City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting
POST PACKET
PUBLIC COMMENT
1 From: Max Mautner < >
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2026 8:00 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Item 17 — Alternative 4 locks in the street we already have Mayor Loraine and Councilmembers,
In January, Veronica Vasquez was killed in the crosswalk at El Camino Real and 17th Avenue. The city's response, separating the turn phase from the walk phase, was the right fix and it moved quickly. It also cost zero parking spaces. That is the pattern: every safety improvement San Mateo has delivered on this corridor has been one that took nothing from the curb. A signal phase change is not the ceiling of what this street needs. It is what is left available once parking is off the table, and it took a death to get it.
Alternative 4 makes that constraint permanent. This corridor recorded 144 injury collisions from 2019 to 2023, eleven of them fatal or severe. The evaluation matrix in front of you rates staff's preferred alternative "Low" on Caltrans policy and "Low" for walking, biking, transit, and the environment. It is also the only alternative scored by city staff rather than by the consultant who scored the other three:
The same report projects 9,000 jobs and 10,000 residents within a half mile of this street over the next 10 to 15 years. Alternative 4 hands those 10,000 new residents the El Camino Real that exists today, for decades.
The parking capacity question has already been answered, by the city's own $70,000 analysis: roughly 300 vehicles parked on El Camino at a given time, enough surrounding supply to absorb them within one to two blocks, and no corridor-wide capacity constraint. Whatever the case against reallocation is, it is not capacity.
2 My request: direct staff that San Mateo enters the PID with on-street parking available for reallocation where safety or transit performance requires it, and that Alternative 4 does not carry this council's support.
Explicit direction matters here, because in its absence the record reads as instruction to preserve every space regardless of whether it is occupied, what it costs the people crossing the street, and what it costs those riding the bus, my family included.
Max Mautner
Co-lead, Move San Mateo. Writing for myself.
1 From: Lisa Taner < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 8:29 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: No Upside for FAR Removal
Dear City Councilmembers,
There is no upside to removing FAR unless you are a developer. Have we not given them enough locally and via state mandates?
It's like somebody taking our city and putting it down a disposal - now we just hit the ON switch? The impacts listed below demolish everything that makes a city enjoyable and livable. Not to mention the mountains of challenges that the fallout would bring, including impacts to utilities, storm water runoff, schools, just to name a few.
"A suburban city keeps Floor Area Ratios (FAR) to preserve its low-density character, manage local infrastructure, and protect home values. Removing FAR entirely removes a vital tool for controlling building volume, which can dramatically change a suburb.
Local governments resist removing FAR in suburban areas for several key reasons:醎醏醔醐醑醒醓 Preserving Neighborhood CharacterPrevents "McMansions": Without FAR limits, developers can buy modest suburban homes, tear them down, and build massive, boxy houses that max out the lot's boundaries and tower over neighbors.
Maintains Open Space: Suburbs are characterized by yards, trees, and sunlight. FAR controls the overall bulk of a building, ensuring homes don't block sunlight, destroy privacy, or eliminate green spaces.뽭뽮뽯뽰뽱뽳뽴뽲 Managing Infrastructure Limits Prevents Traffic Overload: Suburban roads, intersections, and street parking are designed for a specific, low-density capacity. Removing FAR can lead to multi-unit buildings or massive commercial spaces that cause gridlock.
Protects Utilities: Suburban sewer systems, water lines, and electrical grids have finite capacities. A sudden spike in building sizes and occupancy can overwhelm these systems, leading to costly public infrastructure upgrades.
Controls Stormwater Runoff: Larger building footprints mean fewer lawns to absorb rainwater. This increases concrete runoff, which can overwhelm suburban storm drains and cause local flooding.듹듷듺 Safeguarding Property Values and Quality of LifeProtects Residential Stability: Dramatic, unpredictable changes to a neighborhood’s scale can hurt the resale value of existing homes, as buyers look to suburbs specifically for a spacious, uniform environment.
2 Maintains School Capacities: Unchecked density spikes can rapidly increase the local child population, overcrowding suburban schools that cannot easily expand their facilities." Eliminating the FAR max, even on an interim basis, could affect all those projects already in the development pipeline. What is your hope for San Mateo's future? Sincerely,
Lisa Taner
1 From: Rick Bonilla < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 2:32 PM
Cc: City Council (San Mateo); Rob Newsom; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Lisa Diaz Nash; Nicole Fernandez; Adam Loraine; Zachary Dahl; Alex Khojikian
Subject: Re: Public comment on Agenda Item 15: Support for Zoning Amendments Good afternoon,
As the Chair of the Board of Directors at the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, I would like for you to know I totally support this message. Please consider these words the same as coming directly from me.
Rick Bonilla
On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 2:24 PM Jeremy Levine < > wrote:
Good afternoon San Mateo City Council Members (and Zach and Alex!), On behalf of HLC, please vote to approve the proposed zoning code amendments contained in Agenda Item 15. These amendments faithfully implement the voters' intent in the passage of Measure T, creating new zoning districts that will facilitate more homes and quality walkable neighborhoods.
Most significantly, the new districts streamline the zoning process by removing duplicative standards like Floor Area Ratio. As I wrote in a letter on July 20, " Floor Area Ratios are a duplicative zoning regulation that arbitrarily restricts building size. San Mateo already has height limits and setbacks that constrain the building envelope. Floor Area Ratio simply adds another layer of complexity with no additional benefit for the beauty or massing of buildings." To elaborate: rules like Floor Area Ratios make the zoning code less transparent and accessible to average citizens. They add layers of complexity that mean only sophisticated developers and planners, not average citizens, understand the nature of their own rules. Standards proposed by other public commenters, such as buffers around historic resources, have the same effect, turning consistent and predictable rules into patchwork standards navigable only by a select few with arcane, esoteric knowledge of the codes.
The goal of the city's extensive zoning updates--and the voter-approved Measure T--is to simplify the city's code, to make San Mateo's rules accessible to the general public, to promote more homes.
The new districts take a first step in that direction, laying the groundwork for more thorough updates of other preexisting districts in the coming year. Please approve them as written.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2 1
From: Doug D'Anna < >
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2026 12:03 PM
To: Martin McTaggart
Subject: Public Comment * Updated Powerpoint 9/20/2026 -Zoning for Sept 22 Council meeting.
Attachments: ae1af20b-Four_Reasons_UPDATED_17.pptx
Martin,
Here is my public comment to go along with my added powerpoint for Tuesday’s council meeting.
Please confirm you have received this.
Thanks,
DD
Public Comment — File ID 26-11552
Doug D'Anna · San Mateo, CA — Glazenwood Historic District · September 22, 2026 City Council Meeting Mayor and Council. In the next few minutes, I'll point out four reasons why the new zoning code fails San Mateo's historic districts, landmarks, and buildings — allowing new construction up to 75 to 100 feet tall right next to them.
Two things I'm asking you to do: implement General Plan Action CD 5.12, adopted in 2024, and reference historic districts directly in this ordinance's language before final adoption. Here's why.
SLIDE 2 — NO BUFFER
Failure one: no buffer. A buffer is required open space between a new tall building and the homes next door.
Glazenwood only gets one by accident — we happen to be zoned for single-family homes. Downtown and the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House district don't even get the accident.
SLIDE 3 — THE DIAGRAM
Here's what that looks like, drawn to scale. Ten feet next to a regular home. Zero next to either of the two historic districts.
SLIDE 4 — NO DESIGN REVIEW
Failure two: no design review. The General Plan calls for objective design standards — height, massing, materials — near historic resources, city-wide. This ordinance only recognizes that inside the Downtown Retail Core. And 2 even that isn't this ordinance's doing — it's an older guideline this ordinance never touches. Glazenwood and the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House district get nothing at all — and the one review that might have caught that gap, CEQA, gets bypassed too. A buffer is distance, not compatibility.
SLIDE 5 — NO REFERENCE
Failure three: no reference. Four documents on this slide define what's historic in San Mateo. This ordinance forgets this city's great history.
SLIDE 6 — NO DISTRICT-SPECIFIC REVIEW
Failure four: no district-specific review. The ordinance cites two CEQA exemptions. The first is written for accessory dwelling units — it doesn't apply here. The second claims consistency with the City's certified 2024 General Plan environmental impact report. But nothing in the record shows that review specifically addressed effects on Glazenwood, Downtown, or the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House district.
SLIDE 7 — THE PROMISE
This slide is the fix. Action CD 5.12 — this Council already adopted it in 2024. It calls for exactly the design standards this ordinance skips.
SLIDE 8 — THE URGENCY
And this is why it can't wait. Staff calls these standards interim — but any project approved before the update arrives still gets built. "Interim" doesn't undo a building.
SLIDE 9 — THE ASK
Two asks. Direct staff to implement Action CD 5.12. And reference historic districts, landmarks, and resources directly in this ordinance's language, before final adoption.
This is a city that takes its history seriously enough to put it in four documents. Don't let the zoning code be the one place that forgets. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna
1 From: Doug D'Anna < >
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 12:51 PM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo); Zachary Dahl
Cc: ; Laurie Hietter; Ashley Zerpa; Ruthmary Cradler
Subject: Four Ways the Zoning Ordinance Fails San Mateos Historic Districts, Resources, and Landmarks. (File ID 26-11552 )
September 2026
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: File ID 26-11552 — Agenda Item 18 — High-Density Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Zoning Districts Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am submitting this letter to document four distinct ways the proposed ordinance fails to extend historicadjacency protection to San Mateo's historic districts and resources — each traced to the City's own adopted standards and certified environmental record.
Executive Summary
The City's proposed zoning ordinance (File ID 26-11552) creates four new high-density districts — R6, R7, MU3, MU4 — but does not extend historic-adjacency protection to them. 2 The standard isn't new. Every parcel adjacent to an R1 or R2 zone already gets a mandatory buffer. No parallel buffer specificially exists for adjacency to a historic district. landmark or resource.
The ordinance exempts itself from CEQA, up front, by claiming consistency with the General Plan1 — yet the General Plan itself calls for exactly the standard this ordinance omits (Action CD 5.122).
The City's own certified Final EIR named that same action, by name, as the fix for a formal Heritage Alliance objection3 — and never delivered it.
Without this amendment, any protection San Mateo's historic districts have is an accident of unrelated zoning, not a recognition of their historic status — protection this same ordinance could erase the moment a parcel inside or directly adjacent to them is upzoned.
The ask: pause adoption; insert one subsection into four existing sections extending the R1/R2 buffer to historic districts and resources.
Failure 1 — The Missing Buffer
R7 alone permits 8 stories / 100 feet, with just a 5-foot rear setback4.
Chapter 27.66 already requires review — a planning application or Certificate of Appropriateness — whenever a historic building is altered5. It has never governed what's built beside a historic resource.
The new ordinance's buffer trigger: 10-ft side / 15-ft rear buffer, only if adjacent to an R1 or R2 zone6. No equivalent trigger exists for historic adjacency, anywhere in Chapters 27.50–27.53. "If a side property line is adjacent to a R1 or R2 district, a buffer of ten (10) feet must be provided..."— Municipal Code § 27.50.080, identical across all four new districts Same ordinance, same city — a buffer is required next to an R1 or R2 zone; none is required next to a historic district or resource.
Where a historic district's underlying zoning happens to be R1, as it does for at least part of the Glazenwood Historic District and the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District, a parcel there may receive today's buffer — but only as an accident of that unrelated zoning, not because the ordinance recognizes historic status.
The Downtown Historic District, which is not zoned R1, receives no buffer of any kind. And even where the buffer applies today, nothing in the ordinance ties it to historic status — it would disappear the moment that parcel were rezoned under one of the very districts this ordinance creates.
The gap has only widened since. The City's own 2023 Multi-Family and Residential Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards — still in effect today, and entirely independent of this ordinance — go further still. Section 4.4.1, Neighborhood Transitions, requires mandatory stepbacks for any qualifying project within 10 to 20 feet of an abutting R1 zoning district: a five-foot third-story stepback for low-rise buildings, ten- to twenty-foot stepbacks above the second story for mid-rise and high-rise buildings, plus mandatory evergreen screening along the property line7. Every one of these triggers is keyed to R1 zoning. None of them is keyed to a historic district, landmark, contributor, or historic resource — those words do not appear anywhere in the standard. 3 CEQA requires evaluating a project's impact on a historic resource's surroundings, not just the resource itself8.
This standard and the buffer above are now two separate City rules, both keyed to R1 adjacency, both silent on historic adjacency. And as Failure 3 shows, the City drew this same line thirty years earlier, in 1993 — recognizing that adjacency to a historic resource creates a design impact worth regulating, and then never carrying that recognition forward.
Failure 2 — The CEQA Self-Exemption
CEQA recognizes harm to a historic resource's surroundings, not just the resource itself, as potentially significant8.
Section 18 declares the ordinance "statutorily exempt" from further CEQA review, on the basis of General Plan consistency9. No historic-adjacency study accompanies it.
The consistency claim doesn't hold: the General Plan's Action CD 5.12 calls for exactly the standard the ordinance skips10.
This isn't inference — it's the City's own record. Heritage Alliance formally objected (Sept. 2023) that the Draft EIR's historic-resources analysis was inadequate11.
"Action CD 5.12 Historic Resources Design Standards. Create objective design standards for alterations to historic resources and contributors to a designated historic district, and new development adjacent to historic resources within historic districts."— Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, p. 116, Chapter 5: Community Design and Historic Resources Element (adopted May 31, 2024)
Every new project already needs Site Plan and Architectural Review, which requires it be "in scale and harmonious with the character of the neighborhood"12. That finding is discretionary, citywide, and predates this ordinance — it never mentions historic resources by name. A subjective aesthetic finding is not the objective design standard this action requires.
Why This Gap Exists
Two City systems — historic review and zoning — were never measured against each other. Historic review governs the building. Zoning governs what's built beside it. Neither covers the seam between them.
Any parcel near a historic district can be reclassified into a new high-density district with zero historicadjacency review.
Failure 3 — The Zoning Code Ignores Its Own HistoricPreservation Framework The Zoning Code cites the General Plan for CEQA consistency — but nothing historic in any of these four documents is cross-referenced in it:
4 1. Historic Context Statement (2026) — Defines what's historic and why.13
2. Preservation Ordinance (Ch. 27.66) — Sets the legal test: any alteration to a Landmark or Contributor must comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, incorporated by reference — including Standard 9, which requires new construction to be compatible in scale and massing.14
3. Downtown Retail Core & Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines (1993) — Translates the test into a design standard — but scoped by section number to the old chapters, not the new districts.15
4. General Plan (Action CD 5.12, 2024) — Calls for design standards for development adjacent to historic resources — already adopted, never implemented.
5. Zoning Code (Ch. 27.50–53) — The only one that grants permission to build — and the only one none of the other four are cross-referenced in.
Two of these are binding law the ordinance is supposed to be consistent with — the Preservation Ordinance and Action CD 5.12. Neither is cited. The other two are the City's own guidance, one of them three decades old, both admitting the same problem this ordinance ignores.
The City has used item 3 before — and never carried it into the new districts. The 1993 Downtown Retail Core & Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines devote an entire section (Guidelines CC–FF) to non-historic buildings within the Downtown Historic District, stating they apply "to ensure that new development is compatible with existing historic buildings."15
The guidelines direct new construction to align cornices with neighboring historic buildings (CC), incorporate common facade components (DD), echo the architectural rhythm of nearby historic structures (EE), and match materials common to historic buildings (FF). That the City felt compelled to write these guidelines in 1993 is itself an admission that adjacency to a historic resource creates a design impact worth regulating — the exact impact this ordinance now ignores for the four new districts.
But those guidelines only reach buildings sited within the mapped Downtown Historic District boundary — they say nothing about a parcel just outside that boundary, looking in. And even within the boundary, they are discretionary: the City's own guidelines state that "the approving body may approve projects not in compliance with the guidelines" when it determines other solutions may be preferable15 — not an objective, code-enforceable standard like the one the City already requires for R1 adjacency today.
The City may argue that zoning code doesn't typically cite outside guidance. But this ordinance already does exactly that when it chooses to — deferring to "the Downtown Plan" for retail frontage requirements16, and to "an adopted plan, such as the Mariner's Island Specific Plan or the Bay Meadows Specific Plan" for other exclusions17. The zoning code is comfortable citing outside plans. It has simply never chosen to for anything historic — which is exactly what makes Section 18's claim of General Plan consistency, addressed in Failure 2, difficult to sustain.
Thirty years after 1993, the City wrote a second design standard for R1 adjacency — see Failure 1. It still didn't carry the lesson forward. Two chances, three decades apart, both taken for an ordinary neighbor and both missed for a historic one.
In the Ordinance's Own Words: The Zoning Code Totally Ignores Historic Preservation
5 This is not paraphrase. The following is the primary text of the proposed ordinance itself (Attachment 1). "...the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the adopted General Plan in that it supports the development of housing and achieves the General Plan's stated goals and policies."— Section 1, Legislative Findings. No policy is named. Action CD 5.12 is never cited — anywhere in this ordinance. "Historic" appears exactly once across all 21 sections of this ordinance — an existing cross-reference to Chapter 27.66, confined to the Downtown Specific Plan area (Section 4). Nothing new. Nothing about the four new districts.
"If a side property line is adjacent to a R1 or R2 district, a buffer of ten (10) feet must be provided."— §§
27.50.080(a), 27.51.080(a), 27.52.090(a), 27.53.090(a) — identical, word for word, in all four new chapters Historic district. Landmark. Contributor. Resource. None of these words appear.
Failure 4 — The General Plan Called for This Design Standard in 2024
But you won't find it in the new zoning update.
2024 — The General Plan called for these design standards (Action CD 5.12). Never created. 2024 — The City's own certified EIR response promised it, by name, to answer a formal objection. Never delivered.
2026 — Still missing in this zoning ordinance, same as it was in 2024.
The Fix & The Ask
The fix has two parts — one already promised, one an interim step:
Step One (the real fix): Direct staff to implement Action CD 5.12 — the historic design review standard the City already adopted in the General Plan, and already named in its own certified Final EIR as the mitigation for this exact concern.
Step Two (interim stopgap): Add one sentence to four existing sections, extending the R1/R2 buffer to historic districts and resources, tonight, while Step One is built out. "(c) If a side or rear property line is adjacent to a Historic District, Landmark, Contributor, or Historic Resource... the buffer required by subsections (a) and (b) for adjacency to an R1 or R2 district shall apply in the same manner."— Proposed new subsection (c) — the interim step, one sentence, inserted into four existing sections Without this amendment, any protection San Mateo's historic districts have is an accident of unrelated zoning, not a recognition of their historic status — protection this same ordinance could erase the moment a parcel inside or directly adjacent to them is upzoned. 6 This letter asks Council to:
1. Direct staff to implement the historic design review standard called for in Action CD 5.12, and extend the existing R1/R2 adjacency buffer to historic districts and resources, per Steps One and Two above; and
2. Direct staff to map which parcels near San Mateo's historic districts could be rezoned under the new districts, before final adoption.
Respectfully submitted,
Doug D’Anna
Laurie Hietter, San Mateo Heritage Alliance
Ashley Zerpa
Ruthmary Cradler
John Cradler
Laura Watanuki
Notes
1. Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 27 (File ID 26-11552), Section 18, citing Public Resources Code § 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines § 15183.
2. Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, Action CD 5.12, p. 116 (adopted March 18, 2024).
3. Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 Final EIR, Response to Comments, Response ORG1-7, p. 5-14 (January 18, 2024).
4. San Mateo Municipal Code § 27.51.060; § 27.51.070.
5. San Mateo Municipal Code §§ 27.66.090(a)-(b), Review Required, and 27.66.100, Certificate of Appropriateness, Historic Preservation (adopted May 18, 2026).
6. San Mateo Municipal Code §§ 27.50.080(a)-(b), 27.51.080(a)-(b), 27.52.090(a)-(b), 27.53.090(a)-(b).
7. City of San Mateo, Multi-Family and Residential Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards, § 4.4.1, Neighborhood Transitions, pp. 33–34 (adopted December 4, 2023, effective January 3, 2024).
8. Public Resources Code § 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(b).
9. Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 27 (File ID 26-11552), Section 18.
10. Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, Action CD 5.12, p. 116 (adopted March 18, 2024).
11. San Mateo Heritage Alliance, comment letter on the Draft EIR, September 25, 2023 (Comment ORG1-3).
12. San Mateo Municipal Code § 27.08.030, Site Plan and Architectural Review, as amended by Section 4 of the proposed ordinance (File ID 26-11552).
13. City of San Mateo, Notice of Exemption, City of San Mateo Citywide Historic Context Statement, San Mateo County Document No. 129498 (filed May 6, 2026), citing Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 Policy CD 5.1 and Action CD 5.9.
14. U.S. National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard 9, incorporated by reference in San Mateo Municipal Code § 27.66.100(b)(1) (adopted May 18, 2026). 7 15. City of San Mateo, Downtown Retail Core & Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines (1993).
16. San Mateo Municipal Code § 27.38.020(a), Permitted Uses, as amended by Section 9 of the proposed ordinance (File ID 26- 11552).
17. San Mateo Municipal Code § 27.04.200(b)(2)(G), Floor Area, as amended by Section 3 of the proposed ordinance (File ID 26- 11552).
1 From: Doug D'Anna < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 2:16 PM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Response to Staff Comment-Response Email of September 22, 2026 Mayor and Council,
Earlier today, staff sent a response to those who submitted comments on this item.
It confirms that Floor Area Ratio and historic buffer requirements will be assessed by the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update team.
I want that commitment on the record.
And I want to respond to it directly.
That commitment exists because people raised it. The same should be true of the other three.
Three of the four failures in this ordinance got no response at all.
Not agreement. Not disagreement. Not a word.
No design review standard outside the Downtown Retail Core. No reference anywhere in this ordinance's language to historic districts, landmarks, or resources.
No answer on a CEQA exemption citation written for accessory dwelling units, applied here to four new high-density zones.
That's not an accident.
It's confirmed by the CZCU's own agenda.
The November 10 Planning Commission study session covers four things:
Height
FAR
Open space
Setbacks and buffers
Design review, historic reference, and CEQA methodology are not on that list.
If they're not on the list, they are not currently planned.
And "interim" is not a limit. It's a label.
2 Nothing in tonight's adoption requires a project to wait for the CZCU.
Any project that comes forward under this framework before the CZCU is finished gets these standards as written — including the removed FAR maximums for R6 and R7.
Calling a standard interim doesn't make an approved building temporary.
I'm asking the Council for a direct answer tonight, not a future promise.
Does the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update's scope include design review standards, historic reference, and the CEQA citation — yes or no?
Until that answer is on the record, delay adoption of this ordinance.
Bring it back to a future meeting, where all four issues can be addressed together — not one at a time.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Doug D'Anna
1 From: Laurie Hietter < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 8:18 AM
To: Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; ; Adam Loraine; Martin McTaggart
Cc: Doug D'Anna
Subject: High-Density Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Districts, and Zoning Code Updates Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
The San Mateo Heritage Alliance respecƞully requests that the proposed R6 and R7 zoning districts include an objecƟve buffer requirement when new development is adjacent to a designated historic resource, historic district, landmark, or contribuƟng property.
The proposed ordinance already recognizes the need for buffers where R6 and R7 properƟes abut R1 or R2 zoning: 10 feet along a side property line and 15 feet along a rear property line. We ask the Council to provide comparable protecƟon where these new high-density districts directly abut historic resources.
This is a straighƞorward, objecƟve development standard. It would establish a predictable physical separaƟon before a project is designed, rather than relying on discreƟonary review aŌer a substanƟally larger development envelope has already been established.
We anƟcipate that staff may respond that exisƟng SPAR or historic-review procedures are sufficient. We respecƞully disagree that discreƟonary review is an adequate subsƟtute for a clearly stated objecƟve buffer.
The proposed ordinance itself requires SPAR findings that a project be “in scale and harmonious with the character of the neighborhood.”
Those are discreƟonary findings, not an objecƟve setback or buffer standard. Moreover, the current SPAR provision specifically idenƟfies historic buildings within the Downtown Specific Plan area; it does not establish a uniform objecƟve buffer from historic resources throughout the City.
A buffer would not prohibit development. It would simply establish a modest, predictable separaƟon between new highintensity development and the historic resource it may directly adjoin.
We therefore ask the Council to add an objecƟve historic-resource buffer to the R6 and R7 standards before adopƟng these districts, using the exisƟng R1/R2 buffer structure as a starƟng point.
At minimum, if the Council does not believe such a buffer is appropriate, we ask staff to explain publicly:
Why the exisƟng 10-foot side and 15-foot rear buffers are appropriate when R6/R7 development adjoins R1/R2 zoning, but no comparable buffer is proposed for historic resources; What objecƟve standard currently provides equivalent protecƟon for historic resources outside the Downtown Specific Plan area; and
How the City intends to implement the General Plan's direcƟon regarding objecƟve standards for development adjacent to historic resources.
2 The objecƟve standards required in the General Plan CD 5.12 would help to address this issue. Given that it is unlikely that funds will be allocated to implement the historic standards, staff could transform appropriate guidelines from the Downtown Retail Core & Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines.
We believe these quesƟons should be resolved before the new high-density districts are adopted. The council has a busy agenda tonight. Please delay this decision.
Thank you for your consideraƟon.
Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
ProtecƟng Our Past for a BeƩer Future
1 From: Jeremy Levine < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 2:24 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Rob Newsom; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Lisa Diaz Nash; Nicole Fernandez; Adam Loraine
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Alex Khojikian
Subject: Public comment on Agenda Item 15: Support for Zoning Amendments Good afternoon San Mateo City Council Members (and Zach and Alex!), On behalf of HLC, please vote to approve the proposed zoning code amendments contained in Agenda Item 15. These amendments faithfully implement the voters' intent in the passage of Measure T, creating new zoning districts that will facilitate more homes and quality walkable neighborhoods.
Most significantly, the new districts streamline the zoning process by removing duplicative standards like Floor Area Ratio. As I wrote in a letter on July 20, " Floor Area Ratios are a duplicative zoning regulation that arbitrarily restricts building size. San Mateo already has height limits and setbacks that constrain the building envelope. Floor Area Ratio simply adds another layer of complexity with no additional benefit for the beauty or massing of buildings."
To elaborate: rules like Floor Area Ratios make the zoning code less transparent and accessible to average citizens. They add layers of complexity that mean only sophisticated developers and planners, not average citizens, understand the nature of their own rules. Standards proposed by other public commenters, such as buffers around historic resources, have the same effect, turning consistent and predictable rules into patchwork standards navigable only by a select few with arcane, esoteric knowledge of the codes.
The goal of the city's extensive zoning updates--and the voter-approved Measure T--is to simplify the city's code, to make San Mateo's rules accessible to the general public, to promote more homes. The new districts take a first step in that direction, laying the groundwork for more thorough updates of other preexisting districts in the coming year. Please approve them as written.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
1 From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 12:10 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Please Delay the Decision on the Zoning Code Updates - R6/R7 FAR Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Please delay the decision to remove the FAR maximums from the R6 and R7 districts and leave the proposed limits in place while this issue receives further analysis.
This is a complicated zoning change, and I do not believe the public has been given enough information to understand what eliminating FAR could mean in practice. Before making this change, the Council and the public should understand the full range of consequences—not simply whether height, setbacks and density can also regulate building size.
Has the City evaluated all the effects of eliminating FAR? For example, how could it affect development potential, building bulk, land values, development economics, future redevelopment proposals, and the City's ability to regulate development over the long term? And the difference between what could be built on an R6 or R7 property with an FAR limit versus without one? These changes can have significant and potentially unintended consequences. Once incorporated into the zoning code, they may also affect property values and development expectations in ways that are difficult to reverse.
There is no reason to rush this decision. The public needs to understand what is being changed, why it is being changed, and the potential consequences before the Council acts.
Please delay the FAR decision, retain the proposed 3.5 FAR for R6 and 4.0 FAR for R7 in the interim, and allow time for the City and the public to fully understand the implications.
Thank you,
Lisa Maley