San Mateo City Council
August 17, 2026

Hi Norman,
Thanks for sending over these comments. I can relay your concerns to the developer, though I will note that we cannot guarantee that they will make the requested changes.

If you have specific comments/concerns on aspects of the project design, it may be more productive at this phase to reach out to the developer directly as well to discuss these items (especially given that the City has not yet received a formal Planning Application for the changes proposed). The developer contact for this project is Evan Sockalosky of Arc Tec, Inc.: 408-496-0676;
[email protected].

Best,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 |
[email protected]
From: Barbara Cohen < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 4:09 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Cc: Somer Smith <[email protected]>;
< >
Subject: Re: video question meet

Hi Liz,    Thank you very much for such a prompt response on that question.

Regarding that last additional written question that I wrote you earlier this afternoon about proactively requesting (or suggesting) to the developer a small change in floor plans to allow a 7th Ave. loading dock, I would like to make two points:

1. It should not be very difficult at all to accomplish this.

2. Since they are requesting a waiver (that is apparently often not granted), there should be a way at some point in this process to easily design a floor plan that causes the least disruption in the neighborhood and makes the most sense.

Basically, our primary hope is that the city will consider not merely the meeting of objective written building criteria but will also weigh the effects on health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of both nearby residents and, indeed, anyone entering downtown San Mateo.

You have been exceptionally understanding and patient, and I expect to refrain from bothering you further in the reasonably near future. If you should ever feel Davida and I can assist you in any way in communicating to the residents of our respective buildings please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you again.

Best regards,
Norman

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 3:12 PM Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <
[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Norman,
Thank you for the kind words and for organizing the questions ahead of our meeting this morning.

I also wanted to follow up on your question regarding the base densities for mixed use projects. I will note that the item that was brough the the City Council on June 16, 2025 for this was a first reading of the proposed or dinance changes, so it will
need to go back to City Council for formal adoption (likely in July) and would become effective 30 days after formal adoption. The attached Agenda Report includes a summary of the proposed changes. Additional attachments related to this item can be downloaded from the
Agenda (this item was #38 under "Public Hearings"). You can click the "download" button next to the item to view or download the complete list of attachments.

As it relates to 616 S. B St., this site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed Use Medium II, and the site is within ½ mile of a Caltrain Stop. Therefore, the recommended minimum density for mixed-use projects at this site would be 50 dwelling units/acre (note that this has not yet been adopted, but was introduced for first review to the City Council this past Monday 6/16). For 616 S. B St. that would calculate out to 32 dwelling units as the minimum number required in a mixed-use project f
or this 0.64-acre site. To your question posed in our discussion, the 48 units proposed in the previously approved application (PA-2022-037) would already have exceed this minimum.

Thanks,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 |
[email protected]
From: Barbara Cohen <n >
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 10:23 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]>; Somer Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: video question meet

Hi Liz and Somer,

I just want to thank you both so much for taking the time to answer our questions.

You not only perform an important public service job, but it is quite obvious that you do so very conscientiously. Thank you.

If, in the future, you should receive a number of separate individual queries from residents of the Gramercy or Stratford please feel free to let us know so that we can minimize the intrusion on your time. We can then remind all of our residents to direct their questions through us so as to consolidate them and minimize taking up more of your time.

Thanks again.

Yours truly,
Norman
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

about 1 2 months for staff to prepare and review an Agenda Report for Public Hearing, schedule the application for public hearing, and get public noticing sent out. For context, the previous Nazareth Vista application (PA 2022 037) took just over a year from initial submittal to get to public hearing. Timelines can vary depending on how complete the application is at first submittal, though I would say 6-12 months is the typical range for most projects. When the project is scheduled for public hearing, the agenda report and other public hearing documents will be made available on the
City's Agendas & Minutes
Public Meeting Portal
d. approximately when the planning commission meeting(s) may be held? i. See answer to 2c above
e. will the planning commission recommendation or decision be final or would this matter also need to then appear before the city council? i. Under current regulations, this project will be heard at Planning Commission for recommendation, then will go before City Council for a final decision (currently required for buildings over 55 feet in height).

3. Is it possible for me and the other four people ( Larry Mehl, Phee Boon Kang, Ben Chang, and Davida Rabbino) with these cc'd email addresses receive future notification for all new documents, updates, and hearings regarding this project? a. Absolutely, I have added all included to the interested parties list to receive future noticing. I will note that the interested parties list only includes formal noticing for public hearing (we do not send out formal notification to individuals for all new documents and updates).
b. Interested folks can also check back to the What's Happening in Development Page here. This page is updated more frequently and will be where any resubmittal plans and project updates are posted so this is a great place to stay up to date if you are interested in project updates ahead of the formal notice for public hearing.

Thank you,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 |
[email protected]
From: Barbara Cohen
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 8:55 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]>; Larry Mehl < ; Phee Boon Kang ; bcfh424 >; Davida Rabbino
Subject:

Hi Liz,   I hope you had a wonderful holiday weekend. I see that the formal application for 616 S. B St. has been submitted and that the city has apparently begun the process of looking into it. I hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions at this stage:

1. Where can we find and view the details of the now completed and fully fleshed out final Nazareth proposal?

2. Could you very roughly estimate a tentative timeline for:
a. when the city studies will likely be completed?
b. if and when public outreach and neighborhood meetings might be held? c. when final staff reports may be completed and available? d. approximately when the planning commission meeting(s) may be held? e. will the planning commission recommendation or decision be final or would this matter also need to then appear before the city council?

3.Is it possible for me and the other four people ( Larry Mehl, Phee Boon Kang, Ben Chang, and Davida Rabbino) with these cc'd email addresses receive future notification for all new documents, updates, and hearings regarding this project?
Thank you again for all of your help.

Best regards,
Norman

10 below-market-rate units
Above-ground parking
As residents of downtown San Mateo we are vehemently opposed to and urge you to disapprove Nazaeth's revised plan. We still find the original proposal acceptable.

Respectfully,
Robert and Sharron OPezio

Vista Project Preliminary Proposal Feedback APN: 034-194-030, 034-194-140 Initially, these concerns were put forward as possible talking points. They are what we ’ll call “plain vanilla ” arguments that the Planning Commission is aware of and most likely will not be received with any sympathy for us.

I have decided to leave these items for others to dwell upon. • Markedly increased traffic and decreased pedestrian safety that affects all of downtown San Mateo, primarily those in our immediate neighborhood.
• Overall increased congestion, noise and pollution plus undue stress on current infrastructure. • Wind tunnel effects between large buildings resulting in strong winds affecting pedestrians, especially on 6th Avenue.
• Decreased neighborhood aesthetics by having a much taller, larger building (eight stories compared to the originally proposed five-story structure). • Unknown environmental effects, including those regarding groundwater. • Severely diminished or totally absent morning sunlight (with an adverse effect on plants and trees, as well as internal lighting, temperature and even mood). • Noise from trash and delivery trucks would be an issue for local residents no matter where it is all relocated, so it is not a good item to pursue.
• Studio apartments (42 were added) vs. property values is not a good argument even though it is valid. The state and the city want residences and studio units serve that end.

I believe the way that has the best chance of forcing changes to this proposal is in pursuing the items below.

Note that the best-case scenario would be the changes below as most change requests are not going to be considered, let alone be acted upon. We must live the “city life” we have chosen and work to minimize the impacts to our property values and life style as we go.
• Misleading and mismarked photos in Preliminary Application Page A0.03 Marked as “View from 6th Avenue looking towards S. B Street but it is actually “View from 7th Avenue looking towards S. B Street.”
Page A0.05 Marked as “View from S. B Street looking towards 7th Avenue but is actually “View from S. B Street looking towards 6th Avenue” although 7th Avenue is a block away and cannot be seen in the photo.

Page A0.06 Marked as “View from 7th Avenue looking towards S. B Street” but it is actually “View from 6th Avenue looking toward S. B Street.”
It is almost like the mislabeling of the photographs is an attempt to NOT highlight the 6th Avenue version of this project. Why is this concerning? Let’s look at a short list:

1. 6th Avenue is a narrower street than either 7th Avenue or S. B Street.

The original proposal offered to have building parking open to the public (retail and visitor parking) after business hours. That seems to have been removed from this proposal. That means those 21 spaces will not be available even to residents for extra vehicles.

Since this latest proposal has now packed the building with almost double the apartments as well as downsizing the units considerably, the proposed parking is a serious issue. With 94 apartments, having 96 spaces for residents conservatively means that approximately 34 vehicles will have no place to park. That also means our street parking, currently challenging to say the least, will be further taxed to handle the newly present vehicles. (See the attached sheet on parking formulas used by most planning agencies.) This number of vehicles without parking is based on a very conservative assumption of building occupancy with only 50 units having 2 adults. In reality, the number will probably be quite a bit higher. Also, be aware of the parking situation at the surrounding buildings: The Gramercy on the Park condominium across 6th Avenue has 144 living units ranging from 1 to 4 bedrooms and has 245 spaces (195 for residents plus 50 for staff, visitors, and extras for residents). **Similar stats for The Stratford and Stradbally would be helpful here. Even the other Nazareth property at 6th & B would help our cause.**

1 Holeva Finau
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 4:44 PM
To: Holeva Finau
Cc: Sung H. Kwon; Steve Golden; Joanna Winter; Zachary Dahl Subject: Fw: Public Hearing-Proposed 616 S. B Street-Tuesday, June 9 at 6:00 p.m.

Hi Holeva,

Forwarding over the below public comment for Nazareth Vista. Can you please redact & include this as a post-packet public comment for the June 9th hearing & share with the commissioners?

I've responded to the applicant to confirm receipt.

Thank you!
Liz

Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]

From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 4:26 PM
To:

Subject: Re: Public Hearing-Proposed 616 S. B Street-Tuesday, June 9 at 6:00 p.m.

Good afternoon Robert & Sharron,

Thank you for providing your comments. Confirming that this has been received, and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and included as a post-agenda public comment.

Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]

From: Bob O'Pezio
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 2:05 PM

2 To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Hearing-Proposed 616 S. B Street-Tuesday, June 9 at 6:00 p.m.

We remain vehemently opposed to size and location of this project as it will overwhelm the infrastructure and traffic patterns of downtown San Mateo while exacerbating the safety issues listed below.

1.The intersection at 5th Ave. and Laurel is a major concern for pedestrian safety and needs to be addressed.

2. Even more so with the intersection of 5th Ave. and Ellsworth, which has woefully inadequate protections for pedestrians.

3. We would like written assurances that tenant moving vans will assess the new building from 7th Avenue (rather than the commercial loading zone on 6th). 6th Ave. already has Recology trucks, large food delivery trucks to The Stratford, many more residents, and is much narrower than 7th Ave. Plus the building elevators are very near 7th Ave.

4. With the increase in cars, pedestrians, and cyclists from the new building (and other planned nearby developments) it is crucial to generally make our neighborhood, and all of downtown, far safer than presently exists for local residents.

We urge you require that these concerns be addressed or to reject the proposal as written.

Robert & Sharron O’Pezio

San Mateo, CA 94401

1 From: Cengiz Boga
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 1:30 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: Nazareth Vista Project

Dear Ms. Gagliardi,

As a local business owner operating across the street from the proposed Nazareth Vista project, I am writing to express my strong support for the development.

San Mateo continues to experience significant commercial and office growth, yet many businesses struggle to attract and retain employees due to the limited housing supply in the area. The addition of 94 residential units in a highly walkable location near transit, shopping, restaurants, and services will benefit both residents and the local economy.

This project is located near Caltrain, Central Park, and downtown amenities, making it an ideal Location for new housing. It will help create a vibrant community where residents can live, work, and shop without relying heavily on automobiles.

I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to approve this important project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cengiz Boga
Anatolian Market

2 We request written assurances that tenant move in and move out vehicles will access the new building via 7th avenue rather than the commercial loading zone on 6th avenue. Sixth Avenue already accommodates Recology trucks, large food service delivery, while also being considerable narrower than 7th Avenue. In addition, the buildings elevators are located much closer to 7 th avenue making it a more appropriate and less disruptive access route.

Given the anticipated increase in vehicle traffic, pedestrian activity, bicycle use associated with this development and other planned protects nearby, it is essential that the City Planning Commission take proactive steps to improve safety throughout the neighborhood and downtown area. Investments in pedestrian, bicycle and traffic- calming infrastructure should be prioritized to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of resident safety and quality of life.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Davida Rabbino

1 Holeva Finau
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 3:41 PM
To:

Cc: Zachary Dahl; Joanna Winter
Subject: Re: A-2025-039 — Written Public Comment — South Downtown RPPP — Notification Reform
Attachments: 65._Reso_65
_-_Update_Preliminary_Application_Review_and_Design_Review_Requirements_for_New_ Developme (1) 2.pdf
Good afternoon Doug,

Following up to provide answers to your specific questions provided below:

1. Is the Planning Department's Notification System Actually Designed to Notify? a. The Planning Department follows noticing procedures as outlined in the Municipal Code, Section 27.08.050,
as adopted by City Council (adopted Noticing Resolution is attached for reference). In this case, mailed notice was sent to owners and tenants (based on the most recent list provided by the County Assessor's Office) within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site. In addition, notice for this item was included in the San Mateo Daily Journal on May 29, 2026 and posted at City facilities.
b. In addition to the above-described required noticing, the City also sends out project notices to subscribers of our eNewsletter. If you would like to sign up to receive these updates, you can subscribe here: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4707/Email-Alerts- News. After entering your contact info, select "Planning Commission Meetings & eNewsletter" to be added to this list, then scroll down to click "Sign up!".

2. If the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program exists to protect neighborhoods from parking impacts generated by businesses and other traffic generators, why did the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines not require any evaluation of the South Downtown RPPP as part of this project's traffic review? The transportation study followed the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines. Was there a project-specific reason the South Downtown RPPP was overlooked? If so, I would appreciate knowing where that decision is documented. a. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for this Project was prepared in accordance with the City's adopted TIA Guidelines. Please note that Transportation Impact Analysis specifically does not evaluate parking.

Thank you,
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403

2 650-522-7206 | [email protected]

From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:40 AM
To:

Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Joanna Winter <[email protected]> Subject: Re: A-2025-039 — Written Public Comment — South Downtown RPPP — Notification Reform

Good morning Doug,

Thank you for providing these public comments. Confirming that your email has been received and will be added as a post-agenda public comment for the Planning Commission.

Thank you,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:23 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>
Subject: A-2025-039 — Written Public Comment — South Downtown RPPP — Notification Reform

Members of the Planning Commission:

My name is Doug D'Anna. I am a South Downtown Residential Parking Permit holder — the parking district where the proposed 94-unit density bonus project at 616 S. B Street is going to be built.

I did not receive notification of tonight's hearing through the city's process. A friend forwarded it to me on May 29.

My public comment — Is the Planning Department's Notification System Actually Designed to Notify? — documents multiple policy gaps in the city's process.

It does not oppose the project.

The first gap is in notification.

3 The second is in the traffic study commissioned for this project.

The city created the RPPP to protect neighborhoods from the impacts of traffic generators. Yet its notification system is not designed to notify all of the residents those parking districts were created to protect.

What's more, the city's own traffic study did not take the RPPP into consideration.

Two independent city processes. The South Downtown RPPP was not part of either one.

The City of San Mateo defines Parking Impact Generators under the RPPP as: "a school, business, commercial district, or commercial use." This project includes 7,286 square feet of commercial space. By the city's own definition, it qualifies.

The attached document proposes seven specific policy amendments to close these gaps.

I am asking the Planning Commission to direct staff to respond on the record tonight — or
in writing within 24 hours — to two questions.

My first question is this:

If the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program exists to protect neighborhoods from parking impacts generated by businesses and other traffic generators, why did the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines not require any evaluation of the South Downtown RPPP as part of this project's traffic review? The transportation study followed the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines. Was there a project-specific reason the South Downtown RPPP was overlooked? If so, I would appreciate knowing where that decision is documented.

My second question is this:

Will this Commission direct staff to evaluate and amend the notification tier table so that residents within an affected RPPP district receive notice before the next density bonus project comes forward?
I am asking this commission to put both gaps on the record tonight so they cannot be overlooked when the next density bonus project comes forward that affects all San Mateo RPPP parking districts.

I am documenting this today so that next time, I receive the notice in the mail — and do not have to depend on a friend forwarding it to me.

Attached: — PA-2025-039 — Written Public Comment — D'Anna 4 Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna South Downtown RPPP Permit Holder
CC: — Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney — Alex Khojikian, City Manager — Zachary Dahl, Director of Community Development — City Clerk

SUBMITTED TO
City of San Mateo Planning Commission
330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403

SUBMITTED BY
Doug D'Anna
RE: PLANNING APPLICATION
PA-2025-039
616 S. B Street, San Mateo, CA 94401

DATE OF SUBMISSION
June 9, 2026
TYPE
Written Public Comment — Submitted pursuant to California Government Code §65804 and City of San Mateo Municipal Code.

PUBLIC COMMENT · NOTIFICATION REFORM · SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA · JUNE 9, 2026 Is the Planning Department's Notification System
Actually Designed to Notify?
This comment does not oppose the project before you tonight.

The applicant followed every applicable regulation. This public comment addresses the city's current notification system — and how it can be improved. PA-2025-039 is the exhibit. The notification system is the case. The Planning Department follows the code as written. That is precisely the problem.

Members of the Planning Commission:

I am raising two policy gaps in the city's notification system.

The first is in the code.

The second is in how the code fails to account for a program the city itself created.

Both failures are documented. Both have fixes. And I have two questions I am asking the commission to answer on the record tonight.

This argument is NOT directed at this project. It is directed at the system. PA-2025-039 is the exhibit. The next project is the reason.

So Why Am I Bringing This Up Now?
Three reasons.

1. The hearing notice was f
orwarded to me by a third party on May 29, 2026. It was not delivered to .

2. Upon checking, I found out wh
y. My home falls outside the notification radius for Tier III and Tier IV projects. But inside the South Downtown RPPP boundary.

3. I spent the eleven days between May 29 and tonight reviewing every publicly available document relevant to this project:

San Mateo Municipal Code §27.08.050 — Notice of Application City of San Mateo Planning Application Guide (April 3, 2026) South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program documents 616 South B Street Local Transportation Analysis — Hexagon Transportation Consultants (April 23, 2026) City of San Mateo 2023–2031 Housing Element Amendments — Planning Commission Clean Version (January 2026)
City of San Mateo 2023–2031 Housing Element Amended — All Markup PA-2025-039 Third Resubmittal Project Plans — Arc Tec Inc. for Nazareth Vista LLC (December 2025, revised March 2026)
The Housing Element documents were reviewed to understand the state density bonus law framework within which this project was approved.

By the time I understood why I wouldn't have received a preliminary notice, the comment period had closed.

The gaps in the process lie at the feet of the system — not the applicant.

Here's where I started.

I read the Municipal Code. NOTICE OF APPLICATION. §27.08.050 — the city's notification ordinance. Every project. Every notice. Especially this part:
"Defects in such information, or the failure to give notice as fully as described, or the failure of any or all of the addressees to receive the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided that the noticing has occurred in good faith."
— SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE §27.08.050 (NOTICE OF APPLICATION) 1 As I read it:

1. The city can send a defective notice that nobody receives — and the hearing still stands.

2. Even if the information is wrong, the fact that we sent it is good faith.

3. Even if the recipient can't read English — the fact that we sent it is good faith.

The city doesn't know what language your neighbor reads. It doesn't have to. It just has to send the postcard.

One notice. A postcard. No return receipt. No confirmation of delivery. No follow-up. The city acknowledges it may send out information that is factually incorrect — and the hearing still stands. That is the notification system.

The city sends one postcard. In one language. No liability. That is good faith under §27.08.050.

When the postcard arrives with the grocery circular, residents may not recognize it as official government notice. It gets recycled before the hearing date is read.

Then construction begins. The neighbors are upset. The city says it sent notice. Both are right. That is a policy gap.

Then I turned my attention to my parking district.

The Notification System Did Not Account for the South Downtown RPPP.

PA-2025-039 — GAP 1: THE RPPP BOUNDARY IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE NOTIFICATION TIER TABLE
The city created the Residential Parking Permit Program for one reason. Overflow parking. Businesses that bring customers, deliveries, and employees onto residential streets. Traffic generators. "Residential parking permits are issued for residents of neighborhoods whose parking is impacted by local traffic generators such as hospitals, businesses, and schools. The program aims at discouraging overflow parking on to residential streets."3
The City of San Mateo defines Parking Impact Generators under the RPPP as: "a school, business, commercial district, or commercial use."6 This project includes 7,286 square feet of commercial space. By the city's own definition, it qualifies.

If the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program exists to protect neighborhoods from parking impacts generated by businesses and other traffic generators, why did the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines not require any evaluation of the South Downtown RPPP as part of this project's traffic review?
PA-2025-039 — GAP 2: THE GOOD FAITH STANDARD PROTECTS THE PROCESS, NOT THE

RESIDENT
The city created the RPPP to protect neighborhoods from the impacts of traffic generators. Yet its notification system is not designed to notify all of the residents those districts were created to protect.

This is why the notification system was blind to the South Downtown Parking District. It draws a fixed geometric radius around the project site — including 616 S. B Street and my home at — instead of recognizing the neighborhood boundary the city itself already defined through the RPPP.

The city may argue it has no ob
ligation to notify every RPPP permit holder beyond the required radius. But shouldn't the City's guidelines require study of how a traffic generator affects the parking district the city created specifically to manage that traffic? The city built the notification system. The city built the RPPP. The two programs were never connected. The Planning Application Guide was revised April 3, 2026 — sixty-seven days ago. This Commission can make that connection now.2
Here is what both gaps have in common.

Here is what those two gaps have in common — laid out simply:

1. The notification radius did not reach all of the permit holders of the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program. These homes fall outside the Tier III and Tier IV notification radius. But they sit on the streets the RPPP was created to protect.

2. Under city requirements, one postcard is mailed. One language. No return receipt. No confirmation of delivery. If it gets recycled before the hearing date is read — or if the recipient can't read English — the hearing still stands.

3. The RPPP exists to mitigate overflow traffic from generators like this project — including, by the RPPP's own definition, this project. If the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program exists to protect neighborhoods from parking impacts generated by businesses and other traffic generators, why did the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines not require any evaluation of the South Downtown RPPP as part of this project's traffic review?
Two independent city processes — notification and traffic analysis. The South Downtown RPPP was not part of either one. Both gaps are fixable.

Before this item is concluded I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to respond to the following on the record tonight:

Question 1: Will the Planning Commission direct staff to amend the Planning Application Guide tier table to require notification of all RPPP permit holders when a density bonus project falls within any RPPP boundary in the City of San Mateo — before the next such application is accepted for review? Logging the gap is not enough. This commission has the authority to close it — and I am asking it to do so. The city already has every address in every RPPP district. The Planning Application Guide was revised 67 days ago. The only thing missing is the directive.

Question 2: Was there a project-specific reason the South Downtown RPPP was overlooked as part of this project's traffic study?
If so, I would appreciate knowing where that decision is documented.

I have submitted this argument in writing. It has been provided to the City Attorney, City Manager, and Planning Commission as part of the public record for PA-2025-039.

The city's notification system has a structural blind spot — it draws a geometric circle around the project and ignores the neighborhood boundary the city itself created.

When the city takes the extra step to reach the community — all affected parties — fewer people can say they didn't know. That is good for the city. Fair to the neighbors. And fair to the developer.

I am documenting this today so that next time, I receive the notice in the mail — and do not have to depend on a friend forwarding it to me.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna

1 San Mateo Municipal Code §27.08.050 (Notice of Application). Available at: law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/27.08.050 2 City of San Mateo Planning Application Guide, Page 1 (April 3, 2026): PA-2025-039 — at 94 residential units with ground-floor commercial space — falls under Tier III or Tier IV depending on whether the project meets objective design standards. Tier III covers up to 99 units meeting objective design standards (500-foot radius); Tier IV covers 6 or more units not meeting objective design standards (1,000-foot radius). Either way, the notification radius excluded South Downtown RPPP permit holders who live beyond it. The applicant is required to purchase the mailing list from the city and mail approved notices to all addresses within that radius. cityofsanmateo.org 3 City of San Mateo Public W orks Department, Residential Parking Permit Program (adopted September 16, 2019). Available at:
cityofsanmateo.org/2105
4 City of San Mateo Public W orks Department, Residential Parking Permit Program. Permit renewal notices are issued to program participants on a recurring basis. Available at: cityofsanmateo.org/2105
5 Hayward Park is a recognized neighborhood in the City of San Mateo. B Street between 9th and 10th Avenue falls within the Hayward Park neighborhood as generally recognized by the City of San Mateo. See: cityofsanmateo.org/neighborhoods 6 City of San Mateo Administrative Report, File ID: 2018-282, Public W orks Commission, April 11, 2018. Prepared by Sue-Ellen Atkinson, Parking Manager. "Parking Impact Generator (PIG) Determination — Current accepted Parking Impact Generators under the RPPP program include a school, business, commercial district, or commercial use."
All additional sources cited in this document are fully documented in the accompanying Addendum Source References.

Submitted as Public Comment to the San Mateo Planning Commission, PA-2025-039 · [email protected]

SUBMITTED TO
City of San Mateo Planning Commission
330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403

SUBMITTED BY
RE: PLANNING APPLICATION
PA-2025-039
616 S. B Street, San Mateo, CA 94401

DATE OF SUBMISSION
June 9, 2026
TYPE
Addendum — Source References · Submitted with Written Public Comment pursuant to California Government Code §65804.

PUBLIC COMMENT · NOTIFICATION REFORM · SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA · JUNE 9, 2026 Addendum — Source References
Sources cited in the accompanying written public comment for PA-2025-039. Sources below correspond to footnotes 1 9 in the accompanying written comment. The translations of §27.08.050 have been removed from the final submission; the Municipal Code citation remains in footnote 3.

City of San Mateo Municipal Code
§27.08.050 — Notice of Application
The notification ordinance governing all planning applications. Cited for the "good faith" clause that immunizes defective notice from invalidating proceedings.

Available at: law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/27.08.050 "Defects in such information, or the failure to give notice as fully as described, or the failure of any or all of the addressees to receive the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided that the noticing has occurred in good faith."

— San Mateo Municipal Code §27.08.050 (Notice of Application)3 City of San Mateo Planning Division
Planning Application Guide (Publication Date: April 3, 2026) The city's official guide governing notification tiers, neighborhood meeting requirements, and application procedures. Cited for the four-tier notification system: Tier III (500-foot radius, up to 99 units meeting objective design standards); Tier IV (1,000-foot radius, 6 or more units not meeting objective design standards, or 100 or more units meeting objective design standards). PA-2025-039 at 94 units falls under Tier III or Tier IV depending on objective design standards determination. Either way, the notification radius excluded South Downtown RPPP permit holders. Cited for the applicant's obligation to purchase the mailing list from the city and mail approved notices.

Available at: cityofsanmateo.org
Tier III: Notice Radius — 500 feet. Approval Body: Zoning Administrator. Applicants send out notice and hold neighborhood meeting prior to formal planning application submittal. Project type includes: Up to ninety-nine (99) dwelling units that meet objective design standards.

Tier IV: Notice Radius — 1,000 feet. Approval Bodies: Planning Commission and/or City Council. Applicants send out neighborhood notice and hold neighborhood meeting prior to formal planning application submittal. Project type includes: One hundred (100) or more dwelling units that meet objective design standards; six (6) or more units that do not meet objective design standards. — City of San Mateo Planning Application Guide, April 3, 2026, Page 1 City of San Mateo Public Works Department
Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP)
Adopted by City Council, September 16, 2019. Cited for the program's stated purpose: "Residential parking permits are issued for residents of neighborhoods whose parking is impacted by local traffic generators such as hospitals, businesses, and schools. The program aims at discouraging overflow parking on to residential streets." The South Downtown RPPP boundary encompasses the project site at 616 S. B Street.

Available at: cityofsanmateo.org/2105
"Residential parking permits are issued for residents of neighborhoods whose parking is impacted by local traffic generators such as hospitals, businesses, and schools. The program aims at discouraging overflow parking on to residential streets."4 — City of San Mateo Public W orks Department, Residential Parking Permit Program (adopted September 16, 2019) South Downtown RPPP Boundary Map
City of San Mateo official map showing the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program boundary.

Reproduced in the accompanying public comment. Confirms that the project site at 616 S. B Street is located within the South Downtown RPPP boundary.

Available at: cityofsanmateo.org/4751/RPPP-Map
PA-2025-039 Project Documents
Third Resubmittal Project Plans
Prepared by Arc Tec Inc. for Nazareth Vista LLC. Created December 22, 2025; revised March 26, 2026. 84-page architectural and engineering submission. Cited for: 94 residential units; 7,286 square feet of ground-floor commercial space (Level 1); 114 total parking spaces (93 residential, 21 retail/visitor); citation of California Assembly Bill AB 2097 to reduce minimum parking requirements; project description referencing "activation of commercial tenants."
616 South B Street — Local Transportation Analysis (Final) Prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Job No. 25OZ11), San Jose, CA. Dated April 23, 2026. 155-page transportation impact analysis prepared for Nazareth Vista LLC. Cited for: six study intersections (6th Avenue & B Street; 6th Avenue & Laurel Avenue; 7th Avenue & B Street; 5th Avenue & B Street; Project Driveway at 6th Avenue; Project Driveway at 7th Avenue) — all within one block of the project site. No study intersections on interior residential streets of the South Downtown RPPP district (Palm Avenue, Rosewood Drive, 9th Avenue, 10th Avenue, Hayward Avenue). Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis conducted per City of San Mateo adopted VMT guidelines and CEQA requirements. The study states on page 3: "The VMT for the project is analyzed according to the City of San Mateo adopted VMT guidelines." "This study includes an analysis of the weekday peak-hour traffic conditions of six intersections, as listed below, in accordance with the City's TA guidelines."
Study Intersections:

1. 6th Avenue & B Street (unsignalized)

2. 6th Avenue & Laurel Avenue (unsignalized)

3. th Avenue & B Street (unsignalized)

4. 5th Avenue & B Street (signalized)

5. Project Driveway at 6th Avenue (unsignalized)

6. Project Driveway at 7th Avenue (unsignalized)
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 616 South B Street Local Transportation Analysis (Final), April 23, 2026, Page 4 Exhibit A — PA-2025-039 Hearing Notice
This notice was not re
ceived at , San Mateo, CA 94401 — a property located within the South Downtown RPPP boundary but outside the Tier III and Tier IV notification radius. A copy was forwarded to the author by a third party.

The reverse side of this notice c
ontains no hearing date, no project name, and no project description. It reads only:
"There's a project proposed in your neighborhood at this location." Front (Notice of Public Hearing):

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. 65 (2024)

REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 69 (2020) AND ADOPTING AN EARLY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo considers community engagement an important component of the development review process and seeks to balance the benefits of early community outreach and engagement without imposing unnecessary cost and time burdens on an applicant; and

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 69 (2020) regarding the pre-application process for new development; and

WHEREAS, on May 20, 2024, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council adopted the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, which includes Policy H 1.6 (Streamline Housing Application Review), an implementation action to “Update the City Council resolutions that establish the pre-application and development review processes to eliminate the pre-application requirement for housing projects and eliminate the third-party design review requirement for housing projects that meet objective standards;” and

WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City of San Mateo Planning Commission received and considered written and oral public comments, and unanimously recommended that the City Council repeal Resolution No. 69 (2020) and adopt the proposed Early Community Engagement Process, with a change to the noticing for homeowner associations, with the recommendation incorporated into Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, on July 15, 2024, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council considered the proposed modifications to the pre-application process for planning applications as recommended by the Planning Commission, at which time all interested parties were provided opportunities to provide input; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed updates to the City’s development review process and associated community engagement are consistent with the San Mateo General Plan by implementing housing goals, programs, and strategies in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

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

1. Amending the City’s pre-application process is an administrative activity and not a project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2).

2. Resolution No. 69 (2020) is hereby repealed.

3. The Revised Early Community Engagement Process, attached in Exhibit A to this resolution, is adopted.

4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

Docusign Envelope ID: 4CB82E73-5473-4688-AB32-80228F4FBA0B Resolution No. 65 (2024) Page 2 of 4
Update Preliminary Application Review and Design Review Requirements for New Development Projects - Repeal Resolution No. 69 (2020) and adopt an Early Community Engagement Process for Development Projects

RESOLUTION NO. 65 (2024) adopted by the City Council of the City of San Mateo, California, at a regular meeting held on July 15, 2024, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES: Council Members Diaz Nash, Newsom, Loraine, Hedges and Lee NOES: None
ABSENT: None

ATTEST:

Martin McTaggart, City Clerk Lisa Diaz Nash, Mayor

Docusign Envelope ID: 4CB82E73-5473-4688-AB32-80228F4FBA0B

Resolution No. 65 (2024) Page 3 of 4
Update Preliminary Application Review and Design Review Requirements for New Development Projects - Repeal Resolution No. 69 (2020) and adopt an Early Community Engagement Process for Development Projects

EXHIBIT A

EARLY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

The purpose of the Early Community Engagement Process is to provide opportunities for early public outreach and engagement on planning applications by an applicant to foster early community awareness, share project details and receive public input while facilitating a standardized and streamlined process. The Early Community Engagement Process may require noticing, an applicant-run neighborhood meeting, and an optional Planning Commission study session, depending on the type of project.

1. Noticing: The following notices shall be provided based on the type of project. Noticing for projects not defined below shall be subject to Zoning Administrator interpretation, based on community interest, project impacts, and similarities with other listed projects:

a. Adjacent Properties: Notice of project submission shall be provided to all owners and tenants of adjacent properties for the following projects:
i. New one-story single-family residence;
ii. Second story addition of 200 square feet of floor area or greater to a single-family residence; iii. Fence exception and fences over seven (7) feet in height; and iv. Minor projects as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

Adjacent property means any property that adjoins the subject property through a shared property line or corner; or is separated from the subject property at any point only by a public right-of-way, ingress-egress easement, or public or private easement.

b. Radius of 500 feet: For planning applications not included in Section 1 (a) and (c), including modifications to previously approved projects, the following noticing procedures for the neighborhood meetings and the optional Planning Commission Study Sessions shall be completed a minimum of ten calendar days prior to the meetings:
i. Mailing notice shall be provided to all owners and tenants of property within 500 feet of the subject property; and
ii. Email notice shall be provided to the City maintained interested party email list.

c. Radius of 1,000 feet: For the projects identified in this subsection, including modifications to previously approved projects, the following noticing procedures for the neighborhood meetings and the optional Planning Commission Study Sessions shall be completed a minimum of ten calendar days prior to the meetings:
i. Mailing notice shall be provided to all owners and tenants of property within 1,000 feet of the subject property; and
ii. Email notice shall be provided to the City maintained interested party email list.

The projects requiring above noticing include:
i. New residential projects that require Planning Commission or City Council discretionary review and approval; and
ii. New nonresidential projects or additions over 10,000 sq. ft. or subject to a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report; and
iii. Projects involving zoning reclassification, planned development, or general plan amendments.

Docusign Envelope ID: 4CB82E73-5473-4688-AB32-80228F4FBA0B Resolution No. 65 (2024) Page 4 of 4
Update Preliminary Application Review and Design Review Requirements for New Development Projects - Repeal Resolution No. 69 (2020) and adopt an Early Community Engagement Process for Development Projects

2. Neighborhood Meetings

a. Applicability. The neighborhood meeting process shall apply to planning applications identified in Sections 1(b) and (c). Minor modifications to previously approved projects and Cellular Telephone Antennae and Public Convenience and Necessity planning applications, including small cell applications, shall be exempt from the neighborhood meeting process but must adhere to the 500- foot noticing radius for application submission notice.

b. Timing. Neighborhood meetings shall occur prior to the submittal of a planning application.

3. Planning Commission Study Session

a. Applicability. An applicant may request a Planning Commission Study Session for projects outlined in Section 1(c). However, should the applicant choose not to schedule the meeting, the Zoning Administrator retains the authority to determine if the project necessitates a Planning Commission Study Session based on the proposed development. Housing projects, as defined by the California Housing Accountability Act, and projects that do not require a public hearing are exempt from a Planning Commission Study Session at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator.

b. Additional Noticing Requirements: The applicant must post placards on the project site at least ten (10) calendar days before the meeting.

c. Timing. The applicant may request the Planning Commission Study Session before or after the formal planning application submission. Conceptual-level plans are acceptable if the meeting is requested before the formal planning application submission as part of the noticing and neighborhood meeting process. Staff will target scheduling the Planning Commission study session within 90 days upon the applicant’s request or the Zoning Administrator’s determination for said meeting.

d. Format. Meetings shall comply with the applicable City of San Mateo Municipal Code and Planning Commission adopted by-laws and procedures. No motion shall be made at the conclusion of the discussion on the subject planning application.

Docusign Envelope ID: 4CB82E73-5473-4688-AB32-80228F4FBA0B 1 org>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:47 PM

From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:48 PM
To: Doug D'Anna
Cc: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Recorded Affordability Instrument — One more Question Before tomorrow's hearing

Hi Doug,

2 A project entitlement and its associated conditions of approval (COA), run with the land, not the owner, so whoever ultimately builds the project, they are subject to the same requirements. It is not uncommon for one entity to get a project entitled and then sell to a new owner/developer to actually build the project. Just because you have a new owner doesn't mean you can be selective with what aspects of a project entitlement you do or do not comply with. COA #1 also supports this.

Thanks.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development

From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 2:50 PM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Cc: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Recorded Affordability Instrument — One more Question Before tomorrow's hearing

Thank you, Zach, for getting back to me so quickly.

Now that I have read Condition #2, I can see that San Mateo does require the BMR Agreement to be recorded. Which is why I didn't see it in the Housing Element.

This led me to another question.

While the BMR is recorded when the building permits are pulled, what happens in the meantime?
It could be years before construction starts. Entitlements in California can sit for years before permits are pulled.

Condition #2 does not address what happens if this property is sold after approval tonight but before permits are pulled.

I'm not against the project.

The density bonus is very generous, and I want to make sure that the promises are kept if this project is sold before the permits are taken out. I'm not saying it will be. But there is always a possibility. To me, it makes sense to close the potential gap.

So my question for the record is simply this: is the new owner legally bound by the affordability requirement — and if so, where is that documented? If the new owner is not legally required to honor the agreement, it makes sense for San Mateo — and for affordable housing — to close the potential gap.

Respectfully,
Doug D'Anna

On Jun 8, 2026, at 12:19 PM, Zachary Dahl <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Doug,

Yes, the City absolutely has the appropriate conditions of approval to ensure compliance with the City's affordable housing (below market rate or BMR) and density bonus requirements, including

3 the execution of an BMR Agreement before issuance of a building permit. For the project going to Planning Commission tomorrow evening (616 S. B St), you can find this information discussed in the agenda report (pgs 4-5) and then supported by applicable conditions of approval (Att 1 Exhibit B), most notably Condition #2 (Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement).

Moving all those included in CC to BCC.

Thank you.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development

From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:59 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Recorded Affordability Instrument — One Question Before tomorrow's hearing

Members of the Planning Commission,
I have one additional question before tomorrow night's hearing.

Does San Mateo require a recorded affordability instrument as a condition of approval for density bonus projects?
I could not find that requirement in the Housing Element.

But I did find that Redwood City, Fremont, San Francisco, and Beverly Hills do.

If it exists, I'd like to know where to find it.”
Respectfully,
Doug D'Anna

CC: — Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney — Alex Khojikian, City Manager — Zachary Dahl, Director of Community Development — City Clerk * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

1 Holeva Finau
From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:29 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Joanna Winter; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi Subject: Additional Public Question — PA-2025-039
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Members of the Planning Commission:

One more thing.

As you know from my earlier public comment, I spent the last eleven days trying to understand why my home was not included in the notification for this hearing. As I worked through the documents trying to answer that question, one other thing jumped out at me.

My street was actually mentioned in the Transportation Impact Analysis as Study Intersection Number 2. So I kept reading.

Then I compared it to the City's own Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. (Yes, I read those too. As you can read from my earlier public comment, I have a passion for research.)
They require an estimate for each neighborhood street segment that carries project trips when a project has direct access to a neighborhood street.

I would love to read it.

We get a lot of traffic on Laurel. But I could not find it anywhere in the report.

The guidelines call it a Neighborhood Traffic Assessment. I searched the report for those words. I checked the table of contents. I checked the section headings. Nothing. I did find project trip count charts — but nothing specific to Laurel Avenue.

Could someone point me to it? I'm curious where in the study that assessment appears — if, by chance, I missed it.

If it is not there — I would appreciate knowing that too.

Again, I am not opposed to the project.

2 I just want to see the big picture as it applies to the South Downtown RPPP and Laurel Avenue.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna
1 From: Lior Tamir
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: Strong Support for Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Development at 616 B Street

Dear Ms. Gagliardi,

I am the owner of Bloom Dental Group, located at in San Mateo. My office is approximately one block from the proposed Nazareth Vista development. I have operated my practice in this area for over 17 years and have been a tenant of Nazareth Enterprises for over a decade.

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Nazareth Vista project. Throughout our tenancy, Nazareth Enterprises has consistently demonstrated exceptional property management, maintenance and long term stewardship of its properties. Their buildings are well-maintained, professionally managed and contribute positively to the neighborhood.

The proposed development is ideally located within walking distance of downtown San Mateo, Caltrain, Central Park, restaurants, retail and employment centers. Adding new housing in this location is exactly the type of smart growth our community needs.

I believe Nazareth Vista will enhance the neighborhood, support local businesses and provide much needed housing while complementing the surrounding area.

Please include this letter in the public record and accept my full support for the project,

2 Sincerely,

--
Dr. Lior Tamir, DDS

1 Holeva Finau
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:07 PM
To: mshami gmsicc.com
Cc: Holeva Finau
Subject: Re: 616 S. B Street Mix Use development
Good afternoon Mike,

Confirming receipt of your comments - this will be shared with the Planning Commission as a post- packet public comment.

Thank you,
Liz

Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]

From:

Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:31 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: 616 S. B Street Mix Use development

Good morning Ms. Gagliardi

My name is Maher (Mike) Shami and I am an owner of the mixed-use property located at in downtown San Mateo.

I am writing to you and the planning commission and staff to express my strong support for the proposed mixed- use development project at 616 S. B Street in downtown San Mateo.

As an owner, I believe this project represents a positive investment in the future of our city. This development will contribute to the continued revitalization of the downtown by creating an environment that combines retail commercial and residential usage as this is needed desperately for the growing office community in the downtown.

Mixed-
use development helps support local businesses by increasing food traffic and providing new customers for downtown merchants. More importantly, the inclusion of new residential housing will allow downtown employees the ability to walk to work rather than traveling long distances.

In conclusion, this proposed project aligns with smart-growth principles by promoting efficient land use, reducing reliance of automobiles, and enhancing the vitality of our downtown core community. Thus, I respectfully

2 encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve this project and support its timely development.

Thank you for your consideration and for your continued efforts to enhance the quality of life in our city.

Sincerely,

Mike J. Shami
Managing Member

Shami Investments, LLC

This message from Shami Investments, LLC. (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

1 Holeva Finau
From: norman cohen
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 10:39 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi; Planning Commission; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission; Ryan Brunmeier; Matt Fabry
Subject: 616 S. B Street project
Hello, I am a resident of the Gramercy at . and represent one of the over 200 signatures on the petition sent to the City last summer by fellow residents of my building and The Stratford. Though we all have some misgivings about the significant increase in size of this project (especially, in my view, the very unfortunate loss of sunlight for many residents), we completely understand the need for more downtown housing . We also recognize the fact that new state regulations very much constrain the city's options regarding approvals.

Consequently, we are focused on what most of us feel is the most worrisome aspect of this development---pedestrian and bicyclist safety in our immediate neighborhood. We already have a disproportionate number of car-pedestrian accidents in the city. The last statistic I saw( 2023) showed 44 in one year. Frankly, I am surprised it is not even more frequent than these numbers reveal, as I myself have almost been run over on five separate occasions in the downtown area the past two years. Heavy traffic causing driver impatience appeared to be the cause of most of these incidents, which involved one right turn and four left turns. During the latter instances I was caught unprotected in the middle of the intersection and had to literally run to avoid collision. Fortunately, though a senior, I am able bodied.

Unfortunately, not everyone is. Of course besides these episodes, I have witnessed other near misses (including one with a baby carriage) and know people with similar experiences. I, and many others, feel present conditions, despite the best of intentions, are nowhere near as safe as they should be.

The problem here is that conditions will soon certainly get worse and make pedestrian safety even more precarious. With the expansion and construction of this project (as well as near future ones in the immediate area), there will be more people, bikes, cars, and other vehicles. If more of the foregoing is added, it is our firm view that the city MUST do more to further enhance safety.

Clearly, general safety enhancements should be made in the immediate vicinity of the new development(s), some of which were listed in our prior petition amendment. More police presence for enforcement would also help. If we just look at some especially troublesome spots, I would specifically mention:

1. The dangerous T intersection at 5th Ave. and Laurel. There is a flashing light for pedestrians crossing 5th Ave. (not for crossing Laurel), but cars intermittently ignore this. Ideally, stop lights should be there, but that is probably impractical due t
o proximity to San Mateo Ave. Stop signs, in my opinion, should also be there, or at the very least, a stop sign for west bound traffic at Laurel because of the often blinding sun during afternoons and the fact that it is much further from the light at B Street. Added to this mess is the fact that there are frustrated and impatient drivers trying to turn left from Laurel onto 5th Ave. while watching for moving traffic from both directions along with pedestrians crossing 5th Ave. Additionally, those crossing Laurel there are also at risk of impatient, speeding, or distracted drivers turning Left or right from 5th Ave. I would think flashing pedestrian lights there would also be indicated.

2 2. The crossing at Delaware and 5th Ave. It has a small mid street sign that is often ignored by drivers and is, in my opinion, also a potential tragedy waiting to happen. There should be stop signs there, but at the very minimum flashing lights. Pedestrians are woefully unprotected there.

I should also add that 6th Ave. is a very important conduit for many young families walking to the park, and many seniors also regularly cross either 6th Ave. or Laurel there. 6th Ave. already has much more traffic than desired, and much of this is from Recology trucks, moving trucks (for both Stratford and Gramercy) and very large food delivery trucks (Sysco and others), all of which sometimes partially block the street. With this new building, commercial garage entrance and commercial deliveries (plus Recology) will also use 6th Ave. for access. We would, at least, like to ensure that tenant vans for moving in and out take place via the much wider and less populated 7th Ave. Indeed, we would ask that all tenant agreements require all tenants/residents to move in and move out on 7th Ave. (not 6th). We sincerely request that this requirement be added to conditions of approval for the project.

Let me also reiterate that virtually everyone I know appreciates the dedicated public service you provide to our city and do not, in any way, mean to criticize city officials. It's just that we really want to emphasize the importance of enhancing our neighborhood safety, and we hope that you will do all that you can to accomplish this. I apologize for the length of this correspondence and expect to deliver a much abbreviated summary in person at the 6/9 public hearing. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Yours truly,
Norman E. Cohen

1 Holeva Finau
From: norman cohen
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 9:50 AM
To: Planning Commission; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi; Ryan Brunmeier; Matt Fabry
Subject: correction
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hello, In my recent email to you regarding the 616 S. B St. project I specifically mentioned two especially problematic locations. One was 5th Ave. and Laurel. The second was 5th Ave. and 'Delaware'. However, the latter was an inexplicable mistake on my part. Instead of Delaware, that dangerous T intersection is really 5th Ave. and 'Ellsworth'. I apologize for any confusion that I caused. Thank you.

Yours truly,
Norman Cohen

1 Holeva Finau
From: Clerk
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 3:13 PM
To: Holeva Finau
Cc: Joanna Winter; Zachary Dahl; Sung H. Kwon
Subject: FW: Email to the planning commission
Hi Holeva,
Kindly see the below public comment, if this hasn’t already been distributed to commissioners, kindly coordinate forwarding and including this as public comment if there is an agenda item related to this topic.

Best wishes,
Martin
From: Penny Nixon
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 3:10 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Marlyn Bussey
Subject: Email to the planning commission

Dear planning commissioners,

We are writing to respectfully request your approval of the proposal coming before you that would waive impact fees for deeply affordable housing. This would make a huge difference in our the St James CDC housing project as well as the affordable housing projects that follow.

While the commission may be familiar with this project, we thought a brief reminder of what we are doing would be helpful.

Our organization is developing a five-unit residential project in North Central dedicated to providing safe, stable housing for young adults aged 18- 24 who are transitioning out of foster
care, homelessness, or other vulnerable situations. This modest project will provide critical housing security and supportive services to help these young people achieve self-suŬciency and become contributing members of our community. Transitional Age Youth represent one of the most vulnerable populations in San Mateo Co
unty, facing disproportionately high rates
of homelessness and housing instability, and currently, 60% of youth move out of the county due to high housing costs, which is particularly traumatic for these young people who have never really known real belonging in their lives. This project directly addresses the city's affordable housing goals and serves a population with urgent, unmet needs.

Impact fees, while serving important municipal purposes, represent a significant financial burden for small-scale affordable housing projects like ours. These fees can comprise a

2 substantial portion of our development budget—resources that could otherwise be directed toward:
 Enhanced supportive services for residents
 Property improvements and maintenance reserves
 Extended affordability covenants
 Even deeper affordability levels
We know that a couple of jurisdictions in the Bay Area, like the city of Santa Rosa, have voted to suspend impact fees for very low and extremely low affordable housing. You may know of other cities doing this as well. In a recent paper on building “cottage communities/residential villages” on faith land, impact fees were mentioned a number of times as an additional hurdle to financing a project. It was strongly suggested that cities “ensure development impact fees levied on cottage communities are proportional to their small footprint, following State ADU law as an example. When projects are 100% affordable housing, jurisdictions should consider additional fee relief to achieve housing goals, implement programs in their Housing Elements, and gain points in Pro-housing Designation applications.”

In that spirit many California jurisdictions have established policies to reduce or waive impact fees for affordable housing projects, recognizing that:

1. Affordable housing projects generate proportionally lower impacts on infrastructure and services

2. Fee reductions directly support jurisdictions' housing element goals

3. Such projects provide essential community benefits that justify public investment

4. Small projects serving vulnerable populations require creative financing solutions A fee reduction or waiver would align with San Mateo's commitment to addressing the housing crisis and supporting our most vulnerable community members.

Thank you for your service to our community, and for your consideration of the proposal this evening. We truly are counting on you to support it.

With gratitude,
Rev. Penny Nixon, Project Manager
Rev. Marlyn Bussey, SJCDC Executive Director

Rev. Dr. G. Penny Nixon
Faith Communities Housing Liaison

1 Holeva Finau
From: James Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 3:35 PM
To: Planning Commission; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Cc: City Attorney's Office; Clerk; Community Development Distribution; City Mgr Subject: public comment re item 1 for tonight's Planning Commission meeting Attachments: San Mateo - 616 S. B St - HAA.pdf
Dear San Mateo Planning Commission,

The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits the attached public comment letter regarding item 1 for tonight's Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 94-unit housing development project at 616 S. B Street, which includes 10 very low-income units.

Sincerely

James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund

Jun 9, 2026

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

Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 616 S. B Street

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

Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Dear San Mateo Planning Commission,

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 94-unit housing development project at 616 S. B Street, which includes 10 very low-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.

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 render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) or reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) 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).)

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 building height, setback requirements, loading zone, architectural features, shadows, vertical wall breaks, and architectural style. 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 exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is also eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66.)

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

2 of 3

1 Holeva Finau
From: David Messerschmitt
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 4:00 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Davida Rabbino; Adrian Bellamy
Subject: Comments for meeting tonight 616 S. B St
Planning Commission:

I am an 81-year-old resident of , a senior living community behind the proposed building. I am generally concerned about pedestrian safety in the region of our building, which includes numerous other senior residents of mine and nearby buildings as well as families with children heading to Central Park. This proposed building and future developments in the area will increase the number of pedestrians, not to mention cars, magnifying the safety issues. I have specific suggestions on how safety can be substantially improved.

A. Sixth Ave pedestrian crossing Laurel Ave into Central Park.  Problem: Autos frequently fail to stop or merely slow down in spite of a stop sign. Stop signs are off to the side and not very visible.
 Action: Place a
“stop” sign in the center of the street (ground level or overhead) in both directions.

Add a flashing light triggered by pedestrians.

B. Intersection of Laurel Avenue and Fifth Ave.
 Problem: Although there is a flashing light, pedestrians have to contend with cars turning left off of Laurel Ave who cannot see the flashing light, in addition to lot of traffic in both directions. This is scary for the elderly. A left turn from Laurel Ave. is also challenging for elderly drivers because of the heavy traffic on Fifth Ave.
 Action: Add a traffic signal synchronized with the signal at N San Mateo Drive. Make sure it allocates time for pedestrians exclusively, without having to contend with traffic from any direction. Include two crosswalks, one on each side of Laurel Ave, in anticipation of C.

C. Crosswalk from N. Ellsworth Ave terminus across Fifth Ave.  Problem: A “yield to pedestrians” only; no stop sign. Auto compliance is poor and this is a scary crossing for elderly persons.
 Action: Coupled with B., this crossing is unnecessary. Eliminate it. Pedestrians wishing to go up N. Elllsworth would have the option to cross at Laurel Ave or B street intersections, which they would pass anyway.

Thank you so much.

2 David Messerschmitt

2. The scoping document showing when and why 6th Avenue, 7th Avenue, and Laurel Avenue were excluded from the neighborhood traffic assessment. The TIA Guidelines say this kind of discretion is exercised at application time, so I'd expect a record of it.

These two items trace directly back to my original June 11 letter. The parking and fair share items were resolved by Liz's citations — these are the ones that remain open.

If either doesn't exist, that's a fine answer too — I'd just like to know, and understand how a determination gets made, or discretion gets exercised, without anything written behind it.

I've had one confirmed estimate from you so far — end of the week, given in your July 7 letter — and that date has passed. I'd appreciate a specific date.

Separately: could you confirm when this project actually goes to Council? The City's project page currently shows no future meetings scheduled, so I want to make sure I'm not working off an outdated timeline.

Two last items. First, please keep the full recipient list on future replies — this is public record, and July 7's email moved most of it to BCC. I've added everyone back below. Second, my PRA request (#W012963-062926) is running on its own separate track, not part of this.

Thank you for your patience with me on this, Steve.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna South Downtown RPPP Permit Holder
cc: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi, Joanna Winter, Alex Khojikian, Prasanna Rasiah, Zachary Dahl, Sung H. Kwon, Ryan Brunmeier, Jason Hallare
On Jul 9, 2026, at 12:53
PM, Steve Golden <[email protected]> wrote:

Doug,

I was informed that additional members of the development review team are unexpectedly out of the office for the rest of the week, so the City response is going to be delayed. As of right now, my understanding is that they intend to provide a response at the beginning of next week. Also, I am aware that you made a public information request (PRA#W012963-062926) which was a more extensive document and records request than the comment/question asked in the email below. That records request response is being conducted independently from answering your question below.

Regards,

Steve Golden
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7215
| [email protected]

From: Steve Golden
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 10:16 AM
To:

Cc: Jason Hallare <[email protected]>; Ryan Brunmeier <[email protected]>; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report

Doug,

As I believe you already know, Liz, who is the project planner for this project is out of office, so apologies for the delayed response (I responded earlier to your other inquiry as well). Your inquiry has been received, and our Public Works staff is working on a response. I believe there are also members on that team who are out of office, but they intend to provide a response by the end of the week.

FYI, for efficiency purposes, I have moved some recipients to BCC since a response to your inquiry will be handled by staff on my response. If you have any other questions, you can reach out to this recipient list.

Thanks,

Steve Golden
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403

650-522-7215 | [email protected]

From: Doug D'Anna < >
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2026 8:53 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Cc: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Sung H. Kwon <[email protected]>; Ryan Brunmeier <[email protected]>; Jason Hallare <[email protected]> Subject: Re: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report

June 30, 2026
Dear Liz:

Thank you for your detailed June 26 response. I could tell a lot of work went into it.

I had started going through all the policies you cited — AB 2097, SB 330, AB 130, GP 2040 — specifically thinking about how they applied to this project on Laurel Avenue, where I live.

After spending a few hours diving into them and how they related to your response, I noticed you had written “the City has determined” three times — once regarding pedestrian facilities, once regarding bicycle facilities, and once regarding what SB 330 allows the city to require of developers.

So I trashed my 7-page letter and decided it’s best to just ask for the letters of determination.

That would probably answer all the questions I raised in my June 11 letter.

In fact, on June 21 I asked the same thing a different way — “if no, what part of the TIA Guidelines says it was not required.” The letters of determination would answer that question.

Could you send me those determinations? A copy of each one would do.

I also have one other request.

You mentioned that staff used the discretion allowed in the TIA Guidelines Introduction to reduce the neighborhood traffic assessment. I read in the Guidelines that discretion is supposed to be exercised at the time of the review application.

Is there a scoping document that shows when that decision was made and why? Specifically, why 6th Avenue, 7th Avenue, and Laurel Avenue were excluded from the neighborhood traffic assessment? That’s probably all I need.

I started with five questions. In my 7-page letter — the one I trashed — I ended up with about fifteen. But the letters of determination and the scoping document should answer everyone why our street did not get the traffic analysis.

The project is scheduled to go before the City Council next month. I’d like to have these documents before that hearing.

I’m sure my neighbors and the Council would want to see them too — so everyone has the same understanding of the traffic analysis and why our street was excluded from it before the hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

Doug D’Anna
South Downtown RPPP Permit Holder

On Jun 26, 2026, at 11:26 AM, Elizabeth Liz Gagliardi <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Doug,

Thank you again for your patience as we reviewed these questions together with the Transportation team.

Regarding your questions related to the report, all items that you have mentioned were considered and internally reviewed, but were ultimately either not included in the TIA or were limited in their analysis. When an initial
analysis does not find impacts that meet certain thresholds, additional analysis is not conducted. In addition, the existing TIA guidelines were adopted in 2020 and many of their requirements have been superseded by either State law or local policy, including but not limited to AB330, AB130, AB2097 and Strive San Mateo General Plan
2040. State laws restrict what cities can and cannot require for housing projects, and both state and local policies have shifted their focus away from regulating traffic level of service impacts to instead focus on addressing vehicle
miles traveled and safety concerns (depending on the particular development scenario and which laws it is bound by). Regardless, all items were considered by staff during the entitlement process.

Please see additional detail related to each of the specific items you had noted below in green:

1. A Neighborhood Traffic Assessment for 6th and 7th Avenues. Section 3.9 requires one when a project has direct access to a neighborhood street. Both project driveways access local streets. I cannot find it.
a. This item was not included in the TIA.

Additional Background - This requirement in the TIA Guidelines (adopted in June 2020) was based on the prior (now superseded) General Plan 2030 Policy 1.3, which required developers “minimize the impact of new development on local streets” and “when warranted, construct improvements on local streets.” However, the new General Plan 2040 no longer contains a similar requirement for developers. As such, staf
f used discretion allowed per the Introduction section of the TIA Guidelines to reduce the overall evaluation necessary to assess this requirement.

That said, in alignment with portions of this section, the traffic impact analysis reviewed peak hour project trips onto the local streets, referenced as Intersection No. 5 and Intersection No. 6 in the analysis. Because no adverse effects were identified in this analysis, no additional traffic calming
measures were found to be necessary.

2. A pedestrian facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the project site. Section 3.9 requires it. I cannot find it.
a. This item is included in the TIA on Page 39-40.

Additional Background - The City has determined that we are only able to require development projects to improve or repair pedestrian facilities adjacent to the site; so, the scope of the TIA’s pedestrian analysis has been limited accordingly. Discussion of the adequacy of pedestrian facilities begins on Page 39 of the TIA in a section titled “Pedestrians.” The TIA did not identify any concerns
related to pedestrian facilities or access related to the project.

3. A bicycle facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the project site. Section 3.9 requires it. I cannot find it.
a. This item is included in the TIA on Page 40.

Additional Background - The City has determined that we are only able to require development projects to address off-site issues adjacent to the project site; so, the scope of the TIA’s bicycle analysis has been limited accordingly. Furthermore, the City determined that under SB330 we cannot require developers to implement bicycle facility improvements recommended by the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. Therefore, the City primarily seeks to ensure that development projects will not preclude future implementation of such improvements by the City. A discussion of the adequacy of bicycle facilities is on Page 40 of the TIA in a section titled “Bicycles.” The TIA did not identify any concerns related to bicycle facilities or access related to the project.

4. A parking assessment comparing proposed supply against ITE peak demand rates. Section

3.9 requires it. I cannot find it.
a. This item is included in the TIA on Page 39.

Additional Background - The project’s parking supply is discussed in the section titled “Parking,” which begins on Page 39 of the TIA. You are correct that the project did not compare supply against peak demand calculated using the ITA method. The calculation was omitted because it would have no value in evaluating the approvabi ity of this project because the project is exempt from parking requirements due to AB 2097. However, the project is still required to meet all other objective design
and access standards in the Zoning Code.

5. A fair share calculation for B Street and 5th Avenue. Section 3.10 requires one when adverse conditions are identified. Table 8 of the Hexagon report documents a queuing deficiency at that intersection. I cannot find the calculation.
a. This item was not included in the TIA.

Additional Background - The TIA identified queue storage deficiencies in the cumulative traffic conditionswithout the project. The TIA determined that the project would add just one car length to one of those queues. The project is not the cause of an adverse condition, and no improvements were recommended as a result. Therefore, no fair share calculation or contribution is required. The project
is still anticipated to pay a Transportation Impact Fee of approximately $210,000, which will fund City traffic improvement projects.

Thank you,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206
| [email protected]

From: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 9:08 AM
To: Doug D'Anna <
Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Sung H. Kwon <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report

Hi Doug,

Unfortunately it’s actually not a simple response. As Liz mentioned, we’re working with our Transportation team – which includes external consultants – to get you more information this week, which should help explain why it’s more complicated than one might assume. Thanks for your patience.

Joanna

<Outlook-
gf3k0pcs.png>
Joanna Winter (she/her)
Planning Manager | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211
| [email protected]

From: Doug D'Anna < >
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2026 8:59 PM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report

Dear Liz,
Thank you for the update — I really do appreciate you staying on this.

I've gone through the Hexagon report and the city's TIA Guidelines three times now, so I don't think I'm missing something obvious here — unless it's buried in planning speak I'm not familiar with.

I'm still stuck on why this is taking as long as it has.

I'd assumed you could just email me back the page numbers where the five items appear, or let me know if something I'm asking about is already written down somewhere.

I don't really understand why Public Works needed to get involved either. To me this read like checking whether something is in a document, not new analysis. You could just send me whatever answers this.

Maybe you can help me understand.

Here's what I'm trying to find in the Hexagon report. The city's TIA Guidelines seem to call for these five things that I could not find:

1. A Neighborhood Traffic Assessment for 6th and 7th Avenues.

2. A pedestrian facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the site. Pages 39-40 mention pedestrians briefly, but I couldn't find this.

3. A bicycle facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the site. Same issue.

4. A parking assessment comparing supply to ITE peak demand.

5. A fair share calculation for B Street and 5th Avenue. Table 8 on page 31 shows a deficiency there, but I couldn't find the calculation.

For each one, could you please just tell me:
- is it in the report, yes or no
- if yes, what page it appears on
- if no, what part of the TIA Guidelines says it was not required I live on Laurel Avenue — which is one of the named study intersections in this report — and I walk and drive on these streets every day, so the analysis matters to me. That's why I flagged it in the first place.

You mentioned you'd get back to me by the end of the week, which I think means this Friday, the 26th — that would be fifteen days since my first letter.

I'm hoping we can get this wrapped up by then.

Thank you again for your patience with me on this, Liz.

I'm adding Alex, Zachary, Prasanna, and the Planning Commission back in, since they were on my original email.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna
South Downtown RPPP Permit Holder
cc:
[email protected] · [email protected] · [email protected] · Planni [email protected]

On Jun 18, 2026, at 10:35 AM, Elizabeth Liz Gagliardi <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Doug,

Following up on the below email, I wanted to let you know that we are still reviewing together with Public Works, though we will need a bit more time to finalize the review & response to your questions below. I will follow up with further details by the end of next week.

Thank you,
-Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206
| [email protected]

From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 4:55 PM
To:

Cc: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report

Good afternoon Doug,

Thanks for providing these questions. I wanted to let you know that Joanna has forwarded this email my way, as I am the project Planner for PA-2025-039.

I have received and am working on a response to your questions. As these items deal with some of the technical analysis aspects of the TIA report, I would like to discuss with our Public Works team since they are technical experts on this subject matter and will be better able to provide background information related to the questions you have posed. Unfortunately, the Public Works reviewer for this project is currently out of the office, but I will be following up upon his return with more detailed response - likely early next week.

Thanks for your patience as I review this further.
-Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206
| [email protected]

From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 9:09 AM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report

Dear Ms. Winter:

After my June 8 letter, your response, and the June 9 hearing, I went back and read both documents again.

I have now read the Hexagon Transportation Analysis and the City's adopted TIA Guidelines side by side. I cannot find five things the Guidelines appear to require. I am hoping someone can point me to them.
·
A Neighborhood Traffic Assessment for 6th and 7th Avenues. Section

3.9 requires one when a project has direct access to a neighborhood street.

Both project driveways access local streets. I cannot find it. · A pedestrian facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the project site. Section 3.9 requires it. I cannot find it.
· A bicycle facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the project site. Section 3.9 requires it. I cannot find it.
· A parking assessment comparing proposed supply against ITE peak demand rates. Section 3.9 requires it. I cannot find it. · A fair share calculation for B Street and 5th Avenue. Section 3.10 requires one when adverse conditions are identified. Table 8 of the Hexagon report documents a queuing deficiency at that intersection. I cannot find the calculation.

If these analyses exist and I missed them, I would genuinely appreciate being directed to the relevant pages.

If they are not there, I would appreciate knowing that too.

Respectfully submitted,

Doug D'Anna
South Downtown RPPP Permit Holder

cc: [email protected] · [email protected] · [email protected] g
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

1 From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 11:08 AM
To: Chantal Eaton
Subject: Fw: Notice of Upcoming Public Hearing - 616 S. B Street "Nazareth Vista" Mixed-Use Development
Hi Chantal,

Forwarding over this public comment received for PA-2025-039. Can you please include with the agenda attachments for Council consideration?

Thanks,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]

From: Mary Robblee < >
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2026 6:20 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Notice of Upcoming Public Hearing - 616 S. B Street "Nazareth Vista" Mixed-Use Development

San Mateo is losing its charm and easy-going quiet neighborhoods.

Construction is too much on every corner in downtown area. All anyone cares about is money. What about the people that live here? City management could care less.

Very very sad for us as we age. Stores closing and the shopping center will be gone.

What's left..nothing but more buildings, more people and more traffic.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2026, 3:34 PM Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Interested Parties and Planning Project Subscription List,

Please see attached notice for Planning Application number PA-2025-039. The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures and the construction of a new eight-story mixed-use building with a total floor area of 162,119 square feet. The proposed building consists of 7,286 square feet of ground floor commercial, 94 residential (rental) units on floors three through eight, and 114 off street parking

2 spaces. 10 units (15% of the base density) will be allocated as affordable to the very low-income category. The project includes several waivers and one concession under State Density Bonus Law.

The City Council will hold a public hearing on this project on Monday, August 17, 2026 at 7:00 PM (see attached notice for further details).

Project plans, and other information related to this Project are available on the City's Current Development page at the following link: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4862/616-S-B-St-Mixed-Use- Development

Liz Gagliardi (She/Her)
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]

* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.