in the applicant’s submittal letter, State specifically allows to deny projects that create life safety hazards.

The applicant’s project as designed and the requested entitlements should be denied. Concerns forming a basis of denial include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Exposing neighborhood residents and the community to significant life safety and public health hazards, economic harm, and public nuisances including excessive levels of noise, off-site glare into residential living quarters, and objectional and toxic odors. a. The State Street on-street garbage operations creating a “blighting effect” on the neighborhood and an attractive nuisance leading to illegal dumping and vandalism increasing police intervention.
b. The Villa Terrace “blind intersection” garage entry/exit design with the public sidewalk that exposes pedestrians to a significant threat to life safety.

2. The project does not comply with the adopted General Plan and numerous provisions of SMMC Title 27 both substantive and procedural, and violations of the State laws and regulations regarding storm water and protection of bay waters.

Appeal of PA25-031
Residential Development at 715 North San Mateo Drive

The Findings Attachment accompanying this appeal provides a more robust and detailed basis of denial.

In hindsight, during the time between the Applicant’s Neighborhood meeting on February 26, 2025 and the project resubmittal at the end of 2025, the project would have benefitted from greater City outreach and open dialogue with neighborhood residents, conducting project workshops and a Planning Commission study session giving both residents an opportunity to speak and the City to engage in active listening.

Lastly, I apologize in advance for the length and wordiness and take full responsibility for any errors and omissions.

Respectfully,

Steve Carlson
Attachment:

Appeal of PA 2025-031

1 ATTACHMENT #1

VILLA TERRACE GARAGE ENTRY/EXIT
The garage entry on Villa Terrace will cause off-site lighting glare associated with night time exiting vehicles to residents occupying the one (1) story single-family dwellings situated on the south side of Villa Terrace opposite the proposed project. Off-site lighting glare and gate and vehicle noise (which are more intrusive at night) can be eliminated by relocating the garage entry/exit onto North San Mateo Drive where commercial uses are situated across the street. The owner’s plans need to be revised to relocate the garage entry/exit to North San Mateo Drive and demonstrate how the proposed project garage entry/exit will not create off-site lighting glare and noise to existing residential areas.

PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE CONFLICTS
The garage entry/exit sight line for exiting vehicles does not allow exiting vehicle operators to view pedestrians using the adjacent public sidewalk – this design is a life safety matter because it creates a dangerous conflict and is not in keeping with the City’s efforts to provide safe streets for everyone. This can be remedied by relocating the garage entry/exit to North San Mateo Drive where there the ability to eliminate this safety matter and protect the residential area from additional vehicle traffic.

Installation of a mirror, a stop sign or gate alarms are not a more effective remedy than a design that provides a clear sight-line. Further, these measures rely on perfect driving behavior, and are not effective for all pedestrians - especially the children, the elderly, hearing or sight impaired, and the young (and cellphone and earphone users) (nor pets), and unless maintained become an after the fact enforcement matter. Moreover, they generate intrusive Noise and Glare that are Public Nuisances which are not permitted by SMMC Title 27.

Redesigning the garage entry/exit and relocating it on North San Mateo Drive to an area that has adequate setback from the public sidewalk (e.g. near the pedestrian primary entry) and allows operators of exiting vehicles and pedestrians to clearly view one another and thus minimize accidents.

Relocating the garage entry/exit also facilitates project access and helps to protect the neighborhood from additional vehicles traffic and congestion conflicts on Villa Terrace and adjacent local streets. Left turn movements from Villa Terrace to Northbound San Mateo Drive is becoming increasingly constrained as platoons of vehicles traveling along North San Mateo Drive making it difficult to complete a turning movement in a reasonable amount of time. Future residents will unfortunately learn to avoid making left turns onto North San Mateo Drive and instead travel through the residential neighborhood to access US Highway 101 and ECR. 2 Project related traffic traveling west on Villa Terrace and onto Highland Avenue conflicts with the intended purpose of the Highland Avenue Bicycle Boulevard - to provide increased safety for pedestrian and cyclists and streets with smaller traffic volumes. The use of Villa Terrace as the garage entry/exit will also likely result in more traffic on neighborhood streets.

The location of the garage entry/exit, potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, impacts to on- street parking, and impacts to neighborhood traffic and other traffic issues were identified at the project applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting conducted on February 26, 2025. At the time the applicant advised that it would be challenging to modify the garage entry to cut back the walls increasing visibility for vehicle operators and pedestrians as the pool and spa were located above the entry - it would be a difficult structural issue. The owner’s conceptual plans need to be revised to relocate the garage entry/exit and protect pedestrians (in the spirit of Safe Streets for Everyone).

Even were the garage entry to remain on Villa Terrace the pedestrian/vehicle conflict at the garage entry has not been addressed either by the applicant nor the City Staff.

Planning Condition of Approval #4 Parking Garage, based on the recommendation of the City’s Transportation consultant, requires the garage entry/exit gate to be relocated to a minimum distance of 30 feet from the sidewalk. While this will allow entry vehicles not to block the sidewalk (an ADA violation), it does not address the sight line issue caused by placement of a solid wall adjacent to and perpendicular to the sidewalk creating a “blind intersection”. The plans need to be revised to demonstrate a clear line-of-sight eliminating pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.

3 ATTACHMENT #2

ON-STREET PARKING STUDY
The proposed project provides only 181 on-site parking spaces for the 180 dwelling units and no on-site visitor spaces (including both business and casual). It is important to note that not all of the units will be provided with a parking space as many spaces with be reserved for other vehicle services.

The proposed project appears to result in the loss of on-street parking spaces through the inclusion of extensive bulb outs at the corners of State Street/North San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace/North San Mateo Drive, the provision of two on-street loading zones – one (1) on State Street for permanent exclusive daily garbage bin pickup and one (1) on North San Mateo Drive (designated as short-term parking), and the provision of drainage swales situated in in the public right-of-way along North San Mateo Drive, State Street and Villa Terrace.

Neighborhood residents rely heavily on street parking to meet their needs. The San Mateo Heights area originally subdivided in 1895 and was later largely developed with single family residences in the early 1900s and 1920s and later followed with small-scale apartment construction in the 1960s (accommodating most of San Mateos apartment construction during the 1960s). The majority of sites provide only 1 on-site parking space per dwelling. Most driveways are designed to provide access and do not allow additional parking (so additional on- site parking opportunities are few). Many residents are thus forced to use on-street parking (originally intended primarily for visitor and service vehicles).

Nearby businesses along North San Mateo Drive also rely on street parking to meet their business clients. The elimination of parking spaces especially those on North San Mateo Drive and State Street will adversely affect their business operation.

While no known formal On-street Parking Study has been conducted by the City, residents have made the City staff, Commission and Council aware of the parking issues. The implementation of the Poplar Bicycle Lanes combined with the State limitation on parking with 20 feet of intersections has already reduced the supply of on-street parking and exacerbated the supply/demand imbalance. In association with the Poplar Bicycle Lane previous Councilmembers in the recent past have stated that the City would be studying the parking issue and develop solutions. No follow-up with neighborhood residents by the City has ever occurred.

Parking was a key concern of residents speaking at the Applicant’s February 2025 Neighborhood meeting well over a year ago (a copy of the meeting notes was provided to the City and a City staff member was at observer at the meeting.

City staff is aware of the neighborhood on-street parking issue as it was raised most recently at the Humboldt/Poplar Street Bicycle Lane improvements public meetings. City staff worked on this matter and presented verbal reports identifying potential parking losses due to red curbing to meet improve sight-lines at corners (improving vehicle and pedestrian safety), but little to no 4 public information has ever been offered regarding the number of on-street spaces (though it was apparent that the City apparently possesses digital street maps with parking space information) nor the demand/supply imbalance. Since these meetings, the number of on-street parking has been further reduced by the State of California safety requirement to eliminate on-street parking spaces within 20 feet of intersections (a potential loss of upwards of 50 parking spaces in the area). However, this has not been fully implemented in the area (e.g. parking spaces at the T- intersection of Highland Avenue/Villa Terrace are not permitted within the intersection).

As requested by neighborhood residents, City staff needs to conduct a Neighborhood Parking Study to determine the number of on-street parking spaces and the number available spaces (especially after 8 PM) to determine the extent of the existing demand/supply of on-street spaces and determine the proposed development impact on parking. Should the study determine the supply is inadequate, (as field observation indicates only 1 to 2 spaces are available overnight per each block face). It is incumbent for the City to study and mitigate the impact of the adverse parking effects associated with the increase in development in the adopted General Plan. As has been identified in past meetings a possible solution would be the implementation of a Parking Permit Program. Because it is a CDGB Priority Area grant funding should be considered to defray costs for eligible households.

Already, as a likely result of the parking reductions, and that some multifamily building owners are apparently disaggregating the rent and charging residents separately for on-site parking) more residents are parking on the street (to reduce rent obligation) and are parking vehicles on the street and as much as a block away from their residences, as no spaces are available near their dwellings. This will likely only get worse with future development and the problem will spread to adjoining residential areas and potentially leading to greater demand for police services.

5 ATTACHMENT #3

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
The Planning Commission Staff Report provided limited or no data and analysis of neighborhood residents concerns stated at the Applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting of February 26, 2025 (nearly over a year and half ago) and at the Planning Commission hearing (e.g. the lack of an adequate number of on-street over-night parking spaces, and traffic on local neighborhood streets (e.g. Highland Avenue, Bellevue Avenue and State Street) long-known to the City staff and representatives) traffic impacts to neighborhood streets and access to the regional highways, public nuisances generated by the project including, but limited to, off-site noise, glare and odors, unsafe “blind intersection” (i.e. lack of adequate sight-line) garage entry/exit presenting a clear danger to pedestrians, construction impacts (i.e. fugitive dust, toxic spent fuel odors, high noise levels (e.g. exceeding 90 dB), parking and traffic congestion in the area related to the 18 month to 2-year construction, excavation of the underground garage, slope stabilization and construction of foundation walls in close proximity to existing occupied residences, and identification of and removal of any toxic and hazardous materials from the site structures.

1. No resident offered that the project was a good fit with the neighborhood. Residents stated that while at best it was an attractive building, it was completely out of character with the landscaped small-scale neighborhood predominated by two (2) story landscaped pedestrian scale residential buildings and landscaped front and side yards.

The massive 75+-foot tall brutalist design building with little to no setbacks was a better fit in a Downtown location with other similar large-scale buildings.

2. Residents recommended relocating the garage entry/exit to North San Mateo to an area with and to eliminate the safety issue and reduce public nuisances associated with the garage vehicle traffic. Increasing setbacks from the existing residents to reduce public nuisance impacts to allow for a tall landscape screen and relocate the open recreation areas to face North San Mateo Drive to eliminate public nuisances.

3. Residents commented extensively on the lack of on-street parking in the neighborhood and were concerned about the proposed project effects on street parking, especially given the proposed reduction of on-street parking, the proposed on-site parking ratio of less than one (1) parking space per dwelling unit and no on-site visitor parking.

4. Residents commented on the poor and dangerous design and location of garage entry/exit adjacent to the sidewalk creating and obvious danger to pedestrians and generation of off- site glare and noise to adjacent single-family residences on Villa Terrace.

5. Residents were concerned about the generation of Public Nuisances including off-site glare, and increased ambient lighting levels) noise and odors, and wind given the 6 proximity of the open pool, spa and outdoor cooking and dining and outdoor lounge adjacent to existing residential areas, and the six (6) story height with limited setbacks potentially may block and channel westerly winds thereby accelerating wind and increasing ground level wind speeds adversely affecting the adjacent residences, the public sidewalk areas and possibly the on-site open recreation areas.

6. Residents identified that project related traffic is likely to rely on local neighborhood streets given the proposed garage entry/exit on Villa Terrace (this appears to have been borne out in the Transportation Study). Given the increasing peak hour congestion at the intersection of Villa Terrace/North San Mateo Drive drivers will utilize alternate routes through the residential neighborhood to access the regional highways.

7. Life safety issues related to the poor traffic engineering of the “blind” intersection of the garage entrance/exit abutting the pedestrian sidewalk - creating a hazard where none exists.

8. Decreased safety of the Highland Avenue Bike Boulevard (offering a much higher level of safety to encourage pedestrian and cycling travel) users due to increased project related traffic and using the street as a primary access route for the proposed project.

9. Construction effects associated with the proposed project including grading, excavation and off-haul of soil (now known to total over 53,000 square feet, and off-haul of 21,000 cubic yards of soil), construction aspects including, but not limited to, duration, staging areas, parking areas equipment to be used and effects on adjacent sensitive receptors including a nearby special needs school, affordable family housing and assisted living facilities.

10. Life safety related to the demolition of contaminated buildings, asphalt parking lots and catch basins and the construction of a tall retaining wall abutting two (2) residential properties and a soil nailing wall.

11. Imposition of economic harm to the adjacent residents due to costs associated with measures to protect the property as required by California Civil Code, possible impacts associated with wind channeling and acceleration, and the elimination of solar access for future solar panels on existing neighborhood residences due to the project building casting shadows.

7 ATTACHMENT #4

TRANSPORTATION STUDY
The Transportation Study is incomplete and inadequate. The Transportation Study appears to have only included the 181 on-site parking, and only examined a couple of local intersections, and based on that limited data, the report authors determined that no traffic impacts would occur.

The Commission action based in part on the adequacy of the Transportation Study (a key report) is questionable. Staff Report included limited and incomplete information of the Transportation Study, and could not and cannot be relied to understand the project traffic effects (e.g. Several intersections are included in the study but, were not identified, no operational analysis was included). Given that the study was only made public midday the day before the Commission Hearing neither the public nor the Commission had sufficient to review the 73 page technical report and had no way of independently knowing if the study was adequate nor complete.

No in-depth presentation of the report was given by either the City’s consultant nor staff. Perhaps understandably, The Commissioners had few questions regarding traffic. However, it is troubling that prior to taking action no Commissioner stated in the affirmative that they had reviewed the Transportation Study. The Commission Hearing should have been continued and re-noticed to allow the public (and apparently Commissioners) an opportunity to review and comment on the study.

The study appears to undercount the traffic associated with the project and thus undercounts the impacts. The study includes no analysis of pedestrian travel to and from the Burlingame Caltrain station, no assessment of bicycle/scooter traffic generated by the project, no operational assessment, no assessment of the proposed daily garbage truck pick-up, and no assessment of alternative transportation forms associated with the project (e.g. taxi service, parcel delivery services, maintenance, visitor traffic both business and casual, and turnover moving loading operations). The study only examined a couple of intersection in the immediate project vicinity and the garage entry/exit. It should have included key intersections in proximity to the project that provide access to the regional highways.

The Transportation Study, identified in the Planning Commission Staff Report as Attachment #6 (later at the PC Hearing revised to Attachment#7), was not included in the attachments until the Monday the day before the Planning Commission Hearing. This is an inadequate amount of time for the public nor the Commissioners to review the important report.

Persons attending the applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting conducted on February 26, 2025 identified several Transportation related issues including that the project garage entry design and location on Villa Terrace was inappropriate to use a local residential neighborhood street rather than the arterial street - North San Mateo Drive as all the other buildings fronting on North San Mateo Drive, the blind intersection of the garage entry/exit was a danger to pedestrians and should be redesigned and relocated on North San Mateo Drive, traffic associated with the project 8 impacts on local streets, the status of the City’s State Street closure study, the status of the City’s on-street parking study that was identified as part of the Humboldt and Poplar Bike Lane project and the project impacts to existing on-street parking (due to lack of on-site resident and visitor parking).

The applicant responded that the City would respond to all of the traffic and parking questions.

No public notice of the start nor completion of the Transportation Study, dated March 5, 2026 was given. At the PC Hearing City staff provided no response to the resident’s questions other than to state that limited impacts to local streets would occur.

While the Staff Report concludes that little traffic impacts would occur, the limited, yet incomplete information and analysis contained in the Staff Report, and the report itself suggested that the study did not include the full range of traffic sources related to the project particularly to alternative transportation forms (e,g, taxi and delivery services including parcel and food) associated with this type of development that would substantially increase the traffic effects.

An Operational Study needs to be completed that examines alternative transportation forms including vehicle, loading related to occupancy turnover move-in and out, bicycle (over 200 bicycle parking facilities are proposed), visitor traffic, pedestrian (as it is intended that many residents will walk to the Burlingame Caltrain station over a ½ mile away), mail, maintenance, and daily garbage steel bin pick-up. Additionally, the Transportation Study only examined the intersection immediately adjacent to the project at the proposed Villa Terrace garage entry/exit and the intersection of Villa Terrace/ North San Mateo Drive.

The Study should have examined the impact to key intersections that provide access to the regional highways US 101 ad ECR. At a minimum, intersections that should have been included are North San Mateo Drive/Poplar (as it is congested during peak commute hours and the left- turn pocket is too short in length to accommodate the demand) North San Mateo Drive/ Peninsula Avenue, ECR/ Bellevue, ECR/State Street. The report identifies that the project will rely on Highland Avenue (a local residential street) as a primary access route (a Bicycle Boulevard providing access to the Poplar Bicycle Lanes) the intersection of Bellevue/Highland also needs to be included.

As identified in the Transportation Study Highland Avenue (and presumably other local residential street e.g. Bellevue, State Street and Villa Terrace) will become key routes to access development along North San Mateo Drive. It is incumbent on the City to implement safety features on Highland Avenue Bicycle Boulevard as it has with all the other Bicycle Boulevards.

It needs to conduct neighborhood meetings and work with the residents to develop and implement safety improvements (e.g. corner bulb outs at the intersection of Bellevue/Highland, additional street lighting, stripped cross walks, speed tables, and intersection controls). These features will help to protect pedestrian and bicyclists from vehicles and act to ensure increased traffic proceeds at lower speeds.
9 The Transportation Study authors suggestion that mirrors, lights and alarms should be added to the garage entry/exit to address the pedestrian danger posed by the blind intersection design is inappropriate. These features represent new Public Nuisances (Noise and Off-site Glare) not permitted by the SSMC Title 27, they do not constitute reliable solutions in that they are not effective in the case of children and the infirmed and they rely on perfect drivers, and they are not a superior solution to simply redesigning and relocating the garage entry/exit to North San Mateo Drive.

The Transportation Study needs to be amended to include an Operational Study focusing on the use of a high-density residential building with reduced parking near a train station that appears to cater to a population of single (and younger?) tech workers. (The applicant apparently has not provided a description of the target audience for the proposed project.) This is evidenced by the number of one bedroom and studios in the proposed project, the type and amount of on-site recreation areas and facilities, including observation deck lounge, pool and spa with BBQ facilities, parcel package room, wi-fi, and large amount of bicycle parking facilities. Because the facility offers a coworking area, residents are likely to conduct business on premise increasing the daytime visitor population.

While the development provides 181 parking spaces, and ample supply of bicycle parking (208 bicycles), the future occupants are likely to place greater reliance on alternate transportation assets including, but not limited to, taxi service (e.g. uber, lyft, waymo, etc), mobile grocery and food service vendors, and package deliveries (e.g. FedEx, Amazon, UPS). The traffic associated with building’s own service vendors needs to be included as does occupant turnover and demand for moving vehicles.

Based on the limited trip generation data in the Staff Report, the Traffic Study likely undercounted the vehicle trips the proposed project is likely to generate, and does not appear to have evaluated the adequacy of the on-street loading space and on-street parking to accommodate the proposed project.

Additionally, the Transportation Study did not include a review the proposed operation of the daily on-street garbage pick-up on State Street juxtaposed with the intersection of North San Mateo Drive. This is concerning, in that the letter submitted by the applicant from Recology regarding the project. Recology indicates that the pick-up is likely to require daily pickup of several bins (on-line indicates upwards as many as six (6) six cubic yard bins would be needed) and that the Recology trucks to be used would have a width of 12 feet, a length of 39+ feet and a minimum turning radius of 39-40 feet similar to the Fire truck turning movement shown on the applicants plans.

The curb-to-curb width of State Street is 35-36 feet which includes two travel lanes (9.9 feet) shown on the applicants plans and parking (8 feet width each) on both sides. By way of comparison the minimum drive lane is 12 feet and a driveway aisle in a City parking lot is 12 feet.
10 Given a shy away distance of two feet from the bins (so as not to damage the vehicle) the Recology trucks will occupy 14 feet of a two way travel way of a combined area of approximately 19.8 feet. This does not include additional area needed if an electric tug is used by the operator to move each bin into position it in front of the truck lifting forks. What this means is that the daily operation of loading and unloading will block the State Street travel lanes in both directions and adversely affect the intersection (for 15 minutes?) for Recology.

The building owner’s workers will also disrupt traffic. They will need upwards of 15 minutes to transport the bins to and from the street disrupting pedestrian use of the sidewalk and traffic on the east bound travel lane.

What it also apparently means is the Recology trucks cannot navigate a turn onto the southbound travel lane North San Mateo Drive without utilizing a portion of the on-coming north bound travel lane on North San Mateo Drive. These are unacceptable safety concerns created by the applicant not providing the trash pickup on-site

11 ATTACHMENT #5

ON-STREET GARBAGE OPERATIONS
Garbage collection operation is a safety issue for the public, pedestrians and traffic on both State Street and North San Mateo Drive. The applicant proposes to permanently use State Street as a garbage bin storage and pick-up area (8 feet x 25 feet) instead of locating the facility on-site. The nature of the refuse collection operation, the size of the trucks (width of 12 feet and length of

39.5 plus bin lifting forks) and the limited curb-to-curb street width (35 feet) and substandard travel lanes of 9.9 feet (12 feet is the standard width), will result in daily temporary closure of State Street traffic. Because of the very close proximity of the garbage to the intersection of State Street/North San Mateo Drive will potentially affect traffic on San Mateo Drive and other local streets.

The collection process will inevitably result in solid refuse and liquids being spilled on the public street and sidewalks (leaking bins or during collection). This is a Public Health Hazard especially for humans, pets, and wildlife. Aside from the health effects from potentially noxious odors, over time built-up refuse on the ground and safety will result in slippery surfaces which is a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

This subject was not covered in the staff report nor discussed at the hearing. Because the bins need to be placed on the street prior to pick-up each day (from 5 AM to 8 PM) the loading area would need to be for the exclusive use of the building owners (which constitutes an apparent gift of public resources as well as the loss of 2 neighborhood on-street parking spaces).

The permanent use of the street for a dedicated garbage collection area and virtually permanent curb side bin storage is likely in violation of the Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and other state and regional regulations in that the bins are not weather proof nor leak proof, the bin on-street storage does not provide cover from inclement weather nor a sewage drain to capture bin leakage and protect liquids from entering into the City’s storm drainage system (which flows untreated into the bay).

No condition of approval is included which defines City and applicant’s responsibilities and liabilities, and other features including but, not limited to, requirement for a financial deposit for placement of the bins on the street, standards for installation of bollards to protect the bins from vehicle traffic, financial deposit required for refuse collection operation damage to the improvements in the public right-of-way (i.e. street and sidewalk surfaces which are typically engineered concrete, rather than asphalt), program for identifying requirements for street and sidewalk closure (e.g. flagman and signs), program for annual inspections, monitoring and reporting to safeguard the public health and safety.

Virtually permanent placement of six (6) bins in the public right-of-way are themselves a threat to public safety. The SMMC requires special standards for temporary debris box placement in the street that are far more limiting and restrictive. Permanent placement of debris boxes in any 12 portion of the public right-of-way are not allowed in any area of the City. The six (6) bins are the equivalent to a large debris box and apart form the public health and traffic issues and should only be allowed on private property.

13 ATTACHMENT #6

ON-STREET LOADING OPERATIONS
Loading services whether refuse or other items in the street is a safety concern that was not addressed. The SMMC requires a 10-foot x 25-foot on-site loading area. The applicant plans do not include such a facility and will depend on the City right- of-way. No analysis of the loading nor operational requirements of a project of this type and size was provided. Design features included in the project, temporary 30-minute parking on North San Mateo Drive at the project pedestrian entry/exit, internet service, business work space, parcel package room, substantially reduced parking no on-stie visitor parking, and more on-stie bicycle parking than vehicle parking spaces, indicate the building heavily relies third party service deliveries (package and food) and taxi services (e.g. Lyft, Uber, Waymo, etc). Past experience suggests that these service vehicles will park wherever and whenever meaning they will park in the Bicycle Lane when the proposed 30- minute parking spaces are occupied (forcing cyclists into the street travel lanes (one of the tools of safe streets). Given the number of dwelling units this can adversely disrupt traffic and bicycle lane operations along North San Mateo Drive.

Given no on-site loading zone, moving operations are an important safety concern. Large commercial trucks including tractor trailers have nowhere to park except on the local streets - probably on Villa Terrace as State Street has a substandard travel lane width and is proposed to be dedicated to refuse collection operation. This will impact Villa Terrace traffic conditions, access to properties and reduce on-street parking. The lack of a Loading and Operational Study hampers making an informed decision.

14 ATTACHMENT #7

SHADING AND ENERGY IMPACT STUDY
The proposed project height, length, limited setbacks and u-shaped design appears to cause significant shading of residences and improvements on abutting properties on the west project boundary, most notably State Street Condominiums. However, the applicant did not submit a Shading Study of the project on the adjacent residential area as required by the City.

Shading from the Fall Equinox the Spring Equinox, given climate weather changes with expected more intense cold weather patterns and coupled with increasing energy costs, will likely result in raising energy costs for these residents and cause owners to absorb cost increases from utility suppliers. This is an economic harm.

The owner needs to be required to conduct a detailed Shading Study in accordance with the City’s Shading study guide and determine the energy cost increases and loss of potential solar roof panels to adjacent residential properties. The City should require the owner to absorb the increased energy costs or work with the affected property owners to develop and implement alternative solutions such as augmenting the insulation of adjacent building offsetting the energy costs. Similarly, the shading may adversely affect the landscaping of adjacent properties and compensate the owners for loss of plants, useable outdoor area previously required by the City and develop and implement a landscape plan including planting of new material acceptable to the adjacent owners. The Shading Study and improvements to adjacent properties needs to be completed and agreed to by the adjacent land owners prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for the site. The City needs to be provided with documentation that the adjacent landowners have accepted the plans and the plans have been implemented including off-site improvements to neighboring properties.

15 ATTACHMENT #8

WIND STUDY
The proposed building height of 75 feet east-west facing slab design and close proximity to the property boundaries may have the potential to interrupt the flow of prevailing westerly winds causing wind acceleration along the westerly façade and adversely affecting the wind speed at ground level on the adjacent properties. The owner needs to submit a Wind Study prepared by a qualified professional acceptable to the City that evaluates the project impact on wind speeds and identify design that changes to eliminate impacts on adjacent properties. A provision should be added to require a minimum 15-day notice to residents in the project area of the availability of the Wind Study for public review and comment. Because of the complexity and technical nature of the Wind Study, the City’s Building Official and Environmental Officer need to meet with residents to review the Wind Study. To ensure its completeness the review must be conducted prior to the City’s acceptance of the Final Report and design changes. The Wind Study needs to be completed and plans revised incorporating the report recommendations prior to the issuance of any Building Permit.

16 ATTACHMENT #9

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Rockridge Geotechnical September 17, 2025) was submitted to the City as part of the applicant’s plans. The report information was not summarized in the City staff report nor discussed at the Commission hearing.

The report identifies some key findings including that the depth to water at the site at about 12 feet. The report recommends that given the near vertical cut slopes for the proposed garage will necessitate either a soil nailing wall or other more expensive casing to protect the slopes during construction of the foundation walls. Dewatering wells (unknown locations) will need to be constructed to remove water from the site and other provisions undertaken to protect the foundation from ground water. Rods that are a component of the soil nailing wall would need to extend an unknown distance into adjacent properties.

This raises concerns that the project relies on improvements larger than the property itself (not described in the project description nor disclosed to the public). The temporary or permanent installation of rods into both private and public property (potentially affecting future work in the public right-of-way and development on the adjacent residential properties. The site dewatering can have adverse consequences for the soil and foundation stability for the adjacent residential properties. The soil nailing wall and the dewatering of the properties an unfair cost burden on adjacent owners to hire legal and technical expert to review the proposed foundation system and provide advise including, but not limited to, the short-term and long-term effects on their property and improvements, and any potential liability or insurance costs.

Similarly, rods placed in the public right-of-way can have implications for City street utilities and other improvements (e.g. street trees) and presumably requires an written agreement between the City and the project owners. It raises the concern that as the project requires use of the City right-of-way to construct the project the City adopts a liability exposure for the integrity of the foundation system and/or the soil nailing wall. This is yet another example that the project description was inadequate and that without use of City right-of-way and neighboring properties that the project in its current configuration would not be feasible. By failing to disclose this and other information the City becomes a “hidden project partner”.

The applicant responded numerous times at the Applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting (February 2025) that the City will address all the resident’s questions and concerns in particular those involving traffic and parking. The City has not. The same questions and concerns regarding safety, traffic, garage entry/exit design and location, the projects generation of public nuisances, the project impacts to on-street parking, traffic, and operational effects were not addressed or dismissed.

17 RETAINING WALL
The construction of the tall retaining wall itself represents a life safety concern to the adjacent residents and properties. Given the high-water table and the need for site dewatering during construction of shoring in the form of an apparent soil nailing wall and permanent foundation walls, it is especially important to take precautions to ensure that the walls are not adversely affected by hydrostatic pressure. Placement of a wall over 15 feet in height from finished grade within five (5) feet of the shared property line (with occupied residences does not afford much room for margin of error. The owners of adjacent properties under CA Civil Code are responsible for maintaining the stability of their properties and improvements so that they do not damage the project site (which may include shoring of their own site).

The need for an agreement between the project site and residential properties is apparent to protect their property and improvements, and in the situation where, if for some reason, the project construction is stalled after the site is excavated the contingencies are unknown at this time (would the City allow the existing residences to be occupied?). This is especially concerning given that another major project site in the City stalled and left an excavated site from some time.

The proposed massive block long 75-foot tall building is placed in very close proximity to property boundaries abutting adjacent residences, and the public right-of-way. This is a life safety concern for several reasons. The project site is situated in an area with sensitive receptors and residential buildings and is fronts on 3 streets including a minor arterial roadway. San Mateo experiences increased gusty wind speeds in the from the Fall through Spring. Unless very special precautions are taken the site construction from excavation to construction of the upper floor levels can result in material being blown off the site and building and onto adjacent properties and the roadway. The subject matter is lacking in the staff report and hearing. While a Construction Management Plan is required no detailed performance measures are identified to protect public safety.

The open nature of the recreation areas and placement adjacent to the Villa Terrace and residences is a life safety concern. Materials thrown or blown off the 6th floor lounge can cause serious harm to adjacent residential buildings and occupants. Similarly, objects cast from the 2nd story recreation, pool, spa and outdoor cooking and dining area (intentional or not) can cause physical harm to pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic along Villa Terrace.

Given the length and height of the building and very limited to zero setbacks, it has the potential to channel and accelerate ground wind speeds onto adjacent residential properties and public right-of-way including the sidewalk. Unless a Wind Analysis, is performed and design modifications implemented to eliminate the adverse ground level wind effects this represents a safety issue.
18 The construction of the building is a life safety concern. Given its 75-foot tall height, length, massive underground garage and close proximity to occupied residential properties and three streets including a minor arterial roadway. The estimated 18 month to 2-year construction timeframe exposes neighborhood residents, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic on adjacent streets to long-term construction related effects including but not limited to high noise levels, debris, fugitive dust, spent fuel odors, traffic and parking congestion/disruptions and creates a potential exists for off-site. While construction effects were discussed in very broad terms and a CMP identified as a condition of approval, few specific provisions are identified to assure protection of existing residents and properties.

19 ATTACHMENT #10

FINDINGS
A. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The proposed project is not consistent with SMMC Section 27.08.030 Site Plan and Architectural Review findings.

1. The structure, site plan, and landscaping are in scale and harmonious with the character of the neighborhood.

The existing neighborhood, subdivided in 1895, and developed in the 1900s to 1920s witnessed approximately 50% of the single-family dwellings converted into small multifamily buildings (5- 10 dwellings) that generally matched or completed the neighborhood architectural quality, pedestrian scale, materials and finishes, height and setbacks. The area is primarily comprised of low-density residential buildings with a mix of older single-family and multifamily buildings that are predominantly one and two-story dwellings, a few three-story buildings and a handful of four-story residential buildings.

The surrounding area subdivided in 1895, is largely characterized developed with small parcel developments of between 5,000 SF to 7,500 SF developed with 1 and 2 story single family and small apartment buildings. These buildings are pedestrian in scale and possess small windows, with wood trim, wood and/or stucco cladding, have small scale wood doorways and single or double width driveways, have open landscaped front yards have 15 foot minimum front and back setbacks and 5-to-6 foot side setbacks - often landscaped. Exterior lighting is minimal with little or no off-site glare. Sidewalks are separated from the streets with landscaped buffers and street trees.

No existing building in the neighborhood matches its height, bulk nor scale of the proposed project. Out of 255+ parcels, only two (2) are four (4) stories in height (none adjacent to the site), and seven (7) are three (3) stories in height. Over 75% of the existing buildings are 1-to-2 stories in height. The buildings immediately abutting the site and across Villa Terrace and State are one story in height with one small townhome condominiums two (2) stories in height over a partially subterrain garage. To the west of the site beyond the two (2) abutting residential buildings are predominately two (2) story buildings. Across the street on Villa Terrace is a very small three (3) story building.

The massive proposed six (6) story building with a 75-foot height covering 90%+ of the site with minimalist landscaping, limited to no building setbacks, excessive floor area containing 181 dwellings represents a jarring departure from the existing scale and building forms in the area.

The project is not in keeping with the pattern of development, architecture, scale nor character of the neighborhood. The project is inconsistent with the predominate neighborhood building height of one (1) and two (2) story dwellings including the residences abutting and adjacent to the 20 proposed project. Abutting the proposed site are a small one (1) story single family dwelling fronting on Villa Terrace and a small two (2) story condominium development fronting on State Street.

The project “brutalist fortress” design, the 75-foot height, massive size and pedestal appearance - found nowhere in the neighborhood - will forever dominate views and alter the appearance and visual image of the neighborhood. The building will be visible from the neighborhood and blocks beyond. The building will block easterly sky views, and cast shadows on neighboring residences. The building will significantly reduce any semblance of privacy for residents of the surrounding area.

The project’s finish materials, large format scale and details are neither characteristic of the neighborhood’s small-scale wood and stucco clad low-rise dwellings with small scale trim, with open landscaped yard setbacks and limited lot coverage nor complementary to existing buildings and will degrade the appearance and character of the existing open garden apartment character of the neighborhood.

The size of the building over 258,000 square feet is clearly inconsistent with the small dwellings and apartment complexes ranging from approximately 1,200 square feet to 10,000 square feet The lack of generous landscaped open space and setbacks and lush streetscape that define the neighborhood are not incorporated in the project’s minimalist landscape program. The projects lack of on-site ground level landscaping and open space and landscaped yards is inconsistent with the more open landscaped appearance of the neighborhood.

The six (6)-story 75-foot building (3 to 4 times taller than existing building heights) and vastly more massive and little to no on-site parking, no on-site loading facility and minimal landscaping will significantly degrade the quality and appearance of the low scale landscaped family neighborhood. The increased population will result in greater traffic increases and more congestion on local serving neighborhood streets, reducing safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, and result in a significant loss of on-street parking and create an imbalance of greater demand for parking than supply – directly impacting neighborhood viability and a deterrent to investment.

The consolidation of the four (4) parcels into a site area containing over 53,000 square feet is not reflective of the small 5,000 square foot to 7,500 square foot rectilinear lot pattern development improved with small-scale low-rise buildings that occupy only a portion of the lot.

The residential density of 148 dwellings per acre (exceeding even San Francisco’s average density of 97 dwelling per acre) is vastly greater (4-7 times) than the prevailing residential building density (8 to 35 dwellings per acre with an average constructed density of approximately 15-20 dwellings per acre) in the neighborhood. 21 The provision of open recreation areas concentrated in two areas on the upper floors and designed for large numbers of people and proximately to residences creating excessive public nuisances including noise, glare and odors is not harmonious with the relatively quiet family- oriented neighborhood.

The use the State Street for on-street garbage storage and collection will have a “blighting effect” and an attractive nuisance on a key entrance to the neighborhood. The public nuisances associated with the on-street garbage operation including noise and objectional and toxic odors will impair the tranquil residential qualities of the neighborhood and degrade the safety of residents.

2. The development will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the city.

The neighborhood has played a major role in accommodating development over the last 65 years, in a manner that generally fit the scale and pattern of existing development. The project will disrupt the pattern of investment and growth.

Development activity in the area has been steady but at a slower pace since the conversion of 50% of the SFRs in the 1960s to small apartment buildings (five (5) to ten (10) units over parking) transforming the area into a garden apartment type of area. During this time the area absorbed the City’s largest number of apartment developments. Many remaining SFRs have been significantly upgraded over the past few years and several two (2) story condominiums have been constructed. All roadways have recently been repaved over the past few years representing a major public investment.

The City transformed North San Mateo Drive into the city’s first complete streets development a few years ago.

Several one (1) story community care facilities have been recently constructed notably along Jefferson Court within 300 feet of the project site. Other non-profit uses including the low- income transitional housing within 210 feet of the project site. The Avlon Academy was recently completed in 2026 and serves special needs clientele.

Sterling Court a four (4) story assisted living senior facility was constructed on a former elementary school in the 1980s. The largest residential project at 888 North San Mateo Drive four (4) stories in height was constructed in 2015 adjacent to the Caltrain tracks. Commercial properties have also experienced upgrades and reuse.

The neighborhood is in the City’s only Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Priority Area – an area with a high concentration of working class and seniors overpaying rent and living in overcrowded conditions. Even so, the City has maintained and is continuing land use and zoning policies of over-concentration of development in the neighborhood.

The project’s nineteen (19) very low-income households dwellings representing a furtherance of over concentration of low-income housing in the neighborhood. The City’s only transitional housing development is within 210 feet of the project site. The neighborhood has also become overly concentrated with community care services that support working class households throughout the City.

The over concentration of development, community social service uses and low-income housing are socially inequitable housing policies. These policies result in over-crowding, loss of the sense of privacy, increased noise, increased traffic and collisions, over concentration of community care operations and gentrification and displacement.

The increased population will result in greater traffic increases and more congestion on local serving neighborhood streets, reducing safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, and result in a significant loss of on-street parking and create an imbalance of greater demand for parking than supply – directly impacting neighborhood viability and a deterrent to investment.

The project’s 180 on-site parking spaces (a ratio much less than 1 to 1 with parking reserved for other vehicle services), no visitor parking and no on-site loading is inadequate to meet parking and service delivery demand by future occupants. Despite being exempted from minimum parking standards under State law, no study was submitted unequivocally demonstrating that the project’s limited supply will be adequate and that residents will travel by train. Undercutting the concept that residents living in close proximity to train station are inclined to travel by train and not own vehicles, 50% of the adjacent residential developments have similar of greater parking ratios (and whether existing residents use the train or not) neighborhood on-street parking demand is very high (and near and imbalance point) despite Caltrain service improvements from the past. Further, given Caltrain’s serious budgetary issues, any significant cuts in train service 23 will likely result in less travel by train and more reliance on vehicle travel (and thus likely to own vehicles and park on-street). Lack of adequate parking will impair the desirability of the neighborhood for families.

The project is not consistent with the Zoning Code in that the project exposes residents to permanent safety hazards, public health hazards, public nuisances of noise, glare increased ambient lighting and odor and wind and creating a “blighting” effect on the neighborhood. The Villa Terrace “blind intersection” garage entry/exit with inadequate sight line creates a permanent safety hazard for pedestrian from exiting vehicles. The garage and generates significant noise especially during hours of darkness and off-site glare directly into to living spaces of residences across the street.

The State Street on-street garage operation exposes residents and pedestrians to objectionable and toxic odors and noise, and traffic congestion and conflicts due to collection activities requiring temporary daily street closure and trucks traveling in on-coming travel lanes on both State Street and North San Mateo Drive. The operation will have a “blighting effect” and is an attractive nuisance that will attract illegal dumping and vandalism requiring the need for police intervention and code enforcement. The Transportation Study did not evaluate the on-street garbage operation.

The E2 Zone District requires all uses to be fully enclosed to eliminate exposure of adjacent residents to public nuisances. The 2nd floor open recreation and 6th floor lounge areas will generate excessive levels of noise, odors and glare.

The project does not provide on-site loading as required by the Zoning Code and will cause traffic congestion and conflicts on adjacent streets. The Transportation Study did not study the project loading requirements which are likely to rely heavily on taxi and delivery services. As no on-street loading area is designated it is not clear how the operation will be conducted.

3. The development will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the vicinity, and otherwise is in the best interests of the public health safety and welfare.

The development will impair the desirability of the neighborhood by altering and reducing the mix of households, by putting upward pressure on rental costs causing displacement or working- class households and seniors, and result in restricting the occupation in the neighborhood to households with higher incomes.

The project’s significant investment of and the high rents will be a catalyst contributing to area gentrification and displacement of lower income households and families contrary to the City goals of providing dwellings for working class households and assistance to working class households in the CDBG Priority Area. Given their age the smaller 1960s apartments that are found throughout the neighborhood and likely in need of major seismic, insulation, and infrastructure upgrades will be targets for smaller investors to either rehabilitation or tear down and replacement. This activity coupled with the building’s higher cost rentals will push rental 24 increases and displacement of neighborhood residents and will be detrimental to the stability of the neighborhood.

The project will likely cause significant energy and wind impacts to adjacent dwellings, increase undue off-site noise, off-site glare and odors to adjacent users, the Villa Terrace garage entry/exit creates an unnecessary life safety conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, significantly reduce the sense of privacy, increase traffic on local street, and reduce the availability of on-street street parking spaces that are needed to meet the needs of existing residents. The project will make the area more intense and a less pleasant place to live.

4. The development meets all applicable standards as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, conforms, with the General Plan, and will correct violations of the zoning ordinance, building code. Or other. Municipal codes that exist on the site.

The proposed project requires the City grant eight (8) Variances several of which are not included in the SMMC Title 27 which contribute to the building incompatibility with the neighborhood and directly associated with the harms to public health, safety, and welfare. The project includes open recreational areas and an observation deck and lounge that conflict with the provision of the zoning code requiring all uses to be fully enclosed. The project will generate off noise, lighting glare and odors that are not allowed by the SMMC Title 27. The SSMC Title 23 requires that the proposed project excavation of over 21,000 cubic yards and off haul of soil and grading of over 53,000 square feet requires a site Development Planning Approval. The construction impacts associated with the proposed project will be significant as they last on the order of eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months generating substantial noise, spent fuel odors, fugitive dust and traffic congestion and on-street parking impacts to the surrounding area.

Impacts to residents and sensitive receptors residing in nearby and adjacent dwellings have not been evaluated.

The payment of $5.9 million in development impact fees will in no way either directly benefit the neighborhood or off set the impacts to the neighborhood and if past practice is any guide the City will allocate the funds to improve other areas. While the project provides market-rate and a few below-market-rate housing, it requires the demolition of a two dwelling units that fit with the neighborhood and it does not provide new housing options that are not already located in the neighborhood. The massive project’s very high density (more characteristic of San Francisco than San Mateo) will create more public nuisances, traffic congestion and conflicts, result in a significant loss of and a supply imbalance of on-street parking, increase in shading of residences and streets, loss of solar access, a loss of a sense of privacy and introduce a “blighting” effect on State Street.

The project, even as conditioned, would result in significant impacts to public health, safety, and welfare. The City did not conduct several studies necessary to more clearly document the project effects on the neighborhood and determine the adequacy of the Conditions of Approval. The Transportation Study is incomplete in that it only evaluated two (2) local street intersections on 25 Villa Terrace and did not evaluate the intersection necessary to access regional highways notably, North San Mateo Drive/Peninsula Avenue, North San Mateo Drive/Poplar Avenue, Poplar Avenue/Delaware Street, ECR/State Street, ECR/Bellevue Avenue. The study undercounted traffic associated with the project including, visitor traffic, daily taxi and service deliveries, loading operations, on-street garbage operation, bicycle use, pedestrian travel, safe routes-to- school, safe routes to Burlingame train station.

The Phase I Environmental Assessment is incomplete in that it did not evaluate the materials in the former vehicle maintenance building, did not evaluate the asphalt slurry sealants nor on-site catch basins and the document was not disclosed to the public. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was not disclosed to the public. The Shading Study is incomplete in that it did not evaluate the effect on adjacent residences and right-of-way. An Energy Study was not conducted to determine the impacts to adjacent resident’s costs and habitability. A Wind Study was not conducted to evaluate the project effect on wind channeling and ground level wind speed effects and energy implications to adjacent residences and effects on the use of the pedestrian sidewalks.

A Loading Operation Study was not conducted evaluating the taxi, service deliveries and moving activities and the need for loading facilities. A State Street Garbage Operation Study was not conducted evaluating the effects on pedestrian and vehicle traffic and congestion and conflicts. A Glare and Ambient Lighting Study was not conducted to evaluate the project effects on the neighborhood with measures to eliminate glare, especially in association with night time garage exiting, and any increases in ambient lighting. An Odor Study was not conducted to identify and evaluate the odors associated with the outdoor cooking and the on-street garbage operation with measure to eliminate off-site odors. An Acoustic Study was not conducted to evaluate the noise levels and effects associated with the Villa Terrace garage entry/exit, the open recreation areas, and the on-street garbage operation.

While the project provides right-of-way improvements along North San Mateo Drive, State Street, and Villa Terrace the drainage swales of State Street and Villa Terrace will result in the loss of on-street parking that may shift the area into supply deficit. The City has not stated that the drainage swales on local streets are a mandatory requirement or an option. State Street has substandard travel lane widths of 9.9 feet as compared to a width of 12 feet. The plans do not include an evaluation of the travel lane widths as they are directly related to the vehicle congestion and conflicts created by the on-street garbage operations.

The Project will be constructed in compliance with all applicable building and fire codes, as well as the City’s building security requirements. However, the Fire Department has provided documentation that the inadequate turning radius requiring Fire trucks to use part of the on- coming travel lane on northbound traffic on North San Mateo Drive is an acceptable traffic hazard. In the past applicants the City would have been required a street dedication to prevent this type of traffic hazards. The Fire Department has not provided documents that local area hydrant flows are adequate and that the building height is within its laddering capabilities. The 26 city has not provided a study that the sidewalk width is sufficient in the area to accommodate all future occupants during a mandatory building evacuation.

The development does not meet all applicable standards as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, does not conform with the General Plan, and does not correct any violations of the zoning ordinance, building code, or other municipal codes that exist on the site, in that:

The project does not fully comply with the General Plan, Zoning Code, nor Objective Design Standards, and will create several violations of the Zoning Ordinance. The project provides no on-site loading zone in conflict to the SSMC Title 27 requiring on-site loading, the open recreation areas are in conflict with the E2 Zone District that all uses are to be fully enclosed to eliminate public nuisances, the project creates public nuisances that are not allowed by the SMMC Title 27, the project creates several safety hazards and public health hazards that are not consistent with SMMC Title 27 provisions to protect the public, health and welfare. The project on-street garbage operation will have a “blighting effect” and an attractive nuisance leading to illegal dumping and vandalism creating security concerns and degradation of the quality and desirability of the neighborhood and adversely affect investment.

5. The development will not adversely affect matters regarding police protection, crime prevention and security.

The development will adversely affect matters regarding police protection, crime prevention, and security in that a standard security lighting requirement was deleted by the City derived from the City Security Ordinance and the on-street garbage operation will create an attractive nuisance leading to illegal dumping and vandalism and create traffic congestion and conflicts increasing police and code enforcement intervention.

The State Street on-street garbage operation adjacent to the intersection with North San Mateo Drive will necessitate temporary daily street closures due to blockage of the street by garbage trucks occupying both travel lanes. This will effectively obstruct traffic on State Street causing vehicle congestion at the intersection with North San Mateo Drive. Recology tuck turning southbound onto North San Mateo Drive will need to use a portion of the northbound trave lane creating potential traffic conflicts and congestion on an arterial road. This activity is likely to increase the potential of vehicle collisions requiring police and emergency assistance.

Views of rolling unsecured steel garbage bins and its blighting effect and an attractive nuisance that will act to encourage unauthorized dumping and vandalism increasing the need for police intervention.

Through compliance the Conditions of Approval the development will be required to install and operate cameras including the surveillance of adjacent public rights of way adversely affecting existing resident’s privacy and security while using the public right-of-way. No information has been provided as to how personal images and vehicle images will be stored or used. 27 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (VTM)
The Project would merge the four parcels into one parcel. Per SMMC section 26.48.060, the Planning Commission must deny the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, if any of the following are true:
a. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
c. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map would facilitate the construction of the building that is inconsistent with many provisions of the General Plan and is not conducive to the harmonious and orderly growth of the neighborhood nor community.

The site is suitable for multifamily housing, but not the very high density (148.7 dwelling units per acre) and the design creates life safety hazards, public health hazards and public nuisances.

The Project density of 148 dwellings per acre (nearly 1.5 times than the average density of San Francisco and central core city) is vastly out scale and inconsistent with the maximum 35 dwelling acre neighborhood density and the constructed density of approximately 15-20 dwellings per acre. The neighborhood already has a diverse mix of dwelling types both single family and multifamily resulting from a massive conversion of over 50% of the single-family dwellings to multifamily buildings in the 1960s. Past development has created a greater concentration of multifamily dwellings than most of the City’s other neighborhoods. 28 The neighborhood is in the City’s only Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Priority Area – an area with a high concentration of working class and seniors overpaying rent and living in overcrowded conditions. Even so, the City has maintained policies of over-concentration of development in the neighborhood. The project’s nineteen (19) very low-income households dwellings representing another step towards over concentration of low-income housing in the neighborhood as the area already has the City’s only transitional housing development within 200 feet of the project site. The neighborhood is also overly concentrated with community care services that support working class households throughout the City. The overconcentration of development and social serving uses and low-income housing are socially inequitable housing policies that are inconsistent with the General Plan notion of harmonious and orderly development.

Past land use policies and the City deferred maintenance of neighborhood infrastructure contributed to neighborhood degradation, over-crowding, loss of the sense of privacy, increased noise, increased traffic and collisions, over concentration of community care operations and gentrification and displacement.

The site is not physically suitable for the type of development as it does not comply with numerous provisions of the Geneal Plan and SMMC Title 27 exposes neighborhood residents to significant life safety hazards, public health hazards, public nuisances, adds to neighborhood over-crowding, significantly increases loss of the sense of privacy, increased traffic and collisions, loss of on-street parking, reduction of sunlight and casting shadows, over concentration of low-income housing, displacement of two households and significantly contributes to neighborhood gentrification.

The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map would merge four (4) parcels into one site with a combined lot area of over 53,000 square feet (1.22 acre neighborhood. Residential lots of this size are more commonly located San Mateo Park. Commercial lots on the one block north of State Street are larger (2-3 times the area) than the residential lots and date back to the 1920s.

The proposed lot size of 1.22 acres and configuration is vastly larger (ten (10) times the average lot in the area) and does not match the size and pattern of existing lots nor development layout.

The project is not in keeping with the small lot size and pattern of development including small driveways placed in close proximity of primary pedestrian entries with lush landscaped setbacks, landscaped open space and small-scale buildings of 1 to 2 stories in height. The massive proposed six (6) story building with a 75-foot height covering 90%+ of the site with minimalist landscaping, limited to no building setbacks, excessive floor area containing 181 dwellings represents a jarring departure from the existing scale and form of the area. The single point large garage entry/exit on Villa Terrace separation from the primary pedestrian entry on North San Mateo Drive is inconsistent with the neighborhood pattern. 29 The project’s high concentration of dwellings even with eight (8)+ variances and reduced on-site parking no on-site loading facility and landscaping apparently cannot be accomplished without radically disrupting the pattern of development. The vast site grading and excavation necessary to construct the massive foundation and subterranean garage create significant soil and slope stability safety hazards for adjacent residences. The State Street on-street garbage operation (not found in the area) exposes residents to life safety and public health hazards and public nuisances.

The reliance on street for daily loading operations exposes residents and motorists to life safety hazards not commonly found in the area.

The Project may result in environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that the project’s use of State Street for on-street garbage storage and collection operation appears to be violation of the Clean Water Act, the Porter-cologne Act and National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit as garbage bins are not allowed to be stored on-street unprotected during inclement weather, no provisions are included with would protect the solid or liquid pollutants from the bins or loading spillage from entering the storm water drains harming bay waters and wildlife, no letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board has been submitted that authoritatively states the operation and facilities are in compliance with NPDES permit. Storm water from the site also appears to flow into the drainage swales into the public right-of-way that may not be in compliance with the requirement that all storm water treatment occur on-site. No letter or testimony from the applicant or City documenting that the site does not include off-site treatment are included in the application. The project will generate public nuisances that adversely local air quality, generate excessive levels of noise, and produce nighttime lighting that may raise the ambient lighting levels of nearby residences and cause off- site glare into residential living quarters.

The design and improvements associated with the parcel map will cause serious public health problems in that the project is not in compliance with Federal, State and City and standards regarding stormwater, and not incompliance with City standards regarding air quality, noise, and nighttime lighting. The on-street open air unsecured garbage operation will expose residents, pedestrian, pets and wildlife to objectional toxic odors and hazardous solid waste from the garbage operations and illegal dumping representing a serious public health hazard.

The project is partially in conformance with the Bicycle Master Plan and the Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan. The project does not enhance the Bicycle experience in that the replacement of existing facilities damaged during construction does not constitutes an obligation. As documented in the Transportation Study that vehicle traffic will increase on the Highland Avenue Bicycle Boulevard increasing the risk to bicyclists and pedestrian in that which safety improvements found on the City’s other Bicycle Boulevards have not yet been planned nor constructed by the City. The Transportation Study did not evaluate the bicycle travel associated with the project despite the projects provision of over 200 on-site bicycle parking facilities (an extraordinary number compared to other past developments). The Transportation Study did not evaluate the “safe route-to-transit” route to the Burlingame train station that forms the very basis 30 for the limited on-site parking. At least a portion of the route does not appear to meet minimum neither ADA nor City standards for width or slopes. The Safe Routes-to-School to San Mateo Park Elementary School to be used by the projects residents was not evaluated and the exiting route west of El Camino Real does not meet neither the ADA nor City minimum standards for an all-weather impervious concrete sidewalks with curb ramps. Much of the route is earthen surface that is impaired by tree roots making pedestrian travel hazardous especially during inclement and low light conditions. The City has known of the condition issues for years and taken no action to meet standards.

31 ATTACHMENT #11

CITY CONCIL REVIEW
A. BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF SIX (6) STORIES
The proposed project requires review and approval by the City Council to allow a building height in excess of six (6) stories identified in the City 2040 General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed project includes at least three (3) roof mounted penthouses for elevator and roof access, each in excess of fourteen (14) feet in height – there by constituting a 7th Floor.

The General Plan defines the maximum number of stories allowed on sites, but provides no definition of stories other than as a measure of height and does not identify any exception for penthouses (e.g. non-habitable spaces such as above ground garage are considers as story height).

The SMMC title 27 provides definition of stories as a measure of height and a height measurement guide, but provides no exclusion for penthouses from inclusion of building height.

In fact, in residential areas SMMC Title 27 specifically includes non-habitable attics as part of building height.

Should the City Council prefer to allow penthouses to be exempted from inclusion in the height, then it should either amend the General Plan or at adopt a Resolution clarifying that penthouses are exempt and may prefer to define a maximum penthouse height, roof location (setback from the exterior parapet wall), number of penthouses and combined maximum floor space area.

B. V ARIANCES
The proposed project requires the review and approval by the City Council to allow the multiple Variances. While the owner’s proposed deviations from the City’s minimum Zoning requirements are allowed by state law, the City Council does not appear to have delegated such authority to the Planning Commission either through SMMC Title 27, nor any apparent City Council Resolution. The SMMC Section 27.78.040 identifies only setbacks as eligible, and none of the other Variances sought by the owner.

Since approval authority is delegated by the City Council, until such time as the City Council has delegated such authority through an adopted a Resolution or more appropriately amended SSMC Title 27, the Planning Commission is advisory only in granting such Variances.

C. OPEN USES
The proposed project includes open recreation areas on the west side of the proposed building including a second (2nd) story recreation area consisting of a pool, spa, cooking and dining area, and open area, a sixth (6th) floor open observation and lounge. These areas are located in the E2 Zone District portion of the project site. The on-street garbage operation is also not allowed to be open in the C3 District.
32 SMMC Section 27.48.050 requires that all uses be fully enclosed (eliminating off-site effects such as noise, odors and lighting glare). The Planning Commission exceeded its authority in approving the open areas that will generate public Nuisances in violation of the City’s ordinances.

The proposed project plans need to be revised to enclose all proposed open recreation areas including the observation deck lounge and pool spa area with open cooking and dining facilities and not allow the on-street garbage operation. The owner needs to factually demonstrate that the proposed project will not cause off-site noise, odors and lighting glare through redesign and performing professional studies including acoustic, lighting and odor.

Because its height, number of units and close juxtaposition the adjacent existing dwellings, the building at occupancy can significantly raise the ambient lighting levels on adjacent properties and cause harm. The Conditions of Approval need to be revised to require a lighting plan that demonstrates that the ambient lighting levels on the abutting property will not be raised from existing levels.

D. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (SDPA)
The Planning Commission Staff Report did not offer an explanation of why a SDPA is not required for this proposed project involving grading an area of over 53,000 square feet and excavation and off-haul of site soils in excess of 21,000 cubic yards.

In recent City Staff Reports associated with similar other developments, the City staff offered that construction of a basement does not require a SDPA because Section 23.040.030(d) Exceptions exempts site excavation for basements and foundations.

SMMC Section 23.040.030(d) does not identify underground vehicle parking garages as an exception. The exceptions include small projects including mechanical basements (e.g. small basements largely found in older residences for the placement of coal supply, furnaces and waters heaters), underground tanks (e.g. oil tacks for heating) that are governed by building restrictions covering property placement in proximity to property boundaries, and projects that purely public or quasi-public such as utility vaults and trenching predominantly located in public rights-of-way and controlled/monitored by the City.

City staff’s interpretation is not in keeping with SMMC Section 23.40.040 which is a graduated approval process reserving the authority to review and approve larger grading and excavation over 5,000 cubic yards with the Planning Commission.

If endorsed by the planning Commission, it results in usurping the authority of the Planning Commission, eliminates public review, appears to violate the provisions of CEQA (which only exempts small grading activities causing no harm), and on residential urban sites endangers the occupants and owners of existing abutting properties.
33 The Staff Reports code interpretation does not make common sense in that it offers no upper limit on size of excavation - contrary to the graduated decision-making authority of the SMMC (e.g. theoretically Hillsdale Shopping Center 32 acres could be graded and excavated to unknown depths without public review).

Should the City Council and Planning Commission desire to allow large scale grading activities and exaction it would be more appropriate and in keeping with past tradition, that they amend the SMMC providing clear distinctions of review authority and defining eligible types of projects.

It makes common sense to require SDPA for grading and excavation of large developments especially in developed urban settings and continue the practice of review and approval by the Planning Commission in order for decision-makers to understand the nature of the soil conditions and engineering requirements associated with the proposed building, and determining that the site can safely accommodate the proposed project while protecting the life safety of residents and properties, and providing opportunities for residents to review and comment on the proposed SDPA. This is especially true for urban infill developments that abut residential properties.

Not doing so limits the decision-makers understanding of the proposed project, impacts to abutting properties, construction impacts associated with grading and excavation and the capability of the site to accommodate the development and avoid potential harm environmental effects associated with grading and excavation.

The safety of owners and improvements of adjacent properties and the economic impact from efforts to protect their property can be significant. Pursuant to California Civil Code 832 owners of abutting properties are responsible for protecting their property and the adjoining excavated property. Owners are responsible for bearing the cost of hiring legal and Geotech representatives and constructing shoring improvements to protect their property from sliding into the excavated property.

In this particular case the proposed project includes an approximately fifteen (15+) foot deep cut and the construction of retaining wall that appears to extend upwards of twenty (20) feet in height above grade. The safety risk to adjacent small residential properties is apparent and would place an unfair economic burden on them (not including potential liability and insurance costs).

Taking the City staffs approach would conflict with CEQA, because large scale grading and excavation activities are not exempt. At some point, the City would be required to undertake an environmental review to determine the cumulative effects of the collective grading activities authorized by the City.

Nevertheless, should the City Council concur with City Staff to exempt excavations for underground parking garages regardless of size, it cannot exclude the grading in excess of 5,000 square feet – and so it would need to add a SDPA for grading in excess of 53,000 square feet. 34 ATTACHMENT #12

CONDITION OF APPROV AL
The Conditions of Approval need to be revised because of the unusual nature of the proposed project, the multiple variances and the delimited public review process, the lack of project information regarding various aspects of the project, the potential construction impacts and harm to public health and safety.

The Conditions of Approval need to be revised to include, but not limited to, the following: a Phase I Environmental Assessment required by CEQA, provide a public information feedback loop including notice and public review, to require a On-Street Parking Impact Study to identify the project’s impact to existing limited supply on-street neighborhood parking spaces, to prohibit future residents of proposed project of either leasing, owning or having more than a single vehicle per dwelling unit, to require a Soils and Geotech Study to provide for the protection of the safety of residents occupying dwellings and protect the property improvements abutting the project site on the westerly property boundary, to require a Wind Study to determine the proposed projects impact on ground level wind speeds vis the blockage of westerly winds on adjoining properties, to require a Shading and Energy Impact Study of the proposed project on adjacent properties to permanently offset the energy cost impacts to owners and residents of the abutting properties on the westerly property boundary of the project site, and to require an Off- Site Lighting Glare Study and implementation of lighting to avoid any offsite glare impacts.

A. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CEQA Section 21.080.66 requires that the City add a condition of approval requiring the owner to submit a complete Phase I Environmental Assessment of the existing buildings and structures prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for demolition activities.

It has come to light after the Planning Commission hearing that the applicant submitted a Phase I Environmental Assessment to the City. While it is not clear that the report evaluated the AC paving surfaces, catch basins, or materials left in the vehicle maintenance facility the report confirmed that Toxic and Hazardous substances inhabit the existing buildings. The duplex appears to contain lead and asbestos. The vacant medical office building constructed in the late 1980s was utilized for imaging and may therefore contains some materials utilized in preparation of X-ray images. The report did not evaluate whether the parking lots and catch basins contain carcinogens from long-term use for vehicle parking and older slurry seal products containing coal tar banned after 2013.

The Conditions of Approval do not include this specific State of California requirement, even though a report has been submitted. In so doing it provides documentation that in fact a report was submitted. But more importantly, the condition is important to protect public health and safety (because of the immediate proximity to residents and sensitive receptors) a provision needs to be added that prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for demolition of existing 35 improvements that the City shall notice the adjacent area residents providing a minimum 15-day in advance of the pending issuance of the City permit of the surrounding area of the availability of and the opportunity to review the Phase I Environmental Assessment with the City’s Building Official and Environmental Officer.

B. #3 LIGHTING
The condition needs to be revised to require that the owner’s plans demonstrate that partial or full lighting will not cause off-site glare and will not cause undue lighting impact on adjacent properties through raising the existing ambient night time lighting levels and through exiting vehicle from the garage entry. The applicant needs to submit Lighting Study that evaluates the building effect on the existing hours of darkness ambient lighting levels in the project area. The report needs to be prepared by a qualified professional acceptable to the City’s Building Official.

A provision should be added to require a minimum 15-day notice to residents in the project area of the availability of the Lighting Study for public review and comment. Because of the complexity and technical nature of the Lighting Study, the City’s Building Official and Environmental Officer need to meet with residents to review the report and recommendations. To ensure its completeness the review must be conducted prior to the City’s acceptance of the final report and issuance of any Building Permit. Prior to the Occupancy Permit and the Final Inspection the owner should be required to submit a report documenting the compliance with the report recommendations.

C. #7 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP)
The Condition of Approval needs to be revised to add the full list of City’s requirements, rather than simply referencing its availability somewhere on the City’s website. This is especially important for persons not having access to or capable of navigating the City’s website. A provision should be added to require a minimum 15-day notice to residents in the project area of the availability of the CMP for public review and comment. Because of the complexity and technical nature of the CMP, the City’s Building Official and Environmental Officer need to meet with residents to review the CMP. To ensure its completeness the review must be conducted prior to the City’s acceptance of the CMP.

E. SITE STREET SURVEILLANCE
The Conditions of Approval #52 Video Surveillance Submittal Requirement to install a surveillance system including a video recording camera. However, the Staff Report contained no information regarding the surveillance of persons using public sidewalks and vehicles travelling on public rights of way. In an era when public surveillance, especially by third party vendors, is becoming a growing privacy concern to many citizens, the Staff Report should be amended to include discussion of what areas will be subject to coverage, who and how long will the information be kept and for what purposes will it be utilized and who will control its usage and access. If public rights of way are included in the coverage area, exterior signs could be placed 36 on the property letting the public be aware that the public area is under surveillance by third party vendors

37 CONCLUSION

The applicant conducted a Neighborhood Meeting nearly a year and half ago in compliance with local requirements. Despite the extensive comments and that residents were in concurrence with the comments, the applicant made no changes to the plans except for a small change to the foundation wall to protect the tree roots of one tree situated at the State Street Condominiums. This is the same foundation wall that the applicant has stated that they cannot change. The City cannot compel the applicant to undertake several of the studies. Nevertheless, the City has had ample opportunity to undertake the identified studies. Much of the needed information is accessible on-line, in the City files of previous similar projects, other City records and documents and local field survey.

Due to the incomplete Notice including both the description and the entitlements, the lack of the Transportation Study Attachment #6 of the Staff Report, the limited amount of information contained in the Staff Report, the need to conduct an Operational Traffic Study, a On-street Parking Study, Off-site Lighting and Glare Study, evaluating the proposed building lighting system including units, recreation areas and common areas, Off-site Noise Study, Off-site Odor Study, make changes to the building design to include a fully enclosed open recreational areas (e.g. observation deck lounge, spa and pool and BBQ and outdoor dining area, relocate the garage entry/exit to North San Mateo Drive providing more efficient project access and reducing traffic congestion on Villa Terrace and Highland Avenue Bikeway Boulevard and local area streets and eliminate the proposed project’s design creating an unsafe vehicle/pedestrian conflict area on the Villa Terrace public sidewalk, amend the Conditions of Approval to add State Requirement for a Phase I Environmental Assessment, provide an opportunity so adjacent owners have an opportunity to review the Soils and Geotechnical Report required for site grading and excavation (so that adjacent owners have an opportunity understand the proposed effects of the grading and excavation, shoring and retaining wall on their property and determine their cost obligations, to add public noticing and opportunities for public review of the CoA #7 Construction Management Plan, Construction Impact Study of grading and excavation, and building construction in its entirety of operations (e.g. construction parking areas, staging areas, truck haul routes. Location of dewatering wells, location and design of soil nailing walls, etc.).

38 The City Council should deny the project or with the applicant’s consent continue matter off calendar to allow the applicant to revise the plans and City staff to complete the studies and expand the analysis in the Staff Report.

APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

1 NEIGHBORHOOD BACKGROUND
The neighborhood is a mix of young and old, well to do and working class. It is also part of a long-standing Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Priority Area that has many working class and retired residents living in rentals. Numerous community care facilities are located in the area as does the City’s only very low-income transitional housing development.

The neighborhood has seen steady development over the years especially in the 1920s, and again in the 1960s – the latter resulting in conversion of approximately 50% of the single-family dwellings into small multifamily housing. The 1960s apartment buildings represented the bulk of multifamily housing development in all of San Mateo during that decade. The neighborhood already provides a mix of housing and socio-economic diversity that is sorely lacking in other neighborhoods, in very low-density areas and especially those areas west of ECR.

Constant small-scale investments have occurred over the decades leading up to today. The largest and most recent multifamily residential development (completed in 2015) is located at 888 North San Mateo Drive - no doubt influenced the applicant decision to propose the project.

QUALITY OF PROJECT FIT
The proposed six (6) story luxury residential project with a density of 148 units per acre (more than the four (4) times the maximum density allowed and more than five (5) times the average density of the neighborhood) does not complement the low-density neighborhood. By way of comparison the project density exceeds the average density of San Francisco of 97 units per acre.

The projects dominating scale and size with little to no landscaped setbacks is completely out of character with the small scale and one to two story single and multifamily housing (5 to 10 units) on small landscaped lots.

The proposed 1.22 acres site is approximately ten (10) times the size of the average residential lot in the neighborhood. The lack of on-site parking will cause increased demand daily demand for taxi and delivery services and for the few limited available overnight on-street parking spaces that the neighborhood residents rely on to meet parking needs - directly contributing to the deterioration of the quality of life through increased conflicts (this has already started as a direct result of the Poplar Avenue Bicycle Lane elimination of on-street parking and compliance with state law parking restrictions within twenty (20) feet of intersections) partially implemented in the neighborhood.

The project design exposes neighborhood residents to life safety issues, public nuisances, and potential economic harm - none of which were identified nor evaluated by the City. Access to the site from the regional highways will increase traffic on local neighborhood streets causing greater congestion and increased safety concerns for pedestrian and bicyclists especially on the Highland Avenue Bicycle Boulevard and on State Street (with substandard travel lane widths).

Use of the State Street at the intersection with North San Mateo Drive for daily garbage storage APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

2 and collection will result in daily temporary street closure and traffic conflicts, and expose residents to toxic and objectional odors and will have a detrimental and blighting effect on the neighborhood and adjacent residents
This project represents a major step in private redevelopment of the area. Given the age of neighborhood buildings and some larger scale commercial lots, it is likely to generate interest in further area development with all of the adverse consequences associated with private redevelopment of older neighborhoods into high density enclaves resulting in displacement of the very families the HUD Priority Area was established to benefit and of the existing community.

Below is a brief introduction to the key concerns that are the foundation of the appeal. More detailed information is provided in the attachments.

ISSUES OF CONCERN
The project information and analysis are not sufficient for either the public not the City to make an informed decision. The lack of disclosure or many issues and the lack of meaningful response to long-standing neighborhood issues whether unintentional or not, leaves too many important un-answered questions. The project is likely to have log-term consequences affecting the safety and stability of the neighborhood.

Where the State of California has exempted the project from environmental review, it has not overridden the local community’s identification and analysis of safety issues – these are lacking in the City review. Even the applicant acknowledges in the project submittal letter that the project can be denied by the City on making findings that the project exposes the community to safety risks and public nuisances.

At the Applicant’s Neighborhood meeting conducted on February 26, 2025 (nearly over a year and half ago), neighborhood residents identified several safety issues, public nuisances and quality of life issues that were not addressed by the City nor the applicant. (See Attachment #3) Several studies than are essential to evaluate the proposed project (and which in the past have been included in the City’s analysis of other similar projects) were not undertaken by the applicant nor City staff. (Attachments #1,2,4,5,6,7,8)
While CEQA is both substantive and procedural, at its heart it provides information that is beneficial for making informed choices by both the public and decisions makers. In the absence of the state requirement that the applicant provide essential information, it is incumbent on the City to provide the information and analysis. Most of the needed information and analytical tools are accessible on-cline, in City files of similar prior projects and other City records, documents and maps.

APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

3 Basic intent and purpose of the SMMC Title 27 is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. With so many outstanding life safety, public nuisance and public health issues not evaluated, these goals have not been achieved in this case and conclusive findings supporting the project cannot be made
The immediate and obvious remedy should have been for the Planning Commission to have directed the continuance of the matter to allow for corrections to the description and respond to the public request for information and re-notified the project.

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND STAFF REPORT

NOTICE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
An adequate project description encapsulates the projects key aspects so that the public has a fairly clear idea of what is being proposed and what legal entitlement are being requested. The description does neither. The required public Notice and Project Description are incomplete in that:

1. Not all of the project legal entitlements were included or were not adequately described in sufficient detail for the public to comprehend the proposed project.

MISSING ENTITLEMENTS
A. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (SDP) allowing the removal of major vegetation comprised of 19 trees.

B. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (SDP) allowing grading over 53,000 square feet and excavation and off-haul of over 21,000 cubic yards of soil.

C. V ARIANCES requested by the applicant from at least eight (8)+ requirements of the SMMC Title 27 including, but not limited to, building setbacks, landscaping, floor area and building height.

INCOMPLETE ENTITLEMENT DESCRIPTION
A. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (VTMP) does not describe the proposed map to merge four (4) parcels into a single parcel and does not describe the benefit that the applicant is requesting nor the significance of the vesting of the entitlement and restrictions placed on the City.

B. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (SPAR) significant details including the does floor area ratio, density, 19 affordable dwellings in association with a 50% density bonus, number of bicycle parking facilities, open recreation area on 2 nd and 6th floors, permanent on-street garbage operation, and no on-site loading

APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

4 2. The Planning Commission “approved” several project features that are in apparent violation of the provisions of SSMC Title 27 Zoning.

A. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (SDPA) GRADING. The Planning Commission apparently determined that grading of any area and excavation any size of basement is subject to the approval by City staff. The SMMC does not provide such authority to City staff and instead identifies the Planning Commission as the appropriate reviewer. The SMMC provides graduated decision-making authority allowing City staff to authorizes grading of areas less than 5,000 square feet and excavations of less than 5,000 cubic yards.

B. OPENS USES in an E2 zone district. All uses are required to be fully enclosed including the proposed recreation areas on the 2nd and 6th floors likely to expose adjacent residents to public nuisances in the form of noise, glare and odors and other safety issues. The SMMC intention is to protect residences from adjacent uses as the E2 Zones District were placed immediately adjacent to residential areas.

C. DELETION OF ON-SITE LOADING AREA. Large scale projects are required to provide a minimum on-site loading area of ten (10) feet by twenty-five (25) feet and no Variances are permitted by the SMMC. Loading operations will occur in the public right- of-way. Given the lack of available on-street parking and the large project size daily loading activities are likely to be substantial and expose pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles to safety hazards.

D. ON-STREET GARBAGE STORAGE AND COLLECTION No such provisions allowing the permanent daily use of the public right-of-way for the storage of large steel rolling bins and collection are provided in the SMMC. An exception (with safety and other provisions) is provided for temporary short-term use of the public right-of-way for construction debris boxes. The open-air garbage operation exposes residents to a public health threat, public nuisances, pedestrian and traffic safety hazards, loss of on-street parking and will have a detrimental and blighting effect on the neighborhood.

3. The Planning Commission approved project features requiring City Council review.

A. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW required for buildings over six (6) stories in height.

B. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW of the requested Variances as several are not identified in the SMMC. The City Council has not formally adopted by resolution or amendment to the SMMC Title 27 regulations regarding the requirements, procedures and findings allowing the review and approval by the City Council, Planning Commission or City staff.

Therefore, the authority to review and approve such Variances requested by the applicant vests with the City Council.

APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

5 C. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW of the approval of development features precluded by the SMMC and reinterpretation of SMMC provisions affecting the disclosures of legal entitlements. The City Council has not formally conducted public hearings or adopted by resolution or amendment to the SMMC Title 27 reinterpreting, procedures and findings allowing the review and approval by City staff of Site development Permit Applications for grading in excess of 5,000 square feet and excavation of greater than 5,000 cubic yards. Therefore, the authority to review and approve the approval authority vest with the Planning Commission. Similarly, neither the Planning Commission nor the City staff has authority to relieve the applicant of providing an on-site loading area of a minimum dimension of 10 feet by 25 feet. The authority vests with the City Council until formally delegated.

D. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW of in effect of a permanent restriction of a portion of the City public right-of-way for a single property owner for the permanent on-street garbage operations, and off-site treatment of site generated storm water The City Council has not formally adopted by resolution or amendment to the SMMC Title 27 regulations regarding the requirements, procedures and findings allowing the review and approval by the Planning Commission or City staff. Therefore, the authority to review and approve the use of the public right-of-way such as those requested by the applicant vests with the City Council.

Further information can be found in Attachment #12.

FINDINGS
Several of the key findings supporting the SPAR and VTPM are not evidenced based, but based rather on speculation and conjecture with no linkage to evidenced based facts established in the staff report. The facts needed to adequately evaluate such a major project lie in the studies not conducted by either the applicant or the City.

The findings supporting the SPAR and VTPM cannot be made as the project as designed is not in any way architecturally compatible with the low scale and low-density landscaped neighborhood and the small lot format. The proposed lot area of 1.22 acres is ten (10) times the size of the average neighborhood lots.

The project includes several design features which expose neighborhood residents to safety and public health issues and to public nuisances in the form of noise, glare, ambient lighting and odors which are not supported by the General Plan and provisions of the SMMC. These issues have not been addressed by the City.

APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

6 KEY SAFETY AND PUBLIC NUISANCE ISSUES
Key safety issues include the Villa Terrace “blind intersection” garage entry/exit at the public sidewalk exposing pedestrians to vehicle accidents, construction of a subterranean garage within five (5) feet of a shared property boundary with existing residences, the long-term exposure of residents and sensitive receptors to demolition and construction effects lasting 18 months to 24 months without identified mitigation measures to protect public health and safety, the permanent daily use of State Street (with substandard travel lane widths of 9.9 feet) for garbage operations including storage (upwards of six (6) six cubic yard steel rolling bins) and collection requiring street closure and requiring an inadequate turning radius, daily loading operations conducted in the public right-of-way, increased traffic on local streets especially Highland Avenue and State Street as access routes to the project rather than North San Mateo Drive an arterial roadway, building exterior maintenance conducted in the public right-of-way requiring sidewalk closures, and building fires. Other safety issues identified in this document in different sections.

Key public nuisances including noise, glare, ambient lighting, and odors associated with the use of the open recreation areas, the on-street State Street garbage operations, and the garage entry/exit on Villa Terrace.

While many of the project’s design features are associated with the State allowances for waivers, the State explicitly identifies that it does not relieve the applicant of designing a project which does not create life safety and public health issues nor expose residents to public nuisances. The City and applicant have known of most of these issues since the Applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting conducted on February 26, 2025. Neither the City nor applicant have addressed these issues.

OWNERNSHIP
The ownership of the land is not clearly identified as required by SMMC Title 27 submittal requirements. The Proposed project Notice identifies property owners as Ross and Diana Bowling, Kadiros and Chau Wu yet all of the project documents (e.g. letters, plans Vesting Tentative Parcel Map) identify a different owner as Prometheus and all of communications are from Prometheus representatives.

PLANS
The applicant’s plans indicate that the proposed project will comply with the 2022 Building Codes. The City appears to have adopted the 2025 Building Codes effective January 2026. The plans need to be revised to reflect that the plans comply with the 2025 codes. This is important to eliminate any future confusion over the approvals and is especially important in that the applicant is also proposing that the City approve a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map which grants the owners legal protections from some future City changes.

APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

7 SITE DESCRIPTION
The description focuses on the project building site, but does not disclose the full extent of the actual project site including the exclusive use of a portion of the public right-of-way for garbage operations, loading and drainage swales nor other relevant features of the site.

1. The site description does not identify that the project is situated in the E-2-1.5 Executive Office and C-3-2 Regional/Community Commercial Districts.

2. The description does not identify that given the project design a portion of the City right- of-way on State Street and Villa Terrace will of practical necessity be restricted for the property’s owner’s exclusive use for on-street garbage operations, periodic exterior building maintenance, and apparent off-site treatment of site generated storm water.

Because these operations cannot be performed in any other fashion without the use of the public right-of way, the granting of exclusive rights needs to be disclosed as another legal entitlement.

3. It does not disclose that the construction of new on-street drainage swales, permanent on- street garbage operations area and restriction of five (5) parking spaces on North San Mateo Drive of 30-minutes resulting in the loss of exiting long-term public on-street parking spaces (available to both residents and businesses) situated on State Street, North San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace. The description does not identify restricting the five (5) on-street parking spaces (shown on the applicant’s plans situated at the project primary residential entry on North San Mateo Drive) essentially provides for the project’s exclusive use (ostensibly for visitors, third party vehicle operators and delivery services) given the location and distance from existing residences and businesses. (The area heavily relies on street parking to meet local parking demand and that even few spaces are available overnight). The City does not identify the procedures of approval of the applicant’s proposed 30 minute parking restrictions nor information regarding enforcement.

4. It does not identify that the project apparently relies on the permanent placement of soil nailing wall tie rods into adjacent private and public properties and that without which the project would need to consider more costly slope shoring techniques. Placement of tie rods into private property or the public right-of-way require prior approval as they may act as future site constraints).

5. It does not disclose that other off-site utility improvements serving the project (e.g. storm water drains and the sanitary sewer line extending from the project site along North San Mateo Drive to Bellevue Avenue) given the age of the existing facilities may likely APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

8 resulting in undisclosed construction impacts to neighborhood residents. Except for Recology, no will serve letters were provided.

6. It does not reveal that the project and the neighborhood are situated in a major portion of a long-standing Housing Urban Development (HUD) Priority Area. The Priority Area identified decades ago, that also includes North Central area, is populated by many working-class families living in overcrowded conditions and with high percentages devoting over 40% of household income to rent. The Priority area provides a key basis for the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) the City receives to support the programs and civic improvements that benefit the area residents. If history is a guide, major private developments in such areas may have unintended neighborhood consequences.

STAFF REPORT AND PRESENTATION
The Planning Commission Staff Report and presentation were incomplete. One of the key concerns is that the 73-page Transportation Study (PC Staff Report Attachment #7) was not made available until mid-day Monday March 23 the day before the Planning Commission Hearing (and no Commissioner made an affirmative statement that they had read the report), neither the City staff nor the City’s Transportation Consultant that made the report who was not present did not make a more detailed presentation of the report other than the little information contained in the Staff Report. The public at large was not notified of the availability of the study in advance of the hearing. The Staff Report did not identify nor provide adequate analysis of the following:

SAFETY
Several safety issues identified by the neighborhood residents, but not evaluated by the City including, but not limited to,
1 Pedestrian hazard at the Villa Terrace blind intersection of the garage entry/exit and the public sidewalk.

2 Pedestrian and traffic hazards and public health threat associated with on-street operation of garbage bin storage and collection. Daily garbage pickup of up to six (6) six cubic yard steel rolling bins (estimated total loaded weight of 9,000+ lbs.) within fifty (50) feet to State Street /North San Mateo Drive (resulting in daily temporary blockage of State Street and the intersection with North San Mateo Drive. Life safety of establishing an inadequate turning radius for garbage trucks (width of 12 feet and length of 39.5 feet not including forks) required to use a portion of the on-coming northbound lane of traffic on North San Mateo Drive.

3 Pedestrian and traffic hazards associated with on-street daily loading activities.

APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

9 4 Pedestrian and traffic hazards associated with exterior building maintenance needed to be conducted in the public right-ot-way due to the provision of little to no setbacks requiring sidewalk closures.

5 Pedestrian and traffic hazards associated with the operation of the open recreation and adjacent to the street due to the potential of distracted driving and errant projectiles objects from the recreation areas landing in the public right of way.

6 Health hazards associated with the identification and removal of toxic and hazardous materials from all of the site structures.

7 Safety hazards associated with the project construction involving grading, excavation and off-haul of soil for a subterranean garage and building foundation within five (5) feet of existing shared property boundary and the potential for slope failure and site subsidence associated with site dewatering.

8 Pedestrian and traffic effects with the construction of a building over six (6) stories in height within five (5) feet of residential property boundary line and little to no setback from the public right-of-way including north San Mateo Drive an arterial roadway.

9 Pedestrian safety of the use of the identified Safe Routes-to-School path way to San Mateo Park Elementary School from the west of ECR that does not appear to comply with local and federal requirements for an impervious concrete surface and ADA ramps and slope requirements.

10 Pedestrian safety of the use of the identified Safe Routes-to-Transit path way to Burlingame Caltrain Station from the project site to the station platforms a portion of which does not appear to comply with local and federal requirements for sidewalk clearance minimum width and ADA ramps and slope requirements.

11 Life safety at the project related to the Planning Commission approval to delete the Police Department standard lighting requirements with no input from the Police Department, but City staff assertion that they will work something out during the Building Permit stage without public input.

12 Building Fire safety related to the local Fire agency’s capability of laddering the proposed project, the adequacy of fire flow at the local area fire hydrants, and the ability of the frontage sidewalks to accommodate all of the future occupants in the event of an APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

10 evacuation order (avoiding occupants standing in the adjacent streets and interfering with Fire operations). Because of the buildings close proximity to adjacent residential properties the potential for damage to adjacent residences needs to be evaluated as well as other safety pre-cautions.

OTHER ISSUES

1. Substantive and procedural zoning issues associated with the project entitlements appear to be in conflict with provisions of the SMMC Title 27. The Planning Commission appears to have reinterpreted key provisions of the SMMC without public disclosure, and approved project(s) without adopted or established City procedures.

2. Neighborhood concerns expressed at the Applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting of February 26, 2025 including, but not limited to, pedestrian safety, impact on-street parking, channeling traffic through the neighborhood, shading of adjacent residences, wind acceleration, identification and removal of toxic and hazardous substances form site structures, placement of open recreation areas adjacent to existing residences, project generation of public nuisances including off-site glare, noise, odors and facilitating distracted driving, and construction impacts exposing residents to toxic odors, spent fuel, fugitive dust, traffic, lighting, noise and slope stability or graded slopes. Not addressed by the City. (Attachment #3)

3. Transportation Study. Inadequate time was provided for the public nor Planning Commissioners to review the 73-page Transportation Study (provided on-line mid- day before the Planning Commission hearing - approximately 30 hours). While originally identified as an attachment it was not included in the Staff Report package of materials. The Staff Report and presentation did not provide a detailed assessment of the study to act as an adequate substitute (e.g. the report study intersections were not identified, intersections to the regional highways were not included, that access to the project would likely rely on local residential streets, that no evaluation of line- of-sight associated with the garage entry/exit was included, the evaluation of the project operational needs in terms of third party vehicles and service deliveries, no evaluation of loading operation associated with dwelling unit in/out was evaluated (essential given no on-site loading area), nor was the on-street garbage operation on State Street identified nor examined. (Attachment #4)

4. The Phase I Environmental Assessment identifying toxic and hazardous materials submitted by the project applicant was unknown to the public and Planning Commission. The study did not evaluate the materials stored in the former “vehicle APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

11 service” building and did not evaluate the slurry seal and catch basins for toxic or hazardous materials given the long-use for auto sales and as a medical imaging services parking lot.

5. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation submitted by the project applicant containing information regarding the site soils, the presence of ground water, liquefaction potential, identifying the need for dewatering and the placement of an unknown number of extraction wells in unknown locations to the public and recommendations for slope shoring of the proposed steep slopes during excavation of Steep slopes are needed given the close proximity of the foundation to shared property boundary lines.

6. The Shading Study submitted by the project applicant did not evaluate the effect on the adjacent residential properties nor investigate the energy cost impacts from increased shading nor the loss of ability of residential owners to install solar roof panels.

CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
The Conditions of Approval are incomplete in that the CEQA requires that the City adopt a Condition of Approval that the applicant provide a Phase I Environmental Assessment. The Planning Commission deletion of a standard security lighting requirement without discussion nor analysis of the impacts of such action and without the advice of the City’s Police Representative is concerning.

Conditions of Approval relating to toxic and hazardous identification and removal, demolition, grading, excavation construction should be amended to provide opportunity for City staff and residents to meet to review the Geotechnical Report, and provide input on the applicant’s Draft Environmental Assessment Plan, and Draft Construction Management Plan.

Conditions of Approval need to be added requiring several studies be completed prior to any building permit issued for demolition (e.g. including, but not limited to, Phase I Environmental Assessment, project operational noise, off-site glare, odors, wind and energy impacts to and mitigation measures for adjacent residences and nearby sensitive receptors, and an on-street parking study and measures to protect and manage the supply of on-street parking spaces).

Conditions of approval need to be amended to require neighborhood notice of document availability and the opportunity to review the reports and information with the City Building Official. (Attachment #13)

STUDIES RELA TED TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

12 The staff report did not adequately respond the issues raised at the Applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting of February 26, 2025. (Attachment #3) Several studies essential to responding to the concerns, and to understanding the proposed development compliance with local and state regulations, and its effects on the neighborhood include:

1. Shading Study of the project effects on adjacent residential properties, as required by SMMC Title 27 submittal requirements, to determine the Energy and cost impacts to adjacent residents especially during the period from Fall to Spring and to determine the project effect on the potential for future roof mounted solar panels as required by California Solar Access requirements. With energy costs expected to increase the ability to install solar roof panels is becoming and important tool to defray costs.

2. On-Street Parking Study to determine the project effect on the limited on-street parking and measures to protect existing residents access to street parking, especially in that the project provides less than a 1 to 1 parking ratio, no loading area and no visitor parking.

This issue was identified a year and half ago at the Applicant’s Neighborhood meeting in February 26, 2025 (nearly one and a half years ago) and the applicant repeatedly stated at that meeting that the City would respond to the resident’s parking and traffic concerns.

Neither the staff nor the Commissioners responded to the parking concerns.

3. Transportation Study was provided but was deficient in that it only examined the project entry and 2 intersections on Villa Terrace. The study does not appear to have included an assessment of alternate form of transportation likely to utilized in a building and reliance on third party daily delivery services (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Waymo, UPS, FedEx, etc.). The effect of not including these services is likely to have undercounted traffic impacts. The study did not include neighborhood intersections leading to the regional highways. At a minimum, intersections that should have been included are: North San Mateo Drive/Peninsula, North San Mateo Drive/Poplar, ECR/State Street and ECR/Bellevue.

4. Safe Route-to-School study of the existing condition, safety and adequacy of the path to the neighborhood public school San Mateo Park Elementary School serving the proposed project. The route, west of ECR, has not been improved since it was identified several years ago. At that time the route utilized pathways consisting of earthen materials and imperious concrete sidewalks, earthen paths were obstructed with tree roots, and pathways did not contain ADA compliant sidewalk cross slopes and curb ramps.

5. “Safe Route-to-Transit” study of the pathway from the project to the Burlingame Train Station, over 1/2mile from the project site, was not included. This is essential in that the project has reduced the on-site parking because it is near the Burlingame Train Station.

Because many future project occupants are expected to use the train system, and given APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

13 the project reduction of on-site parking because it is near a train station, it is important to evaluate the sidewalk condition, safety and compliance with ADA standards for slopes and ramps. Portions of the route do not appear to be compliant with ADA width requires and slopes. The path needs to be studied in its entirety from the project pedestrian entry to the station platforms. Recommendations should be included where improvements are warranted to meet Federal, State and local requirements and be implemented prior to project occupancy.

6. Loading Study of the daily building operations including use of third-party vehicle service deliveries (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Waymo, UPS, FedEx, moving operators, etc.) as no on-site loading area is proposed (as required by SMMC Title 27). The study should examine the size, location and number of loading areas required. The study should also include an analysis of the proposed need for five (5) 30-minute on-street parking spaces at the project pedestrian entry on North San Mateo Drive and enforcement operations.

7. Garbage Bin Storage and Collection operation on State Street proposed to include a permanent restricted on-street curb-side daily storage area for upwards of six (6) steel bins, requiring use of a portion of the sidewalk, and requiring both travel lanes for garbage truck maneuvering and collection of the bins and including a Vehicle Turning Study of the Recology trucks (width twelve (12) feet and length of 39.5 feet) traveling from State Street to southbound North San Mateo Drive. The applicant’s diagram uses a smaller truck turning radius that the utilized by Recology as stated in their letter. The study needs to identify if the on-street street facility design (without no apparent storm drain protection, no rain protection bins with lids are not considered adequate), and sanitary sewer inlet) and operation are compliant with the Clean Water Act, the Porter- Cologne Act and the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Measures to protect the sidewalk and street from operational damage, protect public health by requiring daily steam cleaning of affected surfaces (and documented periodic City inspection), and spilled solid and liquid debris and pollutants from entering the City’s storm drainage system.

8. Glare and Ambient Lighting Study including off-site glare and increased ambient lighting levels in the adjacent existing residences especially that associated with the night-time garage exiting traffic on Villa Terrace facing single-family residences, the night-time lighting levels of the project recreation areas, State Street, Villa Terrace and the west façades adjacent to residential areas, with measures to maintain existing ambient lighting levels in the adjacent residential areas. Increased ambient lighting levels may have adverse effects on habitability of adjacent residences, and residential yards areas use and landscaping.

APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

14 9. Acoustic Study including the 18-month to 2-year construction phase, the operation of the Villa Terrace garage entry/exit (including vehicle, and gate operation (and gate alarm proposed by the Transportation Study consultant), the permanent daily operation of the on-street garbage storage and collection operations on State Street, operation of the open recreation areas adjacent to existing residences, and the State Street utility room operation. The study needs to include measures to prevent off-site an increase in acoustic levels above City standards for residential areas.

10. Odor Study of the outdoor cooking and lounge area, and permanent outdoor storage of and collection of up to six (6) steel 6 cubic yard steel rolling garbage bins with measures to eliminate off-site odors including toxic odors associated with the garbage, to residential areas and the public right-of-way.

11. Preliminary Geotechnical Study of the site soil, drainage conditions and depth to water table with recommendations regarding site dewatering via well extraction, and slope protection measures associated with the excavation of 21,000 cubic yards for a subterranean garage and the building foundation. Measures need to be included to protect adjacent residential and public properties and the safety of existing residents and existing adjacent properties and improvements from site construction. Pursuant to the California Civil Code CIV 832 the existing residential property owners abutting to the project are responsible for protecting their property and improvements from sliding into and damaging the project site. Prudent owners at a minimum would need to consider hiring legal counsel and technical advisors to advise regarding the construction documents and confer with the City representatives and applicant.

12. Phase I Environmental Assessment of the existing site structures and improvements required by the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) with measures to protect the public health and safety regarding removal of any toxic and hazardous materials identified at the site.

13. Infrastructure Capacity and Condition Study of neighborhood utilities serving the proposed project including the existing capacity and condition of the sanitary sewer lines, storm drainage facilities, water lines, and hydrant flow with recommendations. These studies while required in the Conditions of Approval are after the fact and do not provide the information to determine the true extent of the project site and community effects.

14. Storm Drainage. No information of the relationship with the on-site storm drainage system and the conveyance to the drainage swales in the public right-of-way was APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

15 provided. It appears that treated storm water from the site would be conveyed to the drainage swales via a pipe rather directly into storm drain pipes. This is a violation of the Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the Porter-Cologne Act and Regional Water Quality Board regulations, requiring all storm water generated on-site be treated on-site.

15. Socio-Economic Analysis that includes establishing a current profile the neighborhood including the full spectrum of population demographics, housing characteristics, density, mix of housing types, and characteristics of the existing commercial buildings, assessment of the potential effects of market rate “luxury” housing on neighborhood rents and on neighborhood development, gentrification and displacement. Since the 1960a the neighborhood has historically been a diverse mix of old and young, well to do and working class, with a mix of small-scale residential buildings, older small commercial uses and newer community care uses - offices, transitional housing serving the low income and community care facilities including group care type facilities and a private school serving special needs clientele. Private large-scale investments in market housing in areas with working class in the past have generally not been a good fit in terms of the long-term transformative and disruptive changes in the residential neighborhood.

16. Utility Will Serve Letters. No letters were apparently submitted. While the Conditions of Approval require the submittal of will serve letters, it is after the fact. As California is likely experiencing another drought, the City needs to consult with Cal Water regarding its ability to serve the project and its policies to providing water to fill the pool and spa during drought conditions.

ATTACHMENTS

1. VILLA TERRACE GARAGE ENTRY/EXIT

2. ON-STREET PARKING STUDY

3. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS

4. TRANSPORTATION STUDY ANALYSIS

5. ON-STREET GARBAGE OPERATION

6. ON-STREET LOADING OPERATIONS

7. SHADING AND ENERGY IMPACT STUDY

8. WIND STUDY

9. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

10. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT

11. FINDINGS
A. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (SPAR)
B. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (VTPM)
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031

16 12. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
A. BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF SIX (6) STORIES
B. V ARIANCES
C. OPEN USES
D. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (SDPA) GRADING

13. CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
A. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
B. #3 LIGHTING
C. #7 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
E. # SITE STREET SUVEILLANCE

San Mateo City CouncilJuly 20, 2026

San Mateo City Council
July 20, 2026