1 Alby Calles
From: Shelby Donohoe
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:52 PM
To: Clerk
Cc: Zachary Dahl
Subject: Fw: Other Zoning Revisions - #4 - S. Amphlett
Related to the High-Density Ordinance tonight.
Thanks,
Shelby Donohoe
Senior Planner
From: Laura
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:37 PM
To: Shelby Donohoe <[email protected]>
Subject: Other Zoning Revisions - #4 - S. Amphlett
Dear Ms. Donahoe,
We went through the General Plan review and mentioned the C4 zoning for S. Amphlett from 5th Avenue to Folkstone has been incompatible for our neighborhood for over 40 years.
This zoning update adds the incompatible businesses back into C4 Service Commercial on S.
Amphlett. They may have been added in previously, but it's better to leave them out. These businesses are not the right fit for our neighborhood.
These businesses include:
- Processing and assembly of goods within 6,000 sf.
- Sheet metal shops
- Storage and warehousing
- Tool, die, and pattern making
- Welding and iron work
- Wholesale establishments
- Accessory to principal uses permitted
- Auto repair and body shops
- Other compatible uses determined by the Zoning Administrator.
This will further impact our health and safety with the adverse environmental impacts they bring. We want to move forward not backwards.
2 We would like to see more duplexes - low density housing in this area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Laurie Watanuki
Central Neighborhood
1 Alby Calles
From: David D. Bohannon II
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:05 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl; Andrew Turco
Subject: Comments on September 8 City Council High-Density Mixed-Use Zoning Code Updates Ordinance Introduction
Dear City Councilmembers,
While we are still digesting the staƯ report package for today’s City Council hearing, there appears to be a significant change proposed in the most recent set of zoning amendments related to the applicability of the FAR standards – specifically, whether FAR should apply to nonresidential portions of a project only (as recommended by the Planning Commission) or apply to residential portions of a project as well. We agree with the Planning Commission that residential development is already separately regulated by height, setbacks and density standards. Applying FAR standards to the residential portions of a project would unduly burden residential and mixed-use projects. The following includes more detail.
In the July 20th version of the zoning amendments, FAR standards were proposed to apply only to the nonresidential portions of a building, as shown below:
Now, in the version proposed for tomorrow’s hearing, there is question about whether to make the FAR applicable to the residential portions of a project as well. As shown in the language below, the FAR standards would apply only to nonresidential portions of a building only in the alternative blue language:
The staƯ report indicates that the Planning Commission’s recommendation was for FAR to apply only to the nonresidential portions of a building and not to the residential portions because residential development is already separately regulated by height, setback and density standards.
2 While we understand that these standards may be refined over time in the comprehensive zoning update, we request that the Planning Commission’s recommendations are implemented in the interim such that FAR should apply only to the nonresidential portions of a project and not to the residential portions.
Thank you,
David Bohannon
1 Alby Calles
From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 6:34 PM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: You Voted 5–0 to Protect San Mateo's Historic Districts. The Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Don't Know That. (Agenda Item 18 (File ID 26-11552)
The ask, up front: Shelve the Zoning Code Amendments until staff confirms the new high-density zones don't leave Glazenwood and San Mateo's historic downtown unprotected from what gets built next door. Details and the full request are below.
Mayor and City Council,
This Council voted 5–0, twice, to protect Glazenwood — and strengthened protections citywide, including for the Downtown Historic District On April 20, 2026, this Council voted 5–0 to designate the Glazenwood Historic District. On May 18, 2026, it voted 5–0 again to strengthen the Historic Preservation Ordinance itself.
The Zoning Code Amendments open up construction at the edge of districts like these
This week, the Council is being asked to adopt a zoning ordinance that opens up major new construction directly at the edge of districts like Glazenwood and the Downtown Historic District — without ever checking whether the Historic Preservation Ordinance actually protects them from what gets built next door.
If the intent of the Historic Preservation Ordinance was to preserve historic districts and resources, the Zoning Code Amendments may undermine that intent.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 27.66) only applies to work done on a historic building itself — an alteration, an addition, or a demolition. It does not review or limit what gets built on the property next door. The ordinance protects the historic building. It does not protect what surrounds it.
Its stated purpose, in Section 27.66.010, calls for "complementary design and construction" near historic resources.
The Zoning Code Amendments do not break any rule in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. But they would allow an 8-story building with no compatibility review directly against the edge of Glazenwood or the Downtown Historic District — the opposite of what that purpose calls for.
2 The result: 8-story buildings, no setback, no Council review, at a historic border The new high-density districts (R6, R7, MU3, MU4) require a buffer between a new building and the property next door. But that buffer only applies when the property next door is zoned R1 or R2.
A historic district like Glazenwood or the Downtown Historic District gets no buffer at all. The rule was never written to notice it. Under this ordinance, an eight-story, 100-foot building with no required side setback could go up right against a historic district boundary. The code would treat it exactly the same as if nothing historic were there.
Picture it concretely: a century-old home on the edge of Glazenwood, or a historic storefront on the edge of the Downtown Historic District, and right next to it — built to the property line, with no gap at
all — a wall of new construction eight stories tall. Nothing in either ordinance stops that. Nothing requires it to even try to fit.
The same gap also shrinks Council oversight, since Council review is triggered by exceeding the General Plan height limit, and this ordinance sets that limit as high as 100 feet in these districts — letting a building up to 99 feet go up next to a historic district without ever reaching the Council.
None of the 7 public comments on file caught this gap
Seven public comments have already been submitted on this item. Developers asked for taller buildings. A housing group asked to eliminate the floor-area-ratio rule. Other residents raised concerns about traffic and about moving too fast.
Not one comment checked whether the Historic Preservation Ordinance this Council just strengthened actually reaches the new development this ordinance would allow. It does not.
That's the exact seam where the City's two most recent land use actions — one protecting historic districts, one creating high-density capacity next to them — were never checked against each other.
The fix: Shelve the Zoning Code Amendments until this is evaluated Shelve the Zoning Code Amendments (Agenda Item 18, File ID 26-11552) until staff has evaluated how it interacts with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and reports back to the Council on that interaction specifically. That evaluation should cover:
Extending the buffer and setback rules that already apply next to R1/R2 zones to also apply next to a historic district or designated historic resource. Keeping Council review for large projects built next to a historic district or historic resource, even when the project doesn't exceed the General Plan height limit. Mapping which parcels near San Mateo's historic districts, including Glazenwood and the Downtown Historic District, could realistically be reclassified under these new zones, so the Council can see the real risk before voting, not after. 3 This Council settled the importance of Glazenwood twice this year, unanimously, and strengthened the ordinance that protects the Downtown Historic District too. I'm asking it not to undo that by accident tonight.
Respectfully,
Doug D'Anna