Post Packet Public Comment — San Mateo City Council, August 17, 2026

City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting

POST PACKET

PUBLIC COMMENT
As of August 17, 2026 at 4:00 PM
1 Alby Calles
From: Chantal Eaton
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 7:15 AM
To: Martin McTaggart
Cc: Alby Calles; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: pedestrian safety concerns
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Public comment

From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 3:28 PM
To: Chantal Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: pedestrian safety concerns

Hi Chantal,

I just received an additional comment (email below) for PA-2025-039 which never made it to my inbox.

Can you include this with the post-packet public comments?

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: Mike Kato <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 3:20 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: FW: pedestrian safety concerns

Hi Liz,

Here is my response to the email Norman Cohen sent, and his reply to that. I did not send any further response to his reply.

Regards,
Mike

2 From: norman cohen
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 1:39 PM
To: Mike Kato <[email protected]>
Cc: Tyrone Bailey <[email protected]>; Bethany Lopez <[email protected]>; Jay Yu <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: pedestrian safety concerns

Mike, Thank you very much for your note and explanations. I appreciate the feedback and confirmation of plans. Just a couple of additional points:

1. The 5th Ave. and Laurel T intersection is relatively quiet much of the time. But there are certain times when I believe (and have witnessed) that it can be difficult and hazardous.

2. The 5th Ave. and Ellsworth crossing will be far more utilized when the development at the Drager's site is completed.

3. All of the intersections will become much more problematic with the multiple imminent nearby construction projects, and I hope the City will be proactive here without waiting until all of these developments are completed.

4. Besides the specific intersections mentioned, I assume and hope the City will undertake more general traffic and safety measures in the whole downtown area.

Thanks again for keeping me informed.

Yours truly,
Norman

On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 11:50 AM Mike Kato <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Norman,

I am writing to let you know that your July 6th email to the City was forwarded to our Traffic Engineering team in Public Works. We are initiating evaluations for the following items you requested:

1. “Stop” signs for the intersection of 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave.

2. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at the intersection of 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave.

3. Traffic signal or “Stop” signs are the intersection of 5th Ave & Laurel Ave.

There were also a number of things you requested that we will not pursue, primarily because they do not align with State and Federal engineering guidance. These are addressed below.

 You requested RRFBs for the crosswalk across Laurel Ave at the intersection of 5th Ave & Laurel Ave to alert drivers making turn movements from 5th Ave. State and Federal guidance does not allow RRFBs to be used this way.

 You requested adding a “Stop” sign in the middle of the road at the intersection of 6th Ave and Laurel Ave.

State and Federal guidance does not allow “Stop” signs to be placed in that manner.

3  You requested RRFBs at the intersection of 6th Ave and Laurel Ave. That intersection is all-way stop controlled. State and Federal guidance does not allow use of RRFBs at stop-controlled approaches.

That said, your concerns that prompted those requests are noted and will be considered in the evaluations that we will carry out.

Lastly, you mentioned that the in-street “Yield to Pedestrians” sign at the intersection of 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave was removed. The sign was removed during the recent paving project. It will be replaced.

Staff will contact you again when the evaluations are complete. Note that work on these evaluations is paused for the summer because we collect the needed traffic data while school is in session. Also note that staff is working through a backlog of requests and yours are now in the queue.

Regards,

Michael “Mike” Kato (He/Him)
Associate Engineer | Public Works
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7377 | [email protected]

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

1 Alby Calles
From: Clerk
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 1:51 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Cc: Martin McTaggart; Alby Calles
Subject: RE: 616 s B st.

Received, thank you.

Best,

Alby Calles, MBA
Assistant to the City Clerk
City Clerk’s OƯice
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7043 | [email protected]

From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 1:47 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Alby Calles <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: 616 s B st.

Hi Clerk's Office,

One additional Public Comment, I believe I forwarded over the initial email on this thread but received the below response that I wanted to ensure was included. See updated thread below for the 616 S. B Street item. Can you please add as a post-packet comment?

Thanks!

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, August 17, 2026 11:11 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 616 s B st.

2 Thank you. The potential excess noise is the concern, with open windows, balconies, patios, common outdoor spaces ( Gramercy and Stratford) and even indoor spaces potentially adversely impacted by 60 decibels.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 17, 2026, at 10:57 AM, Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Norman,

Thank you for providing public comment on this Project. Your comments have been forwarded to the City Clerk to be included as "Post Packet Public Comments" for the City Council item on 8/17.

Regarding the renderings referenced, these are conceptual in terms of the furnishings (including any TV screens), which should be further detailed during the building permit review phase of the project. This item was raised during the Planning Commission hearing during the Commissioner discussion, during which the Applicant clarified that any screens would be turned off when not in use, and that they are open to providing additional screening or alternative locations to minimize the visibility of any TVs to adjacent properties. As far as the City's regulations, we do not have specific requirements for TV screen locations, but would require that all elements of the Project abide by the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance that addresses excessive noise.

There is a General Plan Policy to address noise that has been added standard Conditions of Approval requiring for Exterior Acoustical Analysis, which must be satisfied prior to issuance of the building permit for superstructure for the Project to ensure that the common open space area meets General Plan requirements:

 "EXTERIOR ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS - In compliance with General Plan Policy N1.3, the applicant shall provide an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for new multifamily common open space for residents that have an exterior noise level of 60 dBA (Ldn) or above, as shown in Figure N-2 of the General Plan. The applicant shall incorporate necessary mitigation measures into residential project design to minimize common open space noise levels. Maximum exterior noise levels should not exceed 65 dBA (Ldn) for residential uses."

However, be aware that this analysis generally applies to exterior off-site noise impacts on the project (e.g., road noise, train noise, etc), not impacts from the project onto surrounding properties.

Thank you,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
3 330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]

From: norman cohen
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 5:06 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: 616 s B st.

Hi Liz, I know this project is on Monday's agenda, and we do not oppose or wish to delay it. We need the housing, and we think it will make the area more attractive than it is presently. But we now were shocked to notice on page 8 of the plans a conceptualized drawing of a big screen TV on the 4th floor terrace. That is a huge concern. Probably 100- 200 neighbors could be adversely affected by terrace entertainment and excess noise. In addition, we thought that this type of project required an acoustical study (with mitigation recommendations) prior to approval, as per the General Plan Noise Policy. But I could not find that anywhere. Thank you.

Best regards,
Norman Cohen
* 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 Alby Calles
From: Davida Rabbino
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 11:14 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Rob Newsom; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi; Planning Commission; City Mgr; Clerk; Rabbino N. Davida
Cc:

Stratford.ED (Janie Woo)
Subject: Noise from outdoor TV at 616 B Street project
Attachments: Letter to City Council about 616 Bst outdoor TV.docx Here is the request from the HOA at the Stratford regarding the building plans for 616 B Street to be discussed tonight at your meeting. Please consider this when you make your rulings.

Best regards,
Davida Rabbino

Letter to the City Council of San Mateo about noise from fourth floor TV at 616 B. Street.

The project proposal for 616 B Street has changed substantially from the 48-unit proposal. The current proposal is now an eight story, 94 unit residential building with retail and a fourth floor podium-top outside deck. The Planning Commission documents identify 616 S. B. St as a pending project, confirming that the newer proposal is the relevant one now. This rendering did not appear on the original proposal. The newly published project information specifically describes a fourth floor podium top deck which is the terrace we are concerned about.

Our biggest concern regards the outdoor TV, and so we request that a ban on terrace TV installation be a condition of approval from the City Council. The projected noise and light will greatly influence the quality of life on the outdoor gathering spaces at the three adjacent buildings, The Stratford, The Stradbally Court, and the Grammercy. The neighboring buildings with open windows, balconies, and indoor spaces will be affected by the flickering lights and the noise.

The outdoor patio and garden rooms at the Stratford are quiet areas in downtown San Mateo that affords a quiet respite from the noisy streets. This use of outdoor space needs to be rethought to achieve necessary protection from the sound intrusion into adjacent residences.

We feel it is important to be proactive here to ensure we are protecting nearby residents from unnecessary disruption and noise pollution. Please support this request to limit the new building’s intrusion into our neighborhood by removing the outdoor television on your proposal. We are requesting a ban on any TV be a condition for approval.

Sincerely,
HOA of the Stratford.

1 Alby Calles
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:55 PM
To: Clerk; Alby Calles; Martin McTaggart
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Sung H. Kwon; Steve Golden; Joanna Winter Subject: Fw: public comment re item 21 for tonight's Council meeting Attachments: San Mateo - 616 South B Street - HAA.pdf
Hi Clerk's Office,

Received another post-packet public comment letter for Item 21 - can you please add this to the list?

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: James Lloyd
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:52 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]> Cc: City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>; Community Development Distribution <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: public comment re item 21 for tonight's Council meeting

Dear San Mateo City Council,

The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits the attached public comment re item 21 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 94-unit housing development project at 616 South B Street, which includes 10 very low-income units.

Sincerely,

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

CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/

Aug 17, 2026
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 616 South B Street To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dear San Mateo City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 94-unit housing development project at 616 South 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 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org

thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to architectural style, residential density, ﬂoor area ratio,
building height, setback requirements, loading zone, architectural features, shadows, and vertical wall plane breaks. 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.) Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it

2 of 3

1 Alby Calles
From: David Hunt
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 3:59 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Support for 616 S. B Street (PA-2025-039, Item 21) with Conditions on Parking Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

As a Hayward Park resident that lives a ~15 minute walk from this project I am writing in support of the Nazareth Vista project at 616 S. B Street (PA-2025-039, Agenda Item 21). Ninety-four homes, including ten units affordable to very-low-income households, plus ground-floor retail, roughly a third of a mile from the Downtown Caltrain station, is the right kind of housing in the right place. I urge you to approve it.

In brief: I support approval, and I ask for two conditions.

1. Unbundle residential parking. Price parking separately from rent so tenants who do not own a car are not forced to pay for a space they will not use.

2. Allow overnight parking at the Kiku Crossing garage. Amend the downtown monthly permit rules (currently valid only Monday to Saturday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., no overnight) so residents of this project and nearby blocks can use an underused public garage at night instead of parking on neighborhood streets.

The rest of this letter lays out the reasoning behind each.

1. Require the developer to unbundle residential parking.

AB 2097 already means this project is not required to build a single parking space, yet it includes 93 resident spaces. General Plan Action C 2.8 specifically recommends unbundling parking from housing costs, and this is the moment to apply it.

Unbundling means pricing parking separately from the lease, so residents who want a space pay for it explicitly and residents who do not are not forced to subsidize it. The research on what follows is consistent: bundled parking adds an average of about 17% to a unit's rent, households with bundled parking are roughly 60% more likely to own a car, and buildings that pair unbundled parking with car- share see about 25% lower vehicle ownership. These are not four separate arguments. They are one chain of cause and effect (lower rents, less car ownership, fewer trips, more transit use) that serves goals this Council has already adopted.

This also speaks directly to what neighbors raised at the Planning Commission and the neighborhood meeting. Their top concerns were traffic and parking. Unbundling is the most direct response available, because it stops baking a parking space, and the car
trips that come with it, into every lease regardless of whether the tenant drives. AB 2097 says the city cannot force developers to overbuild parking. It does not stop the city from ensuring that the parking a developer chooses to build is priced transparently.

2. Open the Kiku Crossing garage to overnight permit parking.

2 The most common objection to unbundling is that residents without a paid on-site space will simply crowd neighborhood streets. The answer is already nearby and already built. The Kiku Crossing garage sat below 35% utilization at every hour measured in the city's recent occupancy study. That is substantial public capacity going unused around the clock.

That capacity cannot absorb overnight demand today because of the permit rules. The city's monthly downtown permits, which are the permits sold at Kiku, are valid only Monday through Saturday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and cannot be used for overnight parking. This is not a quirk specific to Kiku. It is a feature of the citywide downtown permit program, which the Council can amend. I ask you to extend those permits to allow overnight parking so residents of this project and the surrounding blocks can use a garage that is mostly empty at night.

The price makes this especially compelling. Kiku's public monthly permit is $65, or $40 for eligible low- income residents. That is a fraction of what an unbundled on- site space is likely to cost, since unbundled
spaces in the Bay Area routinely run $200 or more per month. An affordable permit in an underused public garage a few blocks away is exactly the kind of option that lets a household choose to own fewer cars, which is the outcome unbundling is meant to encourage. Putting an existing, underused public garage to work is also far cheaper and greener than requiring anyone to overbuild on-site structured parking that will sit vacant.

Taken together, these two conditions make Nazareth Vista more affordable to its renters, hold down the traffic it adds to an already busy area, and put publicly owned parking capacity to use instead of leaving it idle overnight. I respectfully urge you to approve the project with these conditions.

Thank you for your consideration.

- Dave

1 Alby Calles
From: Gramercy Manager
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 9:21 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Rob Newsom; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi; Planning Commission; City Mgr; Clerk
Cc:

Rick Bonilla
Subject: 616 S B Street-Terrace Concerns
Attachments: 616 S B Street Terrace Letter to City Council 8.17.26.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
August 17, 2026

To: City Council Members,

Hello, We at The Gramercy have, candidly, had some concerns about this project, including street parking, loss of sunlight for many residents, and especially pedestrian safety due to the markedly increased traffic. Nevertheless, we are not opposed --primarily because we recognize the need for more housing. In addition, we believe the new structure will make that location much more aesthetically attractive than the current status. At the 6/9 Planning Commission hearing a handful of our residents emphasized pedestrian safety. Neither they nor our prior petition mentioned the issue of excess noise emanating from the planned fourth floor outdoor terrace. This is because we only very recently noticed an artistic drawing on page eight of the plans showing a large screen TV on the terrace. Of course, this may just represent a conceptualized rendering that will never be adopted. But it has led us to the realization that excess noise from this elevated terrace runs the potential risk of disrupting the quality of life for many established nearby residents.

We do not wish to cause unnecessary problems or undue delays, and we endeavor to be cooperative and amiable neighbors. We also realize that this terrace design is likely an ongoing process, with specific plans not yet decided and that the developer and his personnel are conscientious and wish to also be good neighbors. But we feel it is still important to be proactive here so as to ensure we are protecting nearby residents from unnecessary disruption.

2 While we, of course, defer to you on the best way to proceed, we would like to suggest some possibilities that we hope you seriously consider.

Our biggest concern regards the TV, and so we request that a ban on terrace TV installation be a condition of approval. (The fallback position would be to require any future TV to either be on mute or require listeners to wear earbuds or headphones; plus make the light not intrusive for others). We likewise would like to see no sound amplification devices to also be a condition of approval.

Other points to consider (whether conditions of approval or prior understandings):

Maximal noise mitigation, with sufficient sound dampening methods and barriers. 9:00 pm curfew or, at minimum, further noise restriction at that hour.

Obtaining the required acoustical analysis before approval (rather than just prior to permit) to allow any recommended design changes first.

Again, we support the project and hope progress is expedited, and our intention is to be cooperative and good neighbors. We just want to protect a large number of our (and other) residents from unwanted noise intrusion that could easily adversely affect them.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,
The Gramercy on the Park Homeowners Association

Michael Penner-CMCA
General Manager
Gramercy on the Park Homeowners Association

August 17, 2026
To: City Council Members,
Hello, We at The Gramercy have, candidly, had some concerns about this project, including street parking, loss of sunlight for many residents, and especially pedestrian safety due to the markedly increased traffic. Nevertheless, we are not opposed --primarily because we recognize the need for more housing. In addition, we believe the new structure will make that location much more aesthetically attractive than the current status. At the 6/9 Planning Commission hearing a handful of our residents emphasized pedestrian safety. Neither they nor our prior petition mentioned the issue of excess noise emanating from the planned fourth floor outdoor terrace. This is because we only very recently noticed an artistic drawing on page eight of the plans showing a large screen TV on the terrace. Of course, this may just represent a conceptualized rendering that will never be adopted. But it has led us to the realization that excess noise from this elevated terrace runs the potential risk of disrupting the quality of life for many established nearby residents.

While we, of course, defer to you on the best way to proceed, we would like to suggest some possibilities that we hope you seriously consider.

Other points to consider (whether conditions of approval or prior understandings):

Maximal noise mitigation, with sufficient sound dampening methods and barriers. 9:00 pm curfew or, at minimum, further noise restriction at that hour.

Obtaining the required acoustical analysis before approval (rather than just prior to permit) to allow any recommended design changes first.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,
The Gramercy on the Park Homeowners Association

San Mateo City CouncilAugust 17, 2026

San Mateo City Council
August 17, 2026