Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. so so

you you so so

Thank you for watching. you Thank you. Thank you. you ? ? ? ? Reporting in progress.

THROUGH THE CHAIR WE'RE READY TO THROUGH THE CHAIR WE'RE READY TO BEGIN. BEGIN.

WELCOME TO THIS SPECIAL WELCOME TO THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS TUESDAY EVENING COMMISSION THIS TUESDAY EVENING JUNE 9. JUNE 9. I NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. I NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME. WE ARE EXCITED TO BE HERE IN WE ARE EXCITED TO BE HERE IN PERSON WITH OPTIONS FOR VIRTUAL PERSON WITH OPTIONS FOR VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION. PARTICIPATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND FOR HELPING US COOPERATION AND FOR HELPING US MAINTAIN AN EFFICIENT AND MAINTAIN AN EFFICIENT AND ACCESSIBLE MEETING ENVIRONMENT. ACCESSIBLE MEETING ENVIRONMENT. THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO PARTICIPATE. PARTICIPATE. FOR THOSE ATTENDING IN PERSON, FOR THOSE ATTENDING IN PERSON, COMPLETE A YELLOW REQUEST TO SPEAK COMPLETE A YELLOW REQUEST TO SPEAK SLIP

Chair Patel. Here. Vice Chair Clafter. Here. Commissioner Bush. Here. Commissioner Schumpkel. Here. And Commissioner Williams.

Here.

Thank you. You're ready, Adam.

If participating remotely, use the raise your hand feature in Zoom and you will be called on at the appropriate time. If calling in via phone, press star nine to raise your hand, and when called upon, press star six to unmute. These options for public comment will remain available until I close the public comment period for each specific item. For members of the public watching on YouTube who wish to provide live public comment, please note that you must join the meeting through the Zoom webinar using the access information listed on the agenda. And finally, we welcome speakers providing public comment, but please be advised this is a limited public forum. As such, speakers must stay on topic if speaking to a particular agenda item. If speakers fail to follow these rules, they will be warned, and if they continue to disregard our rules, their opportunity to speak will be ended. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENT. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO COMMENT ON ANY ITEM NOT APPEARING ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THIS TIME. STATE LAW PREVENTS PLANNING COMMISSION FROM TAKING ACTION ON ANY MATTER NOT ON THE AGENDA. YOUR COMMENTS MAY BE REFERRED THIS PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION IS GENERALLY LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES, HOWEVER, THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION AND CAN BE EXTENDED IF THE COMMISSION WISHES TO DO SO. IF NEEDED, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT MAY ALSO BE PROVIDED LATER IN THE AGENDA. IF YOU ARE IN CHAMBERS AND WISH TO SPEAK TO AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR YELLOW REQUEST TO SLIP TO THE CLERK NOW. IF YOU ARE ONLINE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND NOW. DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT?

THROUGH THE CHAIR WE HAVE NO REQUEST TO SPEAK.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING, ITEM NUMBER 1, 616 SOUTH B STREET, NEW 8 STORY COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE BUILDING, PA-2025-039. WE WILL START WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION, FOLLOWED BY THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION, FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC COMMENTS. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN TWO TO THREE MINUTES TO GIVEN TWO TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF SPEAK DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS. SPEAKERS. ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED I MAY ASK STAFF TO CLOSED I MAY ASK STAFF TO RESPOND TO ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. RESPOND TO ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. THE COMMISSION WILL ASK THE COMMISSION WILL ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, DELIBERATE AND RENDER A DELIBERATE AND RENDER A DECISION. DECISION. IF A DECISION IS MADE TONIGHT IF A DECISION IS MADE TONIGHT THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING THE DECISION OF THE PL

SURE, THANK YOU, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. MY NAME IS LIZ GALIARDI. I'M AN ASSOCIATE PLANNER WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND I WILL BE PRESENTING TONIGHT'S ITEM FOR THE PROPOSED EIGHT STORY MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 616 SOUTH B STREET, ALSO REFERRED TO AS NAZARETH VISTA. QUICK OVERVIEW BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE PRESENTATION. INTO THE PRESENTATION. I'LL FIRST START WITH SOME I'LL FIRST START WITH SOME BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT, THEN BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT, THEN MOVE INTO A CODE AND POLICY MOVE INTO A CODE AND POLICY REVIEW, WRAPPING UP WITH A SUMMARY REVIEW, WRAPPING UP WITH A SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS SENT OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS SENT OUT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO SO STARTING OFF WITH SOME PROJECT HISTORY. THIS APPLICATION BEGAN WITH A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION UNDER THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT OR SENATE BILL 330 WHICH WAS INITIALLY FILED IN MARCH OF 2025. THE APPLICANT THEN HELD THEIR REQUIRED NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETING IN APRIL OF 2025 FOLLOWED SHORTLY THEREAFTER BY THE SUBMITTAL OF THE FORMAL PLANNING APPLICATION IN JUNE. Since the initial submittal, the project has been reviewed by staff, refined by the applicant to ensure compliance with applicable codes and state laws and has also been reviewed under CEQA for a class 32 infill exemption. SO BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE CURRENT APPLICATION, I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT HERE THAT THIS APPLICATION DOES FOLLOW A PRIOR PROJECT APPROVAL, WHICH WAS MADE BY THE SAME APPLICANT FOR A SIMILAR SCOPE OF WORK, ANOTHER MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. THAT PRIOR APPROVAL WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN DECEMBER OF 2023 AND EXPIRED LAST YEAR. SO THIS CHART SHOWS A QUICK COMPARISON OF SOME OF THE STATS SO THIS CHART SHOWS A QUICK COMPARISON OF SOME OF THE STATS BETWEEN THE PRIOR APPLICATION AND BETWEEN THE PRIOR APPLICATION AND WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE US WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE US TONIGHT. TONIGHT. SO THE PAST EXPIRED APPROVAL WAS SO THE PAST EXPIRED APPROVAL WAS FOR A FIVE STORY BUILDING FOR A FIVE STORY BUILDING WITH 48 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, FIVE WITH 48 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, FIVE AFFORDABLE. AFFORDABLE. IT HAD AROUND 9,000 SQUARE FEET IT HAD AROUND 9,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AT THE GROUND OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AT THE CURRENT APPLICATION IS EXPANDING A BIT ON THE INITIAL THE CURRENT APPLICATION IS EXPANDING A BIT ON THE INITIAL SCOPE FOR AN EIGHT STORY SCOPE FOR AN EIGHT STORY STRUCTURE WITH 94 RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH 94 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 10 AFFORDABLE UNITS. UNITS, 10 AFFORDABLE UNITS. IT HAS AROUND 7,000 SQUARE FEET IT HAS AROUND 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AREA AND 114 PARKING OF COMMERCIAL AREA AND 114 PARKING STALLS. STALLS. ONE NOTABLE CHANGE IS THEY ARE ONE NOTABLE CHANGE IS THEY ARE NO LONGER PROPOSING A BASEMENT NO LONGER PROPOSING A BASEMENT LEVEL FOR THE PARKING. AND THIS SLIDE JUST SHOWS A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PRIOR EXPIRED APPROVAL ON THE LEFT AND THE CURRENT DESIGN ON THE RIGHT. MOVING ON TO THE PROJECT LOCATION, THIS MAP SHOWS THE PROJECT SITE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE WHICH AS YOU CAN SEE IS SOUTH OF DOWNTOWN SAN MATEO AND THE CAL TRAIN STATION AND CLOSE BY TO CENTRAL PARK. IT'S CURRENTLY TWO PARCELS WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE MERGED AND IS AROUND 0.64 ACRES IN SIZE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS A 3D AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE WHICH GIVES SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT FOR THE SURROUNDING EXISTING BUILDINGS. IT'S SURROUNDED BY A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF DIFFERENT SIZES, SOME COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE SPACE AS WELL. THIS IS A CLOSER LOOK AT THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE PROJECT THIS IS A CLOSER LOOK AT THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM THE STREET VIEW. SITE FROM THE STREET VIEW. IT CONTAINS TWO EXISTING ONE IT CONTAINS TWO EXISTING ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, THE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, THE KELLYMORE PAINT SHOP AND TAP Here we see a closer look at some of the adjacent commercial buildings. Across B Street is a one-story office building and two-story commercial building. Across 7th Avenue at the corner of South B Street is Nazareth Terrace, a four-story mixed-use building. HERE WE TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT SOME OF THE SURROUNDING HERE WE TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT SOME OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES. RESIDENTIAL USES. SO ACROSS FROM SEVENTH AVE AND SO ACROSS FROM SEVENTH AVE AND SOUTH B STREET IS THE GRAMMER C, SOUTH B STREET IS THE GRAMMER C, WHICH IS A SIX-STORY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS A SIX-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. BUILDING. BEHIND THE PROJECT SITE ON SIX BEHIND THE PROJECT SITE ON SIX AVE IS THE STRADD BELLY COURT, A AVE IS THE STRADD BELLY COURT, A FIVE-STORY BUILDING AND THE FIVE-STORY BUILDING AND THE STRATFORD, WHICH IS TEN And then on the same block along Seventh Avenue are several lower scale residential buildings which range from two to three stories in height. this slide just shows the project site in relation to some other projects that are in various stages of entitlement and construction or have been recently completed in the interest of time i won't go through these in great detail but happy to return to this if there are any questions so now that we've seen the proposed project location we can dive in to what's proposed as mentioned before this will be an eight-story building with ground floor commercial uses along south b street and residential units above THERE ARE 94 RENTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED ON FLOORS 4 UNITS PROPOSED ON FLOORS 4 THROUGH 8. THROUGH 8. FOR PARKING THERE ARE 113 STALLS FOR PARKING THERE ARE 113 STALLS PROPOSED WITH AN INTERNAL PARKING PROPOSED WITH AN INTERNAL PARKING GARAGE ON FLOORS 1 THROUGH 3. THIS CHART SHOWS MORE DETAIL OF THIS CHART SHOWS MORE DETAIL OF HOW THE 94 UNITS ARE DISTRIBUTED. HOW THE 94 UNITS ARE DISTRIBUTED. IT INCLUDES A MIX OF STUDIOS, IT INCLUDES A MIX OF STUDIOS, ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS. ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS. AND OF THE 94 UNITS, 84 WILL BE AND OF THE 94 UNITS, 84 WILL BE MARKET RATE AND 10 WILL BE AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE AND 10 WILL BE AFFORDABLE AT THE VERY LOW INCOME LEVEL. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN OF THE PROJECT SITE. THE COMMERCIAL USES ARE ORIENTED ALONG SOUTH B STREET WITH TRASH COLLECTION AND THE LOADING ZONE ON 6th AVENUE. PROJECT DRIVEWAYS ARE INCLUDED AT 7th AVENUE AND 6th AVENUE AND THE REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING AT THE GROUND FLOOR WILL BE USED FOR PARKING. FOR THIS APPLICATION THERE ARE THREE PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION THERE ARE THREE PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS REQUIRED. REQUIRED. THE FIRST IS A SITE PLAN AND THE FIRST IS A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO REVIEW THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO REVIEW THE NEW MIXED USE BUILDING. NEW MIXED USE BUILDING. THIS DOES REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL THIS DOES REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL SINCE IT EXCEEDS THE APPROVAL SINCE IT EXCEEDS THE GENERAL PLAN HEIGHT LIMIT OF SIX GENERAL PLAN HEIGHT LIMIT OF SIX STORIES FOR THIS SITE. STORIES FOR THIS SITE. THERE'S ALSO A SITE DEVELOPMENT THERE'S The project also includes a tentative parcel map to merge the two existing lots into one. SO MOVING ON TO OUR CODE AND POLICY REVIEW. SO MOVING ON TO OUR CODE AND POLICY REVIEW. STARTING WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. STARTING WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. THE PROJECT SITE HAS A GENERAL THE PROJECT SITE HAS A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MIXED PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MIXED USE MEDIUM TWO. USE MEDIUM TWO. THIS SETS THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY THIS SETS THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY STANDARDS FOR THE SITE. STANDARDS FOR THE SITE. UNDER THIS GENERAL PLAN THE UNDER THIS GENERAL PLAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY IS 99 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY IS 99 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND THE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND I'LL ALSO NOTE HERE SINCE THIS IS A MIXED USE PROJECT THIS IS A MIXED USE PROJECT THIS IS A MIXED USE PROJECT THAT THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA THAT THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA THAT THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO IS 4.0 UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN. MOVING ON TO THE ZONING CODE, THE SITE IS ZONED C1-R5, SO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL WITH A RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY, A MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT, AND IS ALSO WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN. THIS CHART INCLUDES A SUMMARY OF THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FROM THE ZONING CODE. I'M HAPPY TO REVISIT THIS IF THERE'S QUESTIONS AROUND THESE STANDARDS, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'M GOING TO MOVE THROUGH THOSE QUICKLY. IN ADDITION TO THE LOCAL CODES AND POLICIES, THERE'S ALSO SEVERAL STATE LAWS THAT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. SO THE FIRST ONE I'LL HIGHLIGHT THAT I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE IS STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. THIS PROJECT PROPOSES A 50% DENSITY INCREASE, SO IT'S PROVIDING ONE AND A HALF TIMES THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE BASE DENSITY ALLOWED IS 64 UNITS AND THEY ARE INCREASING THAT TO 94 UNITS TOTAL PROPOSED. UNDER THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL LAW FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNITS THE PROJECT AFFORDABLE UNITS THE PROJECT WOULD ALSO BE ELIGIBLE TO WOULD ALSO BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE UP TO THREE CONCESSIONS RECEIVE UP TO THREE CONCESSIONS AND UNLIMITED WAIVERS. AND UNLIMITED WAIVERS. THE PROJECT TAKES FULL ADVANTAGE THE PROJECT TAKES FULL ADVANTAGE OF THEIR ALLOWABLE DENSITY OF THEIR ALLOWABLE DENSITY INCREASE AS I MENTIONED BEFORE INCREASE AS I MENTIONED BEFORE GOING UP TO 94 UNITS AND WITH THAT GOING UP TO 94 UNITS AND WITH THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS SLIDE INCLUDES A SUMMARY OF THOSE CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS. I'LL JUST POINT OUT THE CONCESSION THAT'S REQUESTED HERE IS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE FEATURES AND MATERIALS ESTABLISHED BY THE DOWNTOWN PLAN DEPARTING FROM THE SPANISH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THAT DOCUMENT. AND THEN THERE ARE SEVERAL WAIVERS THAT ARE ALSO REQUESTED AND HAPPY TO COME BACK TO REVISIT THOSE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THEM. IN ADDITION TO THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER STATE LAWS THAT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. THIS INCLUDES THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT OR SENATE BILL 330, WHICH IN THIS CASE VESTS THE PROJECT TO THE DATE AT WHICH THE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED. IN THIS CASE, DECEMBER 22, 2025 IS THAT VESTING DATE. NEXT IS THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT. I APOLOGIZE, I MIXED THOSE UP. I APOLOGIZE, I MIXED THOSE UP. I APOLOGIZE, I MIXED THOSE UP. THE ONE I JUST DESCRIBED IS THE THE ONE I JUST DESCRIBED IS THE THE ONE I JUST DESCRIBED IS THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT. HOUSING CRISIS ACT. HOUSING CRISIS ACT. THE NEXT IS THE HOUSING THE NEXT IS THE HOUSING THE NEXT IS THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. THIS ONE LIMITS THE LOCAL THIS ONE LIMITS THE LOCAL THIS ONE LIMITS THE LOCAL AGENCY'S ABILITY TO DENY, REDUCE AGENCY'S ABILITY TO DENY, REDUCE AGENCY AND FINALLY WE HAVE ASSEMBLY BILL 2097 WHICH REMOVES MINIMUM BILL 2097 WHICH REMOVES MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS PARKING STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS WITHIN ONE HALF MILE OF MAJOR WITHIN ONE HALF MILE OF MAJOR PUBLIC TRANSIT STOPS AND THIS PUBLIC TRANSIT STOPS AND THIS SITE IS WITHIN THAT RADIUS OF IN ADDITION TO STATE LAWS, THE PROJECT MUST ALSO MEET THE PROJECT MUST ALSO MEET THE CITY'S LOCAL BELOW MARKET CITY'S LOCAL BELOW MARKET RATE INCLUSIONARY PROGRAM FOR RATE INCLUSIONARY PROGRAM FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS PROJECT DOES MEET THE LOCAL THIS PROJECT DOES MEET THE LOCAL REQUIREMENTS WITH THE VERY LOW REQUIREMENTS WITH THE VERY LOW INCOME AFFORDABLE UNITS INCOME AFFORDABLE UNITS PROVIDED. PROVIDED. IT PROVIDES 15% OF THE BASE IT PROVIDES 15% OF THE BASE DENSITY OR 10 UNITS AS THE UNITS, THE BMR UNITS ARE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AND INCLUDE UNIT SIZES, DEVELOPMENT AND INCLUDE UNIT SIZES, TYPES AND DESIGNS THAT ARE TYPES AND DESIGNS THAT ARE PROPORTIONAL IN LINE WITH LOCAL PROPORTIONAL IN LINE WITH LOCAL STANDARDS. Moving on to our design review, here we have a rendering of the project from the corner of 7th Avenue and South B Street. Here you can see the defined corner feature and the podium style of the building highlighted along with the commercial uses proposed along South B Street and residential units above. HERE IS ANOTHER VIEW FROM SIXTH AVENUE, FROM SOUTH BEACH STREET LOOKING OUT TOWARDS SIXTH AVENUE. YOU CAN SEE THE PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING MIXED USE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE GARAGE ENTRY FOR RETAIL AND VISITOR PARKING WHICH IS OFF OF SIXTH AVENUE. And a view from 6th Avenue and South B Street. Again, this is one of the retail corners and you can also see the vehicle entrance there off of 6th Avenue. This view is from South B Street looking out towards 7th Ave. And here from 7th Avenue towards South B Street. THIS IS A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THE THIS IS A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THE REAR ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. REAR ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. IT INCLUDES A STEP BACK HERE WITH IT INCLUDES A STEP BACK HERE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AMENITY DECK THE RESIDENTIAL AMENITY DECK PROVIDED ON THAT FOURTH FLOOR. And on this slide, I wanted to highlight the ground floor retail area, which is shown shaded in that purple color along South B Street. So you can get a sense of where that's proposed in relation to that frontage and the other parking area and the residential amenity, which is the other corner space that's not shaded there, which is proposed to be a gym to serve residents. THIS SHOWS HOW THAT RETAIL FRONTAGE WILL LOOK FROM SOUTH B STREET. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S DEFINED BY THE TALL GLASS WINDOWS WITH A PARAPET, SOME SIGNAGE AND DISTINCT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE. THIS PROJECT INCLUDES SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS PROJECT INCLUDES SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. SO TOWARDS THE END OF THE REVIEW SO TOWARDS THE END OF THE REVIEW PROCESS THE CITY ACTUALLY BEGAN PROCESS THE CITY ACTUALLY BEGAN WORKING WITH AN EXPERIENCED RETAIL WORKING WITH AN EXPERIENCED RETAIL CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT. SO THIS CONSULTANT WAS NOT SO THIS CONSULTANT WAS NOT INVOLVED FROM THE BEGINNING OF PROJECT INVOLVED FROM THE BEGINNING OF PROJECT DESIGN BUT WE DID WANT TO INCLUDE DESIGN BUT WE DID WANT TO INCLUDE THAT REVIEW SINCE IT IS A MIXED USE THAT REVIEW SINCE IT IS A MI THEY INCLUDE ACCESS INTERNAL TO THE BUILDING FOR THE RETAIL THE BUILDING FOR THE RETAIL SPACES FROM THE PARKING LOT, SPACES FROM THE PARKING LOT, SPECIFICALLY FOR DELIVERIES AND SPECIFICALLY FOR DELIVERIES AND TRASH COLLECTION, INCLUDING TRASH COLLECTION, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE RETAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE RETAIL SPACES FOR FOOD BUSINESSES, SO SPACES FOR FOOD BUSINESSES, SO THINGS LIKE GREASE INTERCEPTORS AND THINGS LIKE GREASE INTERCEPTORS AND VENTILATION FOR VENT HOODS FOR VENT HOODS FOR COOKING. SHE ALSO RECOMMENDED LOOKING AT RETAIL CEILING HEIGHTS TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE CLEARANCE FOR TENANTS TO BE ATTRACTED TO THAT SPACE AROUND 12 FEET WAS THE RECOMMENDATION. ENSURING THAT RESTROOMS WOULD BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION FOR EACH RETAIL TENANT SPACE AND ALSO THAT EACH RETAIL SPACE WOULD HAVE SEPARATE UTILITY CONNECTION WITH ADEQUATE AMPERAGE AND ALSO TO ALLOW FOR SEPARATE METERING OF THOSE SPACES. So these recommendations were discussed with the applicant, and they did verbally agree to look at including these during the building permit phase of review. And in addition, staff has recommended the addition of a new condition of approval to strengthen and build on some of those recommendations, which is shown here on the screen if the Planning Commission would like to include that with the project approval if the applicant is amenable. I CAN INCLUDE THAT AGAIN TOWARDS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION IF I CAN INCLUDE THAT AGAIN TOWARDS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION IF I CAN INCLUDE THAT AGAIN TOWARDS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION IF WE WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO IT. WE WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO IT. WE WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO IT. BUT I WILL MOVE ON NOW TO THE BUT I WILL MOVE ON NOW TO THE BUT I WILL MOVE ON NOW TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS. SO A TIA WAS PREPARED FOR THIS SO A TIA WAS PREPARED FOR THIS SO A TIA WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT BY HEXAGON PROJECT BY HEXAGON PROJECT BY HEXAGON TRANS THIS INCLUDED A REVIEW OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED OR VMT. NO IMPACT WAS FOUND. THE PROJECT ACTUALLY MEETS SCREENING CRITERIA FOR EXEMPTION FROM A DETAILED VMT ANALYSIS UNDER CEQA. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A LOCAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT WAS REQUIRED WHICH LOOKED AT LEVEL OF SERVICE. SO AT KEY STUDY INTERSECTIONS LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF PEAK AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE INTERSECTIONS WOULD OPERATE AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE UNDER EXISTING OPENING YEAR AND CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE PROJECT WOULD GENERATE OVER 100 NET NEW TRIPS, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT TO COMPLY WITH TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS A CHECKLIST THAT'S ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS. And the applicant can select from a variety of different TDM interventions to achieve a minimum of 25% trip reduction. So with that requirement, they have selected reductions that would result in 32.5% reduction. This slide shows a summary of the impact fee estimates. I will note that these are estimates, and actual fees will be assessed closer to the time that those are collected. But the project would be contributing to the various categories shown. FINALLY, LOOKING AT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, THE PROJECT WAS DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, OR CEQA, UNDER SECTION 15332, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CLASS 32 INFILL DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION. A CEQA MEMO WAS PREPARED BY A CONSULTANT HIRED BY THE CITY FINDING NO UNUSUAL OR SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. FINALLY, THIS SLIDE SUMMARIZES THE PUBLIC NOTICING, WHICH WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION WAS PROVIDED VIA E-MAIL AND THE PLANNING E-NEWSLETTER. AND I'LL ALSO MENTION HERE THAT STAFF RECEIVED SEVERAL PUBLIC PROJECT. PRIOR TO THE AGENDA REPORT PRIOR TO THE AGENDA REPORT PUBLICATION AND AFTER THAT PUBLICATION PUBLICATION AND AFTER THAT PUBLICATION SOME NOTED SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT SOME NOTED SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT AND ADDED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND AND ADDED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES NEAR DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES NEAR DOWNTOWN WHILE OTHER COMMENTS INCLUDING A WHILE OTHER COMMENTS INCLUDING A PETITION THAT WAS SIGNED BY A PETITION THAT WAS SIGNED BY A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS AND INCLUDED NUMBER OF RESIDENTS AND INCLUDED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE AGENDA AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE AGENDA REPORT NOTED SO I'LL JUST REVISIT THAT SUGGESTED CONDITION OF APPROVAL REGARDING THE COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENTS. HAPPY TO COME BACK TO THIS IF WE'D LIKE TO LOOK THROUGH IT IN MORE DETAIL. AND I WILL END WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN TO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROJECT AS SHOWN. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR REVISIT SLIDES AS NEEDED. THANK YOU.

Thank you so much. Next we'll have the applicant presentation.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. My name is Evan Sokoloski with Arc Tech, the designers on the project. Excited to be in front of you again. I seem also excited to be presenting another project that does more housing than jobs, since I know that's important. So again, Liz did such a great job on the presentation. I don't want to go through and take too much time, give you a chance for questions and comments. Again, Nazareth Enterprises is a local developer here in San Mateo. In fact, some of the projects that were relayed in Liz's slides referred to some of his other projects. This will be their third project in San Mateo. Again, Liz covered the project site. I think we're all very familiar with it and the existing conditions. Some of the project data, again, we've increased it up to 94 units, taking advantage of the increased density as well as state density bonus. Again, secure residential parking, above grade now, still including a mix between studios, one bedrooms and twos, which I know is always very important to the city to include more two bedrooms as opposed to only studios and ones. Liz touched on some of the amenity space, a very nice outdoor shared amenity space on the fourth level, as well as the proposed fitness center down on grade level. And then the 10 very low income units is kind of an item that's included, but is also obviously very important to the city. Project history, this one's kind of interesting. Obviously, it's another project that had been entitled previously, and when San Mateo chose to pass Measure T, Munir came back to us and wanted us to look at opportunities to increase the density, take advantage of that. So with the new general plan, the densities as well as the opportunity to go up, We were able to do above grade parking, increase the project up to 94 units and getting that density and that above grade parking allowed this to be a project that's very viable to build and we're excited to be presenting it. IT WAS ONE OF THE EARLIER PROJECTS TO GO THROUGH THE NEW PROCESS. IT'S ALSO ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT'S KIND OF FACED THE CHALLENGES OF THE OVERLAPPING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING WHICH I KNOW YOU'RE HAVING A STUDY SESSION TO TALK ABOUT THE ADJUSTMENTS LATER ON ON THAT SO WE'LL BE EXCITED TO CONTINUE ON PROCESSES WHEN THAT'S ALIGNED. THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS HAS BEEN GREAT, SO WE WERE CLOSELY TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THE DESIGN AND THE ODS. HOW WE STARTED THE PROJECT WAS REALLY REIMAGINING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT. HAD TO RECEIVE SUPPORT ON THAT GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THE APPROVAL, SO WE WANTED TO TAKE THAT AS OUR BASELINE AND START WORKING WITHIN THE ODS, WORKING WITH THE HIGHER DENSITY DESIGN. One of the other, I think, challenges but exciting parts of the project is how do we take an above-grade garage and create a very attractive building that doesn't look like a parking garage. And I think both the design and input from staff, I feel we've been very successful with that. I think the renderies show a building that doesn't necessarily look like it has parking on two levels behind, creating a nice strong podium. Another thing that you'll notice on some of the renderings is although there are five levels of residential above, because of the step back on the top level, the perception is that there's only four levels from most views. So I think that is actually one of the elements of the ODS that is included, but it's also a very nice design feature that creates a different look in that. Again, much of this has been gone through. We do have retail and visitor parking on grade accessing off 6th Avenue. Our residential main entry is off of 7th and the majority of B Street is retail frontage. This just highlights that as well. The second and third levels are above grade parking, also long-term storage. You can see the fourth level is predominantly units. The shared outdoor amenity space and community room opening off of that. Again, a generous setback off both at the ends and deeper setback in the middle. to the adjacent properties and then going up again additional floors of units and then the eighth level you can see that step back that wraps the three street frontages that give you that view. This is one of the views that again you can't necessarily see that eighth level from this perspective which I think is a nice feature. It also gives those very nice balconies up at that level. And this kind of highlights on that second and third level that is the parking garage there. But I think between the additional screening by the fritted glass, as well as the way it's articulated, I think it's an interesting treatment for the garage itself. This is a view from across 6th looking and that's the access as Liz pointed out to the visitor and retail parking. The lower right slide is the residential entry, which is highlighted and framed over the bottom three levels with the residential above. And you can see the step back to the residential up at the fourth level that steps significantly back from the frontage. A couple of views of that shared amenity space, that outdoor space really we feel will be an attractive, very utilized space up at that fourth level. And then the views. This is actually shows a little bit of the view we've worked very closely with Liz and Steve on some added articulation on that zero lot line wall. Obviously, those are false windows, but trying to create some some distinct articulation there to create some depth as well as interest on that facade. Again, I went through that quickly, mainly partly because Liz did such a good job, but also to give you ample opportunity to discuss. So we look forward to taking any questions and happy. Oh, sorry. One more thing did have some discussions with Liz on regarding the retail items. Most of those items we were already, you know, had already talked about and including obviously what we're looking for is the most flexibility to attract the right tenants. At this point, we're showing the opportunity for multiple entries there. We're not showing anything specific beyond as far as the rear access or restrooms until we know the tenants, obviously. restrooms access is planned to come back through there, as well as looking to provide the potential for if there is those restaurant uses, those food service uses, we understand the importance of providing those grease traps and that ventilation in advance. It's also one of the benefits by doing an on-grade project as opposed to below grade. It makes the ability to introduce a grease interceptor on site much easier than if we're trying to take it below grade and pump it up above.

SO WE DO YOU KNOW WE'RE LOOKING AT FLEXIBILITY ON OUR RETAIL TENANTS AND BRINGING IN THE RIGHT SO IT'S AN ACTIVE AND BUYABLE BUT UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE UH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS THANK YOU NOW WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM IF YOU ARE IN CHAMBERS AND YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR YELLOW REQUEST TO SPEAK SLIP TO OUR CLERK NOW IF YOU ARE WATCHING ONLINE AND YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND NOW

THROUGH THE CHAIR, WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 12 REQUESTS TO SPEAK.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WITH 12 COMMENTERS, THAT WILL BE TWO MINUTES FOR EACH COMMENT.

WE WILL BEGIN WITH OUR IN-PERSON SPEAKERS AND GROUPS OF THREE. WE'LL START WITH NORMAN AND TOFALO, PEGGY AND STEPHANIE.

Hello. My name is Norman Cohn. I'm one of over 200 residents of the Gramercy and the Stratford that sent you a petition this past summer. Though we have concerns about the marked expansion of this project, we also support new housing and recognize that new state regulations place constraints on you. So I want to focus on the huge concern with pedestrian safety in our neighborhood. I myself, over the past two years on five different occasions, have had to literally run to escape being run over at various downtown intersections. I also have a number of areas of concern, but I would especially highlight the dangerous T intersections at Fifth Avenue and Laurel and the virtually unprotected one at Fifth Avenue and Ellsworth. The traffic report for this development projects over 900 daily additional vehicle trips from the site. The unfortunate consequence, even without counting future anticipated nearby construction and despite hopes of TDM, is that there will be more pedestrians, more cyclists, more cars, more service vehicles, and more trucks. so an already precarious safety environment will just get worse. If the city approves more housing in our neighborhood, I feel it also has a responsibility to try to balance this somewhat by significantly enhancing pedestrian safety. I sincerely hope that you will do all you can to ensure that meaningful safety improvements are implemented. I'm also concerned that many seniors and young families use 6th Avenue to enter Central Park. But we already have a large number of trucks there, including Recology, moving vans for the Gramercy and Stratford, service vehicles, delivery trucks, and large food trucks, many of which partially block 6th Avenue. With this new building there will be additional trash collection, commercial unloading, and commercial parking on 6th. we ask that at least tenant moving vans for 616 enter via the much wider and far less densely populated 7th avenue and that all tenant agreements require all residents to move in and out from 7th avenue which already has the elevator nearby and have that agreement added to conditions of approval for this project thank you very much thank you for your comment

Hello, my name is Peggy Mendelson. I am an owner at the Gramercy since 1994. Our building worked with both the city planning and public works when Draeger's was built. And you really helped make the streets safer for our elderly neighbors by improving the crossings. You required Draeger's to change the direction of their fans and vents. ON THE ROOF WORKED TO KEEP THE NOISES DOWN BY HAVING TRUCKS ENTER ON B STREET AND YOU ALSO HELPED US GET MORE GREENERY AROUND THE BUILDING THESE ISSUES FACE US AGAIN WITH THE DRAGER BUILDING THE TALBOT BLOCK AND 616 SOUTH B STREET PROJECT THE 616 PROJECT WOULD BE MUCH SAFER IF MOVING VANS USE THE 7TH AVENUE SIDE FOR DELIVERIES 7TH AVENUE IS WIDER AND LESS POPULATED The Gramercy and the Stratford already have move-in vans, deliveries, and recology clogging up 6th Avenue daily. I request that all tenant agreements require that all residents to move in and out on the 7th Avenue side, and this requirement be added to the conditions of the approval of the project. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment.

Good evening. I'm Stephen Larry Mell. I'm an owner at the Gramercy for two years. We welcome thoughtful development, but taller, new buildings bring a concerning surge in cars, pedestrians, and cyclists to our streets. First, we urgently request the city to maximize pedestrian safety at our local intersections through high visibility crosswalks or traffic calming devices or relevant new technology that may become available later. Second, we ask you to condition the project's approval to require tenant moving vans to load and unload from an alternate location, not the commercial loading zone. Finally, please implement measures to protect our neighborhoods safety before tragedy occurs. Thanks for your time.

Thank you for your comment. Our next speakers will be Ashok Bide, Arofa Bide, and Doug DeAnna.

Good afternoon and thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak to you directly. My name is Rupa Bide and Bob I'm a resident at Gramercy, and my unit faces directly onto 6th Avenue. And from my balcony, I have a full view of the whole street. As you know, the 6th Avenue side of 616 has three buildings, the Gramercy, Stratford, and Strat Valley. Most of the residents are seniors. Many do not drive, and some are even mobility challenged. We already have a lot of traffic, foot traffic and truck traffic, such as moving trucks and recology trucks for all three buildings, plus food supply trucks for Stratford, which has already been mentioned, but here it is. We understand that you wanted downtown living, and when you choose downtown living, c'est la vie. I mean, this is given. We get that. But I think the problem is more the safety issue that we're concerned with, with seniors, our grandchildren, and other young children that are in the building. And we would appreciate your taking into consideration one item specifically that I'm going to mention, and that you make it conditional upon approval of this project that all tenants in that building, residents and tenants, agree to move from the 7th Avenue. I understand there is an elevator that's going to be there, a service elevator, so that should be obvious. I think it should be accessible.

And I also understand- I'm sorry, your time is up. Thank you.

Oh, okay. But anyway, so that was my point that please make the access from that site.

Good evening. My name is Ashok Behide. I also live at Gramercy. And my colleagues have mentioned many of the items. One I'm going to cover is the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Ellsworth. That intersection is very hazardous, and for our tenants to get to the downtown, that's the only way to get there from closer to the B Street. And I'm hoping that the safety improvements would be covered for that intersection also. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

GOOD EVENING, I'M DOUG DIANA GOOD EVENING, I'M DOUG DIANA GOOD EVENING, I'M DOUG DIANA WITH THE SOUTH DOWNTOWN WITH THE SOUTH DOWNTOWN WITH THE SOUTH DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT. PARKING DISTRICT. PARKING DISTRICT. THE TRAFFIC STUDY LISTS MY THE TRAFFIC STUDY LISTS MY THE TRAFFIC STUDY LISTS MY STREET, LAUREL AVENUE, AS STREET, LAUREL AVENUE, AS STREET, LAUREL AVENUE, AS STREET INTERSECTION NUMBER TWO. INTERSECTION NUMBER TWO. INTERSECTION NUMBER TWO. THE CITY'S OWN GUIDELINES THE CITY'S OWN GUIDELINES THE CITY'S OWN GUIDELINES REQUIRE A LOCAL STREET ACC I DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROJECT. I'M ASKING THE COMMISSION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE THAT ANALYSIS TO ME AND TO ENTER THAT ANALYSIS INTO PUBLIC RECORD. HERE'S WHY IT MATTERS. THE CITY CREATED THE RPP SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL STREETS FROM TRAFFIC GENERATORS. THIS PROJECT QUALIFIES AS ONE. YET THE TRAFFIC STUDY DOESN'T MENTION THE RPP OR THE STREETS IT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT. WHY NOT? MY QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION, WHICH CITY PROGRAM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON THE STREETS THE RPP WAS CREATED TO PROTECT AND WHY WAS THAT ANALYSIS ABSENT FROM THIS TRAFFIC STUDY? AND I SEE I HAVE 60 MORE SECONDS AND I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY'S OWN NOTIFICATION CODE. WHICH READS LIKE A NO REFUND SIGN AT A THRIFT SHOP. The code says, one, the city can send a defective notice that nobody receives and the hearing still stands. Two, if the information is wrong, the fact that we sent it, that's good faith. Three, if the recipient can't read English, the fact that we sent it, that's good faith. One notice, one parse card, no return receipt, no confirmation of delivery, no follow-up, the city acknowledges that it may send out information that is factually incorrect. IN THE HEARING STILL STANDS THE CITY SENDS ONE POST CARD ONE IN THE HEARING STILL STANDS THE CITY SENDS ONE POST CARD ONE LANGUAGE ONE NO LIABILITY AND THAT LANGUAGE ONE NO LIABILITY AND THAT IS GOOD FAITH UNDER 2708.050 IS GOOD FAITH UNDER 2708.050 THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD THE THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD THE COMMISSION WANTS TO STAND BY I KNOW COMMISSION WANTS TO STAND BY I KNOW SAN MATEO YOU CAN DO BETTER THANK SAN MATEO YOU CAN DO BETTER THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT

Our last in-person speakers will be Davida Rambino, Elaine Gilbrich, and lastly, Joshua Gersh.

As a resident of the Stratford, I represent one of the over 200 signatures on the petition sent to the city of San Mateo. The project size of the building at 616 B Street is of concern due to the lack of planning for the surrounding streets. Given the anticipated increase, in vehicle traffic, pedestrian activity, bicycle use associated with this development, and other planned projects nearby. It is essential that city planning take proactive steps to improve safety throughout the neighborhood and the downtown area. An imperative issue to be addressed is the urgent situation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Ellsworth, where pedestrian protections are currently inadequate and do not reflect the level of activity there. We have experienced an increase in pedestrian car accidents where the impatience of the drivers imperils the ability to cross the street safely. I am able-bodied, yet the speeding traffic does not stop for me in the crosswalk. The dangerous intersection of Fifth Avenue and Laurel has a flashing light, but cars intermittently ignore this. Stoplights should be there as well as on all the cross streets that are in the vicinity. Investment in traffic calming infrastructure should be prioritized to ensure that the growth does not come at the expense of resident safety and quality of life. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Good evening chair commissioner Patel and planning commissioners. My name is Elaine Gilbrek and I live on 7th Avenue in San Mateo right next door to Nazareth Terrace and right across the street from the proposed Nazareth Vista. I'm here to speak in support of the project. I feel it's a solid plan in the right place. and the right time. And all of our experiences of living on Seventh Avenue during construction and afterwards have been pleasant. Every time we've needed to talk to anyone at Nazareth, like Moner or anyone, it's been very thoughtfully addressed with consideration for all of our concerns and questions. So I have only positive things to say. I could go on and on about that, but I mostly want to say I do feel this is the right project, the right time, and the right place, and I'm in support of it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you, Planning Commission.

My name is Joshua Gersh. I live at 225 9th, so two blocks from the proposed development. I've lived there for seven years. I walk along this stretch of South B Street every day, and I want to speak in favor of approval of the Nazareth Vista project. So as you all know, what's there now is car park, single story retail. It's a dramatically underused land on a stretch of South B that could be so much better used. There's two things that I particularly like about the proposal. The building is right sized. It's not out of scale. It fits the block. It's actually shorter than the Stratford next door. It's a low car dependency building in a place that's close to Caltrain, that's close to retail. And like we heard earlier, it's a building that encourages more housing than jobs, which if that's something that the city wants to focus on, then this is a development that would make sense for San Mateo. And that stretch of South B Street is sleepy now. There's good, small, new and existing businesses. There's Anatolian Market on that stretch. There's Ramen Dojo, Ramen Parlour, Ravioli House. But this development would bring more customers, more locals to those small businesses. And it encouraged the development of small businesses along that stretch as well, which as a resident of the area, that's something I would personally love to see. So I hear and I agree with some of the concerns about the traffic in the area as well. Certainly there's things that we could do better on those intersections at Fifth Avenue on Fifth, but I don't think it makes sense to condition this development on traffic changes two blocks away. So in short, San Mateo needs more homes, but will only get them if you approve the right, if you approve the good proposals in the right place at a reasonable scale. And that is what Nazareth Vista will bring. So thank you for the opportunity to speak and I encourage you to approve the development.

Thank you for your comment. Through the chair, we do have an additional request to speak, totaling a total of 13, still granting the time of two minutes each. For our participants in our virtual environment, we will begin with Les. Les, you may speak. Hi, Les, can you hear us?

Okay. Can you hear me now?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Sorry about that. My name is Les Kiak. I want to say that I fully support the project. I own and manage three buildings in the downtown area, two of which are really close to the subject property on B Street at 301 South B and on 4th Avenue at 164 East 4th. Then I have a third building that's on the other side of downtown at 77 North San Mateo Drive. But as a neighbor and someone who's fully committed to the long-term vision of downtown, I am really excited about the project. It's absolutely gorgeous, I think. It's the right property at the right time for the downtown corridor. I like the low-income component, which is much needed for the downtown area. to help with some of the workers that come and work there. It also adds vibrancy and density to an area of the downtown that's currently suffering from a lack of density. Currently, this area is challenging for retailers. There's not enough residents. I also like the design of the project. Currently, the area is populated by outdated buildings. which are no longer functional in today's environment. And I think that residential over retail will be a big plus, bringing residents to be customers of the retailers in the area. So for these reasons, I fully support the project.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker will be Arona Blackmon. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Yes, I am challenged And I use a walking aid. And I like to walk in Central Park every day that I can. And I am very concerned about the amount of traffic that is going to be directed. I live at the Stratford right across the street from the park. And I'm very concerned about the traffic issues that will come up 6th and up 7th. So interfering turning, you have to turn either left or right when you get to Laurel Avenue. And that will definitely have a very severe effect on our ability to cross the street there to get to the park, which we like to enjoy. I'm 92 years old, and I would like to see lights there at those intersections to protect people who want to walk and want to go to to the park and um i think that there's there are huge safety concerns especially with all the with the garages that are everything that's planned on six which is um which is our building is between fifth and sixth So I would ask, please, that you direct traffic or whoever controls that to make sure that we can cross the streets from Laurel and even the tenants in the new building, whoever they are, that people can get across the street to that park. That park is a big attraction for our community, and it shouldn't be the source of accidents and fear for our communities.

Thank you so much for your comment.

Our next public commenter is named as the Stratford. You may speak.

Hi, good afternoon. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay. Hi, this is Stephanie from the Stratford. I have two residents here with me that would like to speak. The first one will be Dr. Rubino. He is a resident.

Thank you for the opportunity. I'm a resident of the Stratford for the last seven years, and the discussion has really centered around everything that's immediate. But we're in a small community and we're anticipating a big increase in traffic and safety related issues as the drivers and The other structures in this area are altered and add significant population. I haven't heard any discussion about what that impact would be. And I'd love reassurance from this commission that they are considering that as an important factor that relates to all of the safety issues that have been touched upon. We suffered one near fatal injury to a resident here in the last several years because of the traffic related issues. And as a physician, I remain very concerned that that threat has not been ameliorated. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you. I have another resident that would like to speak. Thank you. Mr. Bellamy.

90 residents living in approximately 60 millions. And they are, by definition, on the older side. They have issues of mobility. They have issues of hearing. They have issues of seeing. And I do believe that it behoves the commissioners and the city of San Mateo to take all that into account and do a complete plan once this building starts taking shape. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

And our final speaker, David, you may speak.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

I'll presume I am being heard, but I can't hear anything. I think you're underestimating the parking and traffic impact in the area. I live at 808 Laurel. Our building has a condominium building. We have 36 units. I know for a fact that there are 50% more cars than we have spaces for in the building, and those cars are on the street. I would expect that you have about nearly 100 units that you are building here, and there's definitely going to be a significant spillover on these streets, which already the parking is impossible. Also, the city is not, there's supposed to be 72 hour parking here in the area, and the city is not doing anything about it. They're not enforcing it at all. We have, as a matter of fact, there's a car uh there's a car around the corner from me that's been sitting in one spot for six weeks six weeks without without anything you're underestimating the parking sorry the the number of cars in the area also the deliveries from the multiple times per day from ups the post office and amazon i think that's all i have to say thank you for your comment

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM. ITEM. I THINK IT'S TYPICAL FOR US TO I THINK IT'S TYPICAL FOR US TO GIVE THE APPLICANT FIVE MINUTES GIVE THE APPLICANT FIVE MINUTES TO RESPOND TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT. TO RESPOND TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, SO I'M HAPPY TO GIVE THE YEAH, SO I'M HAPPY TO GIVE THE APPLICANT FIVE MINUTES TO RESPOND APPLICANT FIVE MINUTES TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS IF TO ANY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS IF YOU WOULD LIKE. No pressure.

Thank you. We just would like to respond by saying we did take the comments seriously. We work closely with the city, including our traffic consultant, to make sure we were studying the appropriate effects regarding our parking structure and the entries. We are proposing to both audible and visual notifications for additional safety on entry and exit at those locations. We also want to note that the location of the higher intensity residential parking entry is off of 7th and the lower number of spaces is on 6th to try and ameliorate some of the concerns that were voiced today. But we do understand the importance of traffic safety and in particular pedestrian safety.

Thank you. I will direct a question to staff. So we heard a lot of comments just now about concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety. and um and in fact we got a couple of comments written comments i'm looking at one from david messerschmicks with very specific recommendations for specific intersections that i thought made a lot of sense as someone who also walks and bikes frequently in this area and i guess my question to staff is can you explain What and when triggers an evaluation of the conditions at these intersections and when the community could expect potential safety improvements to be made? That might be a Public Works question.

I know we do have Public Works staff on if they're able to speak to that question right there.

Hello. My name is Ryan Brunmeier. and I'm an associate engineer with the City of San Mateo Public Works Department. I can say that the traffic impact analysis did evaluate the study intersections around the project site and those intersections did not exceed the thresholds that would necessitate the need to evaluate them any further for additional improvements therefore unable to require the project to implement additional improvements at those locations i think a lot of the recommendations for safety improvements that were not something that the project is responsible there are policies in place through our Traffic Engineering Division that can be used as resources. So, for example, the City has a local road safety plan, which is a good start in identifying potential countermeasures at some of these locations. For example, Fifth Street, which includes the Fifth and Laurel intersection that I've heard discussed a lot, was identified as one of those top priority segments. And so identification of certain areas of concern in the LRSP can help then the city allocate funding for such safety measures if they're not something that can be required of the project. And I'm more than happy to provide follow-up contact information or ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO DIRECT PEOPLE TO THE PROPER POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WE HAVE IN PLACE TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK THAT WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT WE CANNOT REQUIRE THE PROJECT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, AS SOMEONE NOTED, TWO BLOCKS AWAY. BUT I WAS MOSTLY CURIOUS IF THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE FOR CITY STAFF TO EVALUATE THESE INTERSECTIONS. IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WOULD BE THROUGH THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN.

YEAH, THAT WOULD BE A GREAT START.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS?

I ALWAYS LOOK RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT. SO WE'RE GOING TO DO IT ONE MORE TIME. YES, OF COURSE. I HAVE QUESTIONS. I ALWAYS DO. BUT MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE what you just said commissioner patel um which is that we can't require the project to address intersections two blocks away but the intersection at um sixth and laurel is not two blocks away it is um you know not quite adjacent but it's close to the project and so yeah that that's my question like can you know can it be expected that the project can carry some traffic calming um you know um improvements to that intersection i mean i i was going to start by saying that i walk laurel avenue regularly as well as drive it i also drive from my neighborhood to downtown when sometimes and um in fact i walk with my dog through central park And she actually won't let me go back through the park the way I came until I've turned and gone past the Leslie building onto Laurel and then turned south on Laurel. And so it's like I know that intersection well. I was actually trying to confirm if it does have a stop sign, I think. at that location but i i can't actually recall because um it does okay so back to my original question like are there traffic calming measures that can take place there that can be part of the project and how do we you know what is what is how does that stand

I'LL ALSO LEAN ON PUBLIC WORK STAFF IF THERE'S SOMETHING I'M STAFF IF THERE'S SOMETHING I'M STAFF IF THERE'S SOMETHING I'M MISSING SINCE THEY'RE THE MISSING SINCE THEY'RE THE MISSING SINCE THEY'RE THE EXPERTS ON THE TECHNICALITIES OF EXPERTS ON THE TECHNICALITIES OF EXPERTS ON THE TECHNICALITIES OF THIS. THIS. THIS. BUT THE SIXTH AND LAUREL BUT THE SIXTH AND LAUREL BUT THE SIXTH AND LAUREL INTERSECTION WAS INCLUDED AS A INTERSECTION WAS INCLUDED AS A INTERSECTION WAS INCLUDED AS A STUNNING INTERSECTION IN THE STUNNING INTERSECTION IN THE STUNNING INTERSECTION IN THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS AND IT TRANSPORT SURPASSED THRESHOLDS THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO REQUIRE IMPROVEMENTS AS A PART OF THE PROJECT ENTITLEMENT. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT COULD BE LINKED TO THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, AS RYAN SHARED, THERE MAY BE OTHER AVENUES FOR HAVING THE CITY LOOK AT IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT LOCATION, BUT IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT.

okay thank you um let me just see i have a number of notes that i think are questions see if i have others or does anybody else want to go ahead and maybe i can sort out my other items commissioner clafter

Sure, I had one or two questions. I do have a question about the design of the building and the renderings there. The underside of the upper residential portion is rendered very smooth, clean, but I would imagine that that may not be the case. There probably will be sprinklers and plumbing and other things potentially coming down from there. Is that possibly true?

If I could maybe get to a specific image may help to explain.

I'm thinking of those renderings where it's like across the street looking towards the building. You can kind of see the... Yeah, like that one.

Yes. So there would be some piping that would be located on that. Obviously, we'd set it up. And one of the things and part of the design is to do it, you know, a clean layout. Obviously, there'd be some lighting and some sprinkler piping there. Painting and other treatments to minimize the impact visually of that would take place.

So you are planning to paint everything sort of solid color?

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

And thanks. I think that was the only question I had on that to sign right now.

I found my, sorted out my notes.

Yes. We can return to you. I'll come back to me.

Okay, thanks. Sorry for the back and forth. I guess another related comment is related to the pedestrian safety issue on a similar vein. Can the project require, can it, AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, I GUESS, THAT MOVING TRUCKS AND MOVE-IN TAKE PLACE ON 7th AVENUE INSTEAD OF 6th, AS SUGGESTED BY THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS?

SO THROUGH THE CHAIR, I'LL MAYBE CHECK IN WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT WHETHER THAT CAN BE INCLUDED AS A CONDITION, BUT I WILL NOTE, AND PERHAPS PUBLIC WORKS CAN SHARE MORE ABOUT THIS IF THERE'S ELABORATION NEEDED, BUT THERE IS A PROCESS BY WHICH RESIDENTS CAN APPLY FOR A TEMPORARY PERMIT TO RESERVE ON STREET PARKING FOR MOVE-IN AND MOVE-OUT PURPOSES SO THAT IF THEY PLAN AHEAD THEY'D BE ABLE TO RESERVE THE REQUIRED STREET PARKING STALLS TO PARK LIKE A U-HAUL TRUCK OR SOMETHING WHILE THEY'RE MOVING IN OR OUT OF A UNIT. SO THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY AN OPTION THAT COULD TAKE PLACE ON 7th OR B STREET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL ON 7th OR B STREET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCE FOR MOVE IN AND MOVE OUT ENTRANCE FOR MOVE IN AND MOVE OUT PURPOSES. PURPOSES. I'M NOT SURE IF I ANSWERED YOUR I'M NOT SURE IF I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THAT COULD QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THAT COULD BE CONDITIONED BUT THAT'S A BE CONDITIONED BUT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION THAT I

no maybe half answers the question but i don't know if we have more yeah about the conditions i mean i think it's a really good i don't know if it's a solution but it's a really good mitigation measure um to and maybe it's simply an operational um measure but it would have to be conditional i guess and i don't know if that can be a condition of approval

THROUGH THE CHAIR. THROUGH THE CHAIR. I THINK THAT THERE BECAUSE THE I THINK THAT THERE BECAUSE THE I THINK THAT THERE BECAUSE THE KEY WITH THE CONDITION OF KEY WITH THE CONDITION OF KEY WITH THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL IT HAS TO BE FULLY APPROVAL IT HAS TO BE FULLY APPROVAL IT HAS TO BE FULLY ENFORCEABLE AND FOR PUBLIC ENFORCEABLE AND FOR PUBLIC ENFORCEABLE AND FOR PUBLIC STREETS I THINK AS LIZ NOTED THE STREETS I THINK AS LIZ NOTED THE STREETS I THINK AS LIZ NOTED THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING AND THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING AND THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING AND THE LAYOUT OF THE ON STREET PARKING THE LAYOUT OF THE ON STREET PARKING THE L BUT YEAH, OFTENTIMES IF THEY'RE RESERVING SPACES THAT THAT RESERVING SPACES THAT THAT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUSH GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUSH THEM TOWARD THAT SIDE BUT I THEM TOWARD THAT SIDE BUT I THINK LOCATION OF THE ENTRANCE TO THINK LOCATION OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING IS PROBABLY THE MOST THE BUILDING IS PROBABLY THE MOST CONDUCIVE THAT YOU'LL SEE LOADING CONDUCIVE THAT YOU'LL SEE LOADING ACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE IN AND AROUND ACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE IN AND AROUND THAT AREA OF THE BUILDING.

THAT AREA OF THE BUILDING.

SEVENTH AVENUE. SEVENTH AVENUE. YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY.

I WAS GOING TO ASK IS DIRECTLY I WAS GOING TO ASK IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS WHICH IS THE RELATED TO THIS WHICH IS THE RELATED TO THIS WHICH IS THE LOADING ZONE AGAIN. LOADING ZONE AGAIN. LOADING ZONE AGAIN. I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THE OTHER THINGS. COMMENTS AND THE OTHER THINGS. COMMENTS AND THE OTHER THINGS. AND THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED WAS AND THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED WAS AND THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED WAS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND I'LL PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND I'LL PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND I'LL ASK IT AGAIN HERE AND I THINK ASK IT AGAIN HERE AND I THINK ASK IT AGAIN HERE AND I POTENTIALLY CONSIDER, IS THERE POSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING A POSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING A SECOND LOADING ZONE ON THE SECOND LOADING ZONE ON THE SEVENTH AVENUE SIDE IN FRONT OF SEVENTH AVENUE SIDE IN FRONT OF THAT ENTRANCE THERE? THAT ENTRANCE THERE? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE AS AN OPTIONAL THING TO DONE AS AN OPTIONAL THING TO WORK WITH AS A NEGOTIATION?

So through the chair, the requirement in the code is only for one loading zone for the project as designed. So I don't believe there would be any nexus to require additional loading stalls. Whether that's something in terms of like curbside management that the city could look into, I think that's perhaps a separate question than what could be required of the development. Not sure, Ryan, if there's anything to add from Public Works on that question.

yeah i would say that um just to reiterate the whole residential move-in item um i do think that you know obviously once the building is occupied the biggest need for loading and unloading is going to be generated by the commercial component as well as the trash staging area which is on The 6th Avenue side. So it's an extremely easy process for residents to obtain a temporary no parking sign to reserve any number of stalls that they need for moving purposes and I also think that, like I said, enforcement of restricting it to one side would not really be a feasible alternative. There's always the opportunity for individual properties to at a later time, not through planning application review to reach out to our engineering department through the transportation group to submit an application for additional loading zones if it seems that for any reason there is a need for additional loading on the Seventh Avenue frontage.

Okay, thank you.

Do you have any further questions? OK, thank you. Commissioner Schoenkel, any clarifying questions?

yeah just along the lines of the pedestrian safety as well um just had a question regarding the the crosswalks that are going to be in front to the east of the the project on along b street um i know that there's a bulb out between seventh on the intersection of seventh and south b but um were there any considerations made for high visibility pedestrian flashing signals or anything like that that um were made at the time of working with the staff.

So through the chair, I did pull up the site plan. If we can take a look at that, I think it's helpful to see as we discuss. So you'll see, as you pointed out, the 7th and South B intersection there, there is a proposal for a bump out. And the crosswalks are proposed to be high visibility and restriping of those will be required as a part of the project construction. I BELIEVE THAT COVERS THE IMPROVEMENTS, BUT IF PUBLIC WORK SAYS ANYTHING TO ADD THERE, I'LL INVITE THEM TO JUMP IN. BUT I BELIEVE YOU HAD JUST ASKED ABOUT THE HIGH VISIBILITY, WHICH WILL BE INCLUDED.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL GO TO MY NEXT QUESTION. THANK YOU. At these intersections on 6th and on 7th, I'm not sure about the downtown plan about what could be added or what's required. Is there any art requirement for the downtown plan for projects?

So through the chair, we do have requirements for public art with development projects over a certain valuation, which this would trigger. There is the option for the developer to either provide public art on site or they can provide an in lieu fee. So in this case, they've elected to pay that in lieu fee. So there's not public art proposed with the project.

I think that concludes my clarifying questions for now.

Thank you so much, Commissioner Bush.

Thank you. How does, this is a bigger picture question about the original planning application and that they submitted a new planning application while an old one was pending, right? So do we just, the old one just goes away and the new and all the standards and things that govern the new one are what apply for the new one?

Yes. So through the chair, the standards for the current project will be, since this is an SB 330 project, it would be whatever is in place at the time the project was vested based on their preliminary application. In this case, as you've noted, they did submit while the past approval was still active. It has since expired, so that's no longer valid.

active um but if a new entitlement was approved it would supersede the prior approval okay okay thanks um this is a question for the applicant i heard you talk about the um condition of approval for the retailers and whether you'd add the venting and other the grease thing i didn't i didn't quite understand whether you were in agreement with us adding that as a condition of approval or you were saying thanks but no thanks but we promise we will try.

So, yes, we are comfortable with those conditions in that, obviously, just to let you know, we were intending to look at a location during the DDs and permit documentation for a grease interceptor. It's the only time you can do it is in the initial stages. We understand that. We want the flexibility for that potential tenant. The same with all the restrooms. the one item one item we're not comfortable with is is the comment about requiring an additional height on the ground level we do have some height concerns just regarding construction type and everything else we actually have a 14 foot floor to floor from from grade to the the second level parking and a flat slab construction which does allow that 12 foot that was being noted in that um so we don't feel it's reasonable to require an additional height as was noted there but the other conditions were things we were already intending to do we we just didn't show any of those at this point because most of those items are either a tenant specific as we could have you know we could get lucky and have one tenant take the entire space or we could have you know three or four tenants and that would require three or four entries separate restrooms and all of that

okay so just um liz could we see the proposed condition of approval so just to make sure you the applicants in agreement with all of these except number five is that right yes okay all right thank you i have another question for you um i don't know anything about building materials sorry um i'm a lawyer that's why i'm here not not the architect who's at the other end of the dais but um can you explain to me in layman's terms why having spanish colonial architectural style is more expensive because this does kind of stick out um compared to the to the buildings nearby and in your bonus density, density bonus letter talks about it says that it's more expensive, which I know I've read the rules. So don't worry. But I know that that's the lawyer in me.

I understand.

No, but wait, sorry. But you do say that

um an eight-story building is not typically i don't know how you frame it but not typically in the spanish architectural style but the the 10-story building nearby i think is kind of that style so just curious um so there were i mean beyond cost there was also one of the and i tried to speak to it in the beginning is is we had successfully designed and developed a design that was supported and approved before so we did start with that design. One, it was a style and architecture that we liked, we had received support before. Regarding the Spanish colonial style, one of the challenges with the way we build today, to truly do it justice and with all of the elements to be done, it is a significant increase in cost to get those elements involved. Scale of the buildings are challenging at the larger scale as well as, you know, again creating that retail frontage. So that was taken into account. A lot of the very specific details require some skill level and some detail that is a cost difficulty on a project of this scale.

Okay, thanks. I just don't have any familiarity with that. I also may not surprise you that I'm new to reading construction plans, and I don't quite understand how the loading zone works. So it seems like in these pictures you can't see anything related to a loading zone. Is it just a yellow striped curb where trucks park, or how does it actually work?

So we work very closely with staff on the location of the loading zone as well as studying it. So it is a striped curb that doesn't have parking associated in that area. And so basically it's set up as our commercial, our residential, and our trash loading zone. It meets the size requirements and the separations. One of the challenges we faced was getting that location in between our vehicular access and the corner. So we went through a lot of effort with Public Works to make sure we could get the right sized loading zone striped off and set up as required to fit in that. And as was noted, There is move in, but most of the loading needs are really on that side of the building, as well as one of the things we wanted to do again was keep our access point on the retail and the visitor parking is less intense, less cars than on the 93 spaces on the residential side. So we were also trying to keep those separated primarily as far as where our loading zone was and where our predominant access point was.

Okay, and Liz, could we just see a picture of the corner at 6th and B, like looking at the loading zone? I see this plan, but I can't figure out on the other corner. Oh, sorry. Towards 7th Avenue.

Visually, I don't know if you will notice anything in particular in the rendering that says loading zone.

I just want to see where it is.

It will not have parking on it. It will have no parking signs. It will have the striped curb. Those elements signify that that is the loading zone. And so all those elements will be incorporated into the improvement drawings.

So through the chair, yeah, the renderings, since they're architectural renderings, they don't necessarily have that level of detail of the curve striping.

I was just trying to picture on the picture where it is.

On the site plan here, if you look along the 6th Avenue, it's a little bit hard to see because it's small, but it's that area that's highlighted in yellow. So there's a couple of street trees proposed at the curb behind it, and then it would be striped to indicate that parking would not be allowed there since it is a loading area.

Okay, but in the... One of the last pages of the plan, which is not on the pictures here, but there is a picture of a giant truck parked at an angle in the loading zone. Is the loading zone intended for trucks to be parallel to the curb to unload?

Or are we expecting that- I believe that diagram is showing the pickup of the trash. And so again, the loading zone is multi-purpose. Again, as was noted, we're required one loading zone who worked carefully to locate that in the appropriate place. That's indicating that our trash staging gets put out there in the loading zone. The pickup comes in, picks up and services that and then puts it back and they get moved back into the building. And part of our process and part of our approval was going through getting, you know, our trash plan submitted to Recology and getting well served. So we did go through that. For regular loading, whether it would be, you know, any tenant loading there, any UPS trucks, any other trucks, the idea is that they would be parallel to the curb. The requirement is that during those servicing processes, times those loading times their peril and that's why the city has size requirements that we must meet for that loading zone to to work with the types of trucks.

yeah great that's that's helpful thank you i was concerned about that picture understood um and and to make explicit what is implicit in my questions is one of your waivers is to move the loading zone a little closer to the intersection than typically our standards allow so i just wanted to confirm that that wasn't going to have significant impacts on the intersection particularly the stop sign which is now like close by with these big trucks but I understand that they'll have to be parallel and you worked closely with staff to make sure that that was appropriate. Okay, thank you. That is all of my questions, thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Bush. Commissioner Williams, I saw you might have one more question.

Yes, I did. And actually, this is great. And thanks for those questions, because that helped me kind of understand things too. But I guess this all triggered a question about, the garbage. So is what we're seeing in that little room that's to the left of the stairwell. Those are a bunch of dumpsters. Okay, so those would have to be taken out. I see it's like one single door, it would actually need to be double doors, I think, right?

There's the two if you It looks like I see it's a double door. The other section on the left. It's very hard. That area just to the left. Yeah, yeah, I see that.

That's an overhead door.

That's an overhead door, a six foot wide door. So again, we worked with our trash consultant on the path of travel and the needs for that. And so, yes, those bins will be taken out at scheduled times as required for pickup and then returned in through that door.

For a building this size, is it anticipated it would be like once a week, like everywhere else in the neighborhood?

I don't have the exact schedule in front of me, but that was all part of our process in going through the will serve and the approval with the city and ecology was to show our servicing requirements for the different streams and when it occurs.

Okay. um i guess what one of the things as i was looking at i'm like well this must take place at you know the other um tall buildings in the neighborhood starting with the leslie and the stratford and the gramosy you know they all must have similar dumpsters that are brought out and brought back in so okay just i guess i just wanted to kind of think that through I think I had one other question, which is really minor. But on one of the, not related to this, on one of the renderings or multiple renderings, it showed a really large screen on the common area. And I was just wondering how visible is that going to be? I mean, I can see it right there. It's that green in the middle. I guess it's not really visible to the apartment, the low rise apartments below. So that's helpful. But are there gonna be sort of some restrictions on know when this thing goes on and off and how much it's just running i'm just not a fan of like screens running when no one's there um i don't know of any specific requirements for that as far as screening we do have specific screening on the uh i'm talking about the monitor i'm talking about the

No, I understand. But those were some of the things that we have included to both visually screen as much as possible. You know, honestly, right now, one, the intent, if it's not in use, it wouldn't be on. You know, that's not something that's an operationally a good use of electricity. That being said, obviously the project needs to go through further design development and this is our initial design of where that is. We can take into account whether that means maybe we look at a rotation in such a way or other things that would mitigate some of those concerns. But at the very least, the requirements would be that it's off when not in use and stuff. it just looked it also looked really huge in the renderings for the size of the space but maybe that's just my personal thing to to uh liz's point in one of the other things is these are architectural renderings they're also used for marketing and and and so in purposes of that obviously showing a large tv screen and a significant size um is an attraction uh we will be cognizant of these concerns when we're doing the final design and layout of that community space. What we are excited about with that is giving the tenants some significant amenity space up at a safe level. I think it's one of the challenges that's faced with urban dwelling and getting these types of amenities to this significant scale to downtown facilities just because oftentimes we don't have the square footage to do it and this allows us to do it. So we think it's really going to be a positive for the development as well as giving a bigger buffer to our neighbors.

Right. And I see that this rendering compared to something else I saw shows that the apartments below or the residences below are not really affected by it on this view. Okay, those are all of my questions. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Commissioner Clafter, no? Okay. Thank you to my fellow commissioners for all of your fantastic questions. I think there is only one left that I had that you did not already cover. So this is a question for staff. The last time this project was before us, the ground floor space was described as retail in the project plans and staff report. This time it's described as commercial. and i was curious what the implications of that difference are from a use standpoint through the chair so i think we were using those terms interchangeably but it is intended to be commercial retail okay perfect thank you that was my only question so i will now look to my fellow commissioners for any comments or discussion on this item if anyone has any comments they would like to add Oh yeah, okay, I'm gonna look left. Commissioner Bush, any comments?

Sorry. I'm like, I'm always starting the comments.

Yeah, I have some comments.

So I think it seems like a really great project. A LOT OF GREAT NEW HOUSING, NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING RIGHT NEXT TO DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS EXCELLENT. I APPLAUD THE AMENITIES AS WELL, EXACTLY AS YOU SAID. I THINK THOSE ARE GOING TO BE REALLY ATTRACTIVE. AND THE FACT THAT THOSE AMENITIES are um built in in a way to try to respect the neighbor so a large step back um you know kind of hiding that eighth floor hiding the parking deck is really lovely adding the retail space to the public commenter who mentioned new businesses and supporting the other local businesses including my favorite restaurant san mateo ramen dojo SO YEAH, I THINK IT'S A REALLY GREAT PROJECT. I AM REALLY THANKFUL FOR THE THOUGHTFUL PUBLIC COMMENTS. I'VE BEEN A COMMISSIONER NOW FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AND THESE WERE SOME OF THE MOST THOUGHTFUL seems like everyone seems to understand the limits of our discretion uh in you know making changes to the project and really focusing comments on things that the city does have um some power to change we can't make the applicant um change the lights at ellsworth and fifth but um but the city has the power to do that and so one thing i wanted to just encourage all the ALL THE THOUGHTFUL PUBLIC COMMENTS TO CONSIDER IS TARGETING THAT ENERGY TOWARDS CITY COUNCIL WHO CAN TRY TO HELP TO DIRECT SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS TOWARDS MAKING THE CHANGES THAT YOU ALL THINK WILL BE HELPFUL TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL FEEL SAFE AND THE TRAFFIC IS WELL MANAGED. SO I WANTED TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT. AND I ALSO JUST WANTED TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW HAVING SEEN SEVERAL LARGE PROJECTS OF THIS TYPE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS TO, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE OUR STAFF TO CONSIDER THINKING HOLISTICALLY ABOUT THESE PROJECTS AS A SET. WE ALWAYS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION WE JUST HAVE THE POWER TO TALK ABOUT THE PROJECTS IN FRONT OF US, BUT THERE ARE REALLY REALLY LARGE SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS IN THIS CORRIDOR COMING DOWN THE LINE IN THE NEXT TWO TO FIVE YEARS AND I WANT TO ECHO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT ENCOURAGE THE CITY TO THINK HOLISTICALLY ABOUT TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN LIGHT OF DRAGERS AND BESPOKE AND THIS 616 B STREET AND IS THAT THE ADDRESS OF THIS? AND YES. um things like um parking enforcement i heard one of the public commenters say maybe we if we're going to be increasing the housing stock which i very strongly believe in and i know our city believes in we should be thinking about these ancillary issues and and the things we can control we can't control this project specifically we don't have a lot of discretion but we can control pedestrian safety parking enforcement the timing and the number of meetings the developer is supposed to have with the neighborhood you know maybe it'd be great to have them meet with twice once at the beginning to get input and once before the planning commission meeting to really share the outputs of what the project looks like um so THE PROJECT SPECIFICALLY I SUPPORT AND WITH THIS BROADER COMMENT ABOUT THINKING HOLISTICALLY ABOUT PROACTIVELY ABOUT HOW WE CAN START ANTICIPATING THESE PROJECTS AND MAKING THE CHANGES THAT A LOT OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTERS REQUESTED.

Yes, I also like to thank the public comments as well as commissioner Bush did I think these these are well informed comments that were made. Also you all understand that a lot of things are taken from our purview so as commissioners were trying to do our best to be within whatever discretion we have remaining and utilize that to our best ability. I am excited about this project because I know that this particular parking lot at Kelly Moore is a overflow parking for a lot of the auto repair shops that are nearby. So overnight you'll see this little parking lot STACK STACK UP WITH CARS THAT ARE YET TO BE SEEN FROM THE AUTO REPAIR SHOPS THAT ARE ALONG RAILROAD SO I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLUS AND IN ADDITION TO DOWNTOWN AND EXTENSION OF B STREET WE'VE SEEN ACTIVATION ALONG THIS CORRIDOR HAPPENING QUICK AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE MORE LIVELIHOOD COMING INTO THIS LITTLE STRETCH OF B STREET BECAUSE IT DOES TAPER OFF AFTER FIFTH AVENUE AND I DO HEAR AND UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY CONCERNS OF THE PUBLIC, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO CONTINUE TO BRING THESE UP TO PUBLIC WORKS AND THOSE WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THESE CHANGES FOR YOU GUYS, ESPECIALLY ON 5TH AND LAUREL. I THINK, YEAH, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CLUFTER.

Yeah, so I definitely agree with some of the other comments about the building. I think it's a very attractive design. I really think it's exactly the kind of thing that I was hoping to see come out of Measure T. And, you know, increased density in downtown area, walkable. activating b street in a way that um that section of b street isn't right now um there's a bit of a disconnect between the north end of b street and this section of b street it's always been a little bit quieter since i've been living here and there's been a sort of a gap uh once you go past fourth there and um especially with the bespoke project uh um moving forward and then this uh this project here i i'm you know thinking it'll really extend that that activity south which is great um does the design i had asked that question about the underside of the kind of the structure there because i thought oh it looks very clean looks very nice but i you know just hope that when all the piping is there and all the various things that are necessary to kind of go in that it still kind of maintains that clean look. I had initially sort of been thinking, oh, you know, maybe maybe the addition of like some screening or something might might be nice. But I appreciate the answer that I got about the fact that it's going to kind of painted a solid color there, which I think will kind of address that. I have been thinking a lot, as Commissioner Bush pointed out, I've been thinking a lot more also myself about kind of the things that we can have more control over, and that's the public realm, the sidewalks, the streets. I NOTICED SOMETHING SIMILAR HERE TO A PREVIOUS PROJECT WE LOOKED AT RECENTLY WHICH WAS A 230 SOUTH EL CAMINO WHERE THE SIDEWALK IS GOING TO BE WIDENED THE SETBACK IS BEING INCREASED FOR THE NEW STRUCTURE AND THE SIDEWALK IS GOING TO KIND OF DEAD END INTO THE EDGE OF THE STRATFORD PROPERTY WHERE THEY HAVE A DECORATIVE BALLISTRADE THERE AND I THINK THERE'S PLAN TO BE LIKE A LITTLE PLANTING BED AND BENCH AND SOME THINGS LIKE THAT BUT I FEEL LIKE I DON'T SEE ANY POSSIBILITY IN THE NEAR FUTURE THAT THE STRATFORD PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE ALTERED AND THE SIDEWALK IS GOING TO BE WIDENED FURTHER SO I THINK THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT PLANTING BED A LITTLE LARGER AND KIND OF TAPER THE SIDEWALK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT DURING THE PERMITTING AND THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. the uh i'd ask that question about the loading space i really think and again it's i know it's not something that we can condition um but i think you know based on all the comments we've received and that and and how i've been looking at this i really think it makes a lot of sense that you know that is something that should be considered for um that side of the building there at the residential entrance i was looking at I was listening, one of the commenters made a point about like, you know, food deliveries, Amazon, the mail. You know, a lot of times, you know, these trucks pull up on the street, they double park, they get out, they're there for 15 minutes, 20 minutes, they could be there for 30 seconds. People are being dropped off after getting an Uber or a Lyft home. just think it makes a lot of sense to have either either another loading zone or a short-term parking there and it's something that could also be useful for some of the other um you know buildings uh residential buildings in on that street there um i noted that you know if we look down the way at um nazareth plaza there's a 20-minute parking zone uh on uh next to that building and then you know Nazareth Terrace which is right across the street you know multi multi-unit building and there is not a similar thing there so if there was a loading zone next to this building it could be used you know for people accessing both properties other properties on the street and I think it would just keep double parking to a minimum over there so I just think it's something that really should the city maybe should be looking into in that spot And then I did want to go over one thing which I had noticed. And this is kind of a very technical thing. And it's not, again, I should be very clear that this is not a commentary on the application or anything wrong. I've already asked some questions to staff, and they can confirm everything. If I say anything out of line, my understanding of everything is good. But I was looking at the transportation the traffic plan, a traffic study. And one of the things is the transportation demand management. And the project is required to offset their trips by a certain amount. And there's a checklist and they can check off different items on there. And one of the items in this case is reduced parking, which counts for 10% of the traffic. their kind of their obligation. And if you look at the actual checklist, it says provide off street parking at least 10% below locally required minimums or else below the locally permitted parking maximums. We do not have a parking maximum in the city of San Mateo. And this project is in the central parking improvement district. However, central parking improvement district is almost entirely within a half mile of the cal train station and due to new state laws the parking minimum is now effectively zero so what we've been seeing is a lot of of and a lot of these projects that have been coming before us have been including parking because it is an amenity that residents are often expecting and they are usually including a certain amount of parking which they feel is necessary but IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO. SO I CHECKED INTO THIS AND I THINK STAFF COULD CONFIRM THAT ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT IS BEING INCLUDED IS 10% OR GREATER BELOW OUR OLD PARKING MINIMUM WHICH WAS REQUIRED BUT THAT PARKING MINIMUM IS NOT ENFORCEABLE ANYMORE. IS THAT CORRECT?

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

YES.

IN THE AB 2097 RADIUS, HALF MILE RADIUS AROUND THE CAL TRAIN STATION SPECIFICALLY.

YEAH. SO ESSENTIALLY FOR THE WHOLE CENTRAL PARKING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BEING INSIDE OF THE THE TRANSIT RADIUS, WE CANNOT REQUIRE PARKING FOR ANY COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN MOST CASES. love that um idea of this being counted as an offset it's entirely above board everything is is correct here but it feels like we should i think the city should consider doing some updates to our parking minimums and how they interact with the new state laws because i feel like we should be getting more offsets for the trips that are being generated through other options in the future.

Thank you, Commissioner Williams.

Thank you. Thanks to staff and the applicant for the presentations and of course to the members of the public for all the valuable input. I was on the planning commission when we saw this, the project in 2023 that was at this location and it's not, that different, except that it's taller, but some features remain. So it was interesting to see the comparisons. Certainly the 94 units with 10 affordable units is great. That's a great increase. But with it, there's a number of things to talk about. I want to start by, although I have a couple of comments, I want to start with the pedestrian safety issue, because that was, I think, a really important concern. And as I said, I walk and drive along Laurel and along B Street as well. probably Laurel more, and I'm aware of how many residents walk there. You know, senior people, dog walkers, people with mobility issues and their caretakers, and most of them are going to Central Park, really. I mean, it's just, Central Park is just so well used. I just love that park for that, partly for that reason. I THINK THAT THE SPEAKER SUGGESTED SEVERAL THINGS THAT I THINK THAT THE SPEAKER SUGGESTED SEVERAL THINGS THAT COULD BE AND SHOULD BE PART OF COULD BE AND SHOULD BE PART OF THIS PROJECT. THIS PROJECT. THE SEVENTH AVENUE CHANGES MAKE THE SEVENTH AVENUE CHANGES MAKE SENSE AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN SENSE AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF MOVE IN. that heavier you or equal at least use on that side I think with garbage on one side and you know move in and as much as possible on seventh where it's a wider street is really important I don't know that that changes too much in the project but it's really partially an operational issue We discussed briefly high visibility crosswalks across B Street, but I think that they need to be across Laurel Street as well at the entry to Central Park. I THINK THAT INTERSECTION I HAVE SEEN AS I'VE BEEN WALKING. I HAVE SEEN AS I'VE BEEN WALKING. PEOPLE, DRIVERS JUST AREN'T THAT PEOPLE, DRIVERS JUST AREN'T THAT GREAT. GREAT. WE NEED SOME TRAFFIC CALMING. WE NEED SOME TRAFFIC CALMING. I PERSONALLY THINK IT COULD BE I PERSONALLY THINK IT COULD BE PART OF THIS PROJECT. PART OF THIS PROJECT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CONSIDERED IN SOME MANNER. LET'S SEE. MOVING ON, I THINK THE RETAIL MOVING ON, I THINK THE RETAIL RECOMMENDATIONS AS CONDITIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE VERY PRACTICAL, MADE APPROVAL WERE VERY PRACTICAL, MADE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. IN FACT, I THINK LIKE YOU SAID, IN FACT, I THINK LIKE YOU SAID, THE 12-FOOT CEILING HEIGHT IS THE 12-FOOT CEILING HEIGHT IS BASICALLY BEING MET IN THE BASICALLY BEING MET IN THE PROJECT ANYWAY. Another thing I wanted to note, just partly for the public's information, I think that the conditions of approval are very robust and they include many protections that are required of the general contractor protections for the general public. So I was impressed with the conditions of approval. I mean, they're somewhat standard, but they're always very robust. And then a couple comments about design. I thought, yeah, the discussion about the concession departing of the design departing from Spanish colonial style. I mean, I don't really take issue with it, although I do agree it's, it would lose its impact a little bit on a building this size. However, there is a building going up right now on 9th, and I think it's Claremont, that's Spanish Colonial, which I forget how many floors it is, but it's probably similar. And it's looking really great as it takes shape. So I just want to kind of say, put it out there, that it's certainly feasible for future projects, and people should be aware of that, that BUT I THINK THE PROJECT LOOKS GOOD. I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY THERE'S NOTHING ARCHITECTURALLY GOING ON ON THAT SIDE OR ON THAT SITE RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE CURRENTLY SOME OTHER SPANISH KIND OF OR SORT OF BUNGALOW KIND OF BUILDINGS ACROSS THE STREET. And I'm not saying that it needs to match. I think that the modern take on this project can fit nicely into the neighborhood as well. I do think the building has some great steps in the massing as we talked about a little as the applicant talked about a little bit certainly at the rear that's very valuable and at the top floor that is also really valuable in terms of the sun and the shade studies and one of the comment and at the sixth avenue side one of the comments I think in the study session for the previous project on this location was that sixth avenue is really kind of an entry into central park and and the setbacks the you know the the um the kind of development of that north side of the project with open space and a wider sidewalk and some a little bit more space there and I see what was one of the comments from before and I see that still reflected in the site plan so I was really happy to see that I think that's a really nice addition or a really nice massing of the project it gives more space between the building and the Gramercy across the street And they've maintained that. That all of those things help with the shade that is inevitably going to be you know cast on some neighboring sites. I think I guess the good news is that the worst part of it is in the winter when the sun is when there's less sunny days anyway. But the wider sidewalk and the wider setback I guess on 6th Avenue. helps with that. I guess those are my comments. I think I generally think the project is a good project I have YEAH, I'LL JUST END IT THERE.

OKAY, THANK YOU. ONCE AGAIN, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE PROVIDED SOME MANY GREAT COMMENTS, AND I DON'T REALLY HAVE TOO MUCH TO ADD TO THEM, SO I WILL KEEP IT SHORT. LIKE THEM, I WANT TO THANK STAFF AND THE APPLICANT FOR ALL OF THE WORK ON THIS PROJECT, NOT JUST THIS PROJECT, BUT THE PREVIOUS ITERATION. IT'S BEEN A FEW YEARS TO GET US TO THIS POINT, AND SO I'M GLAD TO SEE ANOTHER PROJECT HERE MOVING FORWARD. i also want to thank the public commenters for all of their input both in person and written which i know we all took the time to read and um and consider i especially appreciate this is one of the few times where we've gotten comments from the public with extremely detailed suggestions for how to improve things and so um i found that really helpful uh like has been noted on the dais we can't require this project to make IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PARTICULARLY WHEN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PARTICULARLY WHEN THE AREAS WE WANT IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE AREAS WE WANT IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT BUT NOT ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT BUT AS I THINK COMMISSIONER BUSH AS I THINK COMMISSIONER BUSH POINTED OUT THESE THINGS ARE POINTED OUT THESE THINGS ARE CERTAINLY WITHIN THE CITY'S CERTAINLY WITHIN THE CITY'S CONTROL AND SO I WANT TO ECHO CONTROL AND SO I WANT TO ECHO THE SUGGESTION TO FORWARD YOUR THE SUGGESTION TO FORWARD YOUR WONDERFUL COMMENTS I THINK TO PUBLIC WONDERFUL COMM TO CONSIDER THIS AREA OF B STREET HOLISTICALLY AND CONSIDER TO CONSIDER THIS AREA OF B STREET HOLISTICALLY AND CONSIDER MAKING PERHAPS SOME QUICK BUILD MAKING PERHAPS SOME QUICK BUILD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS LIKE A PUBLIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS LIKE A PUBLIC COMMENTER NOTED BEFORE COMMENTER NOTED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STARTS. CONSTRUCTION STARTS. I THINK ESPECIALLY FOR THIS I THINK ESPECIALLY FOR THIS PROJECT GIVEN THE HIGH VOLUME OF PROJECT GIVEN THE HIGH VOLUME OF PEDESTRIANS ALREADY AND GIVEN OUR PEDESTRIANS ALREADY AND GIVEN OUR POPULATION OF SENIORS AND POPULATION OF SENIORS AND AND I'LL NOTE SEVERAL TIMES AS I'VE WALKED DOWNTOWN, THE SIDEWALK WILL DISAPPEAR ON ONE SIDE WHEN A PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND SO THEN AS A PEDESTRIAN YOU HAVE TO CROSS TO THE OTHER SIDE AND THEN YOU HAVE TO WALK DOWN THE BLOCK AND THEN YOU HAVE TO CROSS BACK AND I'LL SEE MANY PEOPLE JUST NOT DO THAT AND WALK IN THE STREET BECAUSE IT'S MORE CONVENIENT AND THAT ALWAYS GIVES ME HEART PALPITATION. MAKING SURE ESPECIALLY FOR SENIORS WITH MOBILITY ISSUES MAKING SURE ESPECIALLY FOR SENIORS WITH MOBILITY ISSUES THAT WE ARE NOT HAVING THAT WE ARE NOT HAVING PEDESTRIANS REROUTED A PEDESTRIANS REROUTED A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE AROUND THIS SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE AROUND THIS PROJECT. PROJECT. AND SIMILARLY WHEN THERE ARE AND SIMILARLY WHEN THERE ARE DETOURS, I NOTICED THIS DOWNTOWN DETOURS, I NOTICED THIS DOWNTOWN QUITE A FEW TIMES WHERE THE SIDEWALK CLOSED SIGN WILL APPEAR LITERALLY WHERE THE SIDEWALK IS CLOSED AND NOT AT THE LAST POINT WHERE YOU COULD TURN AND TAKE A DIFFERENT PATH. SO THEN YOU WALK DOWN A WHOLE BLOCK, YOU GET TO THE SIDEWALK CLOSED SIGN AND THEN YOU HAVE TO TURN AROUND AND WALK THE WHOLE BLOCK BACK AND THEN TAKE YOUR ALTERNATE PATH. SO AS THE I THINK IT'S LIKE THE TRANSPORTATION ACCESS PLAN IS WORKED THROUGH, I WOULD REALLY ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE BE CONSIDERATE OF HOW THOSE ALTERNATE ROUTES WORK WHERE WE'RE PUTTING THE SIGNS TO INFORM PEDESTRIANS OF WHERE THEY SHOULD BE TURNING TO TAKE ALTERNATE PATHS. THAT WAS A VERY IN THE WEEDS COMMENT ABOUT CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION. I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE LIKE COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS DID THAT I think it is possible to do higher story projects in the Spanish colonial style. The project you're thinking of at Claremont and Ninth is five stories, but I'm pretty sure Gateway Crossing that came before us a couple months ago is fully residential at the 7-Eleven site. I believe it's eight stories, and they did it in a Spanish colonial style. So it's definitely possible, though I understand it might require a higher level of investment. I'll also note that the loss of the three bedroom units in this project makes me a little bit sad. I was one of the people that when I moved to San Mateo, my family wanted to live downtown and there's just not a lot of availability downtown to begin with, especially if you are not a senior because a lot of our apartments and condominiums downtown are DEED RESTRICTED FOR SENIORS. SO HAVING MORE FAMILY UNITS DOWNTOWN IS GREAT BECAUSE IT ALLOWS PEOPLE WITH YOUNG KIDS TO LIVE NEAR THAT GREAT AMENITY, THE PARK AND ALL OF THE GREAT SHOPS AND RESTAURANTS. SO I WAS A LITTLE BIT BUMMED TO SEE THOSE THREE-BEDROOM UNITS GO AWAY. THAT SAID, I WAS THRILLED TO SEE THE INCREASE IN UNITS OVERALL. YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE MEASURE T IS REALLY HAVING A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY SO I'M GLAD THAT ANOTHER PROJECT IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE NEW HEIGHT AND DENSITY LIMITS TO PROVIDE SOME MUCH NEEDED HOUSING DOWNTOWN AND AS OTHERS HAVE NOTED TO A PART OF B STREET THAT CURRENTLY FEELS A LITTLE BIT SLEEPY. I HAVE A BEAUTIFUL DREAM THAT WE'LL SEE MORE PROJECTS LIKE THIS COME TO B STREET AND THAT SOMEDAY OUR PEDESTRIAN MALL CAN ACTUALLY SPAN TO THE OTHER SIDE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE AMAZING. But for now, I'm glad to see this project move forward. And I also love Ramen Dojo and Anatolian Market and Ravioli House. Those are three of my favorites. And I'm hopeful that they'll see some new customers come through because of this project. So those are all of my comments. Would someone like to make a motion? To the chair, I have another question.

Yes. So my comment was that we discussed high visibility crosswalks across B Street. And I think they should also be at the other end of the block at the entry to Central Park. What I meant was I think that that should be done as part of this project. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?

I WOULD DIRECT THAT QUESTION TO I WOULD DIRECT THAT QUESTION TO STAFF IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO STAFF IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO REQUIRE THAT GIVEN THAT THIS REQUIRE THAT GIVEN THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT ADJACENT TO THAT PROJECT IS NOT ADJACENT TO THAT INTERSECTION. INTERSECTION.

IS THAT I MEAN I GUESS I'VE IS THAT I MEAN I GUESS I'VE ASKED IT AND I GUESS I WANT TO JUST ASK ASK IT AND I GUESS I WANT TO JUST ASK IT AGAIN. AGAIN. IF THE PROJECT IS PROVIDING HIGH IF THE PROJECT IS PROVIDING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS ACROSS B VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS ACROSS B STREET FROM 6TH AND 7TH, IS IT STREET FROM 6TH AND 7TH, either it to also have them at I mean or move them to Laurel, but maybe also I have them at Laurel or is that because that's not adjacent to the project is it just not something that's feasible.

I'LL SPEAK TO THAT AND THEN IF PUBLIC WORK STAFF WANTS TO ADD ON BUT YEAH I THINK THE KEY IS THIS IS THE HALF BLOCK SO THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT'S MORE THAN HALF A BLOCK AWAY FROM THE PROJECT'S FRONTAGE SO UNLESS THERE WAS A CLEAR NEXUS DEMONSTRATED WE I MEAN IT WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING FOR US TO REQUIRE THAT IF WE HAVE SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS WE COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK AT THAT AS ANOTHER PROJECT BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A NEXUS TO REQUIRE THAT OF THIS PROJECT.

OK, thanks. Sorry to beat a dead horse. No worries.

You're good. Would you be able to put the resolution and I think it might be on a separate side than the conditions of approval. But yeah, this would be great. Do we have a motion?

Yes. So I will make a motion for this recommendation, including the additional condition of approval, but without number five for the applicant's agreement to this condition of approval.

SO WE'RE SAYING NOT NUMBER FIVE. SO WE'RE SAYING NOT NUMBER FIVE. WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO INCLUDE ONE WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO INCLUDE ONE THROUGH FOUR.

THROUGH FOUR. WE'RE MOVING TO INCLUDE IT.

WE'RE MOVING TO INCLUDE IT. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? DO YOU HAVE A SECOND?

SECOND. SECOND. HOWEVER, MAYBE HAVE A ROLL HOWEVER, MAYBE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER BUSH? COMMISSIONER BUSH? YES. YES. COMMISSIONER SHAMKUL? COMMISSIONER SHAMKUL? YES. YES. CHAIR PATEL? CHAIR PATEL? YES. YES. VICE CHAIR KLAFTER? VICE CHAIR KLAF

THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS ITEM. AND CLOSE THIS ITEM. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE A 10-MINUTE BREAK BEFORE TAKE A 10-MINUTE BREAK BEFORE THE NEXT ITEM, SO WHY DON'T WE THE NEXT ITEM, SO WHY DON'T WE COME BACK AT 8-10?

you music plays you you so so ¦ ¦ Thank you. Thank you.

THROUGH THE CHAIR WE'RE READY TO THROUGH THE CHAIR WE'RE READY TO BEGIN.

BEGIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WELCOME BACK FROM THE BREAK. WELCOME BACK FROM THE BREAK. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE NEXT WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, NUMBER ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, NUMBER TWO, ZONING CODE UPDATE STUDY TWO, ZONING CODE UPDATE STUDY SESSION. SESSION. SINGLE FAMILY AND LOWER DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY AND LOWER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY REGULATIONS. MULTIFAMILY REGULATIONS. WHO'S EXCITED?

WHO'S EXCITED? YAY, I AM.

We will start with a staff presentation, clarifying questions from the commission and then public comments. Members of the public will be given two to three minutes to speak depending on the number of speakers. Once the public comment period is closed, the commission will deliberate and provide input and guidance to staff. This item is a study session, so there will be no action taken on this item. Can we go ahead and start with our staff presentation?

YES, THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR PATEL AND GOOD EVENING, CHAIR PATEL AND GOOD EVENING, CHAIR PATEL AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COMMISSION. COMMISSION. I AM SUNG KWON, W-DIRECTOR OF I AM SUNG KWON, W-DIRECTOR OF I AM SUNG KWON, W-DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. ALONG WITH JOANNA JENSEN, ALONG WITH JOANNA JENSEN, ALONG WITH JOANNA JENSEN, PRINCIPAL FROM PLACEWORKS. PRINCIPAL FROM PLACEWORKS. PRINCIPAL FROM PLACEWORKS. WE WILL PROVIDE A PRESENTATION WE WILL PROVIDE A PRESENT So this is the project team. Zach Dahl, community development director, myself, deputy director and project manager, Joanna Winter, planning manager, and Elaine Ling, principal planner and deputy project manager. And I will turn it over to Joanna Jansen, who will introduce her team and talk about how Placeworks has been assisting the city with the zoning code update.

Great, thank you. As Sung said, my name is Joanna Jansen. I'm a principal in charge of Placeworks. I deeply apologize for creating the presence of both a Joanna and a Joanna for you during your meeting tonight. I am also joined by Amy Sinsheimer from She's a senior associate and I'm gesturing to the screen because she's with us virtually. She is the project manager of our zoning code update work for San Mateo and we're supported by other members of the Placeworks team as well who are not with us tonight. And on the next slide, I just wanted to say a little bit about our role on the project and how we're working with city staff. We're supporting staff with technical expertise in zoning and our experience in other zoning code updates. That's included research into best practice jurisdictions in California and beyond. We prepared a series of white papers that are on the Strive San Mateo website, and we continue to maintain that Strive San Mateo website as a resource for this project, just as it was during the general plan update. We're helping with planning and executing engagement throughout the zoning code update, and I'll talk a little bit more about how that looks. including facilitating virtual workshops and then of course ultimately we're going to be drafting code sections for staff to review but of course you know we're providing input suggestions advice and and material for staff review but ultimately city staff are the deciders about what to bring forth to the planning commission and the council for your consideration so now that you understand a little bit more about place works i'll bring it back over to sunk

Great, thanks Joanna. Here's the outline for the presentation. So I will start with the project background and then go over specific topics for single family and lower density multifamily. Joanna will briefly summarize the outreach and survey results and then I'll go over the discussion questions and then next steps in the project. So let's dive right in. The Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 was adopted by the City Council in March of 2024. Measure T was approved in November 2024, and the General Plan went into effect in December of 2024. CONCURRENTLY, THE CITY'S 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN MAY OF 2024 AND CERTIFIED BY HCD IN JULY OF 2024. 2024 WAS A BIG YEAR FOR THE CITY OF SAN MATEO. IN JULY OF 2025, THE CITY INITIATED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE. IN ADDITION TO In addition to implementing the general plan, this effort aims to modernize the zoning code by removing outdated regulations, simplifying and streamlining permit processes, and improving clarity and usability for both staff and the public. The comprehensive zoning code update will assess all elements of the zoning code with the goal of having an updated zoning code ready for city council consideration by mid, maybe Q3 of 2027. So what we're gonna focus on tonight are these four land use designations. So the residential very low is the R1 district, and then residential low one, residential low two, and residential medium one is the R2 through the R4. And for the R1, we're going to talk about setbacks, parking, review process. And then for lower density, we're going to talk about missing middle, setbacks, floor ratio, height, parking requirements, and review process and notice. As you consider those four districts, the Planning Commission may wish to consider the following general plan policies, which are provided on your screen and in your agenda report. These policies provide direction on housing design and processes. So I'll just scroll through these. So let's start with single family. I'll go through setbacks, parking, review process and public notice. I'm gonna go through these slides quickly so that we can review the topics after the presentation. SO THE SETBACKS, HERE'S A HIGHLIGHT OF THE SETBACKS IN THE R1 DISTRICTS. YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS RANGE FROM 15 TO 25 FEET. THE GARAGE SETBACK IS LIKE 20 TO 50 FEET AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE LAST COLUMN SAN MATEO PARK HAS A SPECIAL SET OF STANDARDS BECAUSE THOSE ARE TYPICALLY LARGER LOTS. In terms of parking, AB 2097 applies. You can see the areas in yellow in the map. And then also ADU law allows for demolition and removal of existing garage carports. And it's just an allowance that's set by the state. In terms of our current zoning regulations, we prohibit tandem parking, we prohibit parking in the front and side yards, and we include the garage space as part of the floor area ratio. In terms of the process and noticing, you can see on the first column there are several tiers of review processes, and then there are different notice and neighborhood meeting requirements on the third column. One of the things that the commission may wish to consider is that there are three entitlement paths for the various single family projects. So we have the SFDDR, we have the SPAR, and then we also have a special use permit process. having discretionary review for single-family adds to the cost and the processing time and complexity for homeowners we already talked through noticing and the neighborhood meetings So moving to lower density, I'm going to go through missing middle, setbacks, floor ratio, height, parking, review process, and noticing. There are some slight differences and similarities between single family and the lower density multifamily. Again, I'm going to go through these topics really quickly, and we can come back to the slides after the presentation. Missing middle can be based on income or affordability, income affordability or project typology. Since the zoning code can't really address larger economic issues, the focus of this study session is limited to zoning standards for missing middle product types, such as duplexes, triplexes, time homes. Here's a graphic of the various product types that the Planning Commission may wish to consider. And again, the missing middle is really focused on the R2 through R4 districts. The next topic is setbacks. Generally, the R2 and R4 has lower setbacks as the base, but then if you look at the heights, it increases the setbacks, and that's something that's unique through R4 compared to single-family. If you look at the FAR, the FAR ranges from 0.6 to 1, and then you can increase the FAR in R3 and R4 with a special use permit. In terms of height, the general plan has height in stories. So R2 is about one to three stories, R3 is two to four, R4 is three to five. And so we want to translate that into specific heights. One of the things that the plan commission can consider is that generally like the first floor is 11 to 12 feet and then upper floors can be 10 to 11. And we can talk through the specifics after the presentation. THE FIFTH TOPIC IS AB 2079. THAT ALSO APPLIES TO R2 THROUGH R4. IN ADDITION, IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS, THE DENSITY BONUS LAW APPLIES AND SO THERE ARE FURTHER RESTRICTIONS IN TERMS OF THE PARKING MAX REQUIREMENTS. HERE'S A TABLE OF OUR CURRENT PARKING REGULATIONS BY UNIT TYPE. IN TERMS OF THE REVIEW PROCESS AND NOTICING, THE REVIEW IN TERMS OF THE REVIEW PROCESS AND NOTICING, THE REVIEW PROCESS CAN GO ALL THE WAY UP PROCESS CAN GO ALL THE WAY UP TO CITY COUNCIL IF THERE IS A TO CITY COUNCIL IF THERE IS A DENSITY BONUS THAT REQUIRES THAT DENSITY BONUS THAT REQUIRES THAT THE HEIGHT BE ABOVE THE GENERAL THE HEIGHT BE ABOVE THE GENERAL PLAN. PLAN. THAT'S SOMETHING OUR CITY COUNCIL THAT'S SOMETHING OUR CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO REVIEW. WANTS TO REVIEW. YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE NOTICING YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE NOTICING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ARE AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ARE OUTLINED THERE. OUTLINED AND SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS, I MEAN, ALMOST EVERYTHING REQUIRES A PLANNING APPLICATION AND THERE'S, THERE ISN'T ANY EXCEPTIONS FOR SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT, LIKE EVERYTHING HAS TO HAVE A PLANNING APPLICATION IN THE R2 TO R4, WHICH CREATES A LONGER APPROVAL TIMELINES AND IT'S A BIT MORE WORK FOR EVEN SMALLER IMPROVEMENTS. AND THERE'S ALSO CHALLENGES AROUND STATE MANDATORY DEADLINES. So that's a highlight of our current regulations. I'll turn it over to Joanna Jansen to talk about outreach and recent survey results.

Great. Thank you, Sung. So I wanted to just start by making sure that we've shared our outreach approach with you for the zoning code update. As Sung mentioned at the outset of the presentation, many of the fundamental decisions about how San Mateo will look and feel over the future have really been set by the adoption of the general plan. And the zoning code is really implementing what we've heard from the public throughout that process. So our public engagement takes the form of planning commission and city council study sessions as well as stakeholder focus groups where we're really looking to talk kind of in depth on a technical level with frequent code users like architects and developers. We've had one round of those already. We do plan to do some more. Two virtual workshops over the course of the project. We had one back in January. Two in-person workshops. Online surveys, we've had two and I'm going to talk about those. And then we're always available for questions or comments at zoningupdate at cityofsanmateo.org. And again, I just want to really tout strivesanmateo.org as a place where interested parties can find out about upcoming meetings, review background documents, and draft documents once those are released. And when we do have opportunities to participate online, those are also at strivesanmateo.org. SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE, I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT SURVEYS, THE ONLINE SURVEYS WE'VE DONE SO FAR. TWO OF THEM. SURVEY NUMBER ONE WAS OPEN BACK IN JANUARY THROUGH MARCH. IT WAS REALLY PAIRED WITH THE RELEASE OF THE WHITE PAPERS WHICH GAVE SOME TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ABOUT TOPICS THAT WE KNOW THE COMMUNITY AND THE COUNCIL AND STAFF ARE INTERESTED IN ADJUSTING IN THE ZONING CODE INCLUDING SOME OF THE ONES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TONIGHT. And it was relatively technical. I don't know if any of you looked at this survey, but it was really kind of like a virtual option to look at similar questions as we were asking the stakeholders. We did hear from the council that it was too technical and not approachable for the general public. So we added survey number two. That was open April through June. We got 238 responses to 10 survey questions. They were aimed at a much broader audience and intended to be much less technical than survey number one. Both surveys have gotten great input. Both surveys, I'll talk about the results in just a second. Survey number two, in particular, we really heard that over 90% of the survey takers live in San Mateo. Many of them own property here. Some of them own businesses here. So we were really pleased to hear from folks and appreciate the effort of those who took the time to fill out our surveys. So in survey number one, in both surveys, we really heard a similar kind of range of perspectives that we heard through the general plan update, and then I know you hear in your discussions as well, those who support PERSERVING R1 CHARACTERISTICS AND R1 DISTRICTS PRETTY MUCH AS THEY ARE TODAY AND THOSE WHO ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN SEEING A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY THAT GOES FOR THE PARKING STANDARDS THAT GOES FOR THE NOTICING THAT WE ASKED ABOUT IN SURVEY NUMBER TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON SETBACKS I THINK ONE ONE ONE PIECE OF SURVEY NUMBER TWO THAT CAME OUT MAYBE MORE STRONGLY THAN SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS WAS THE STRONGEST PUBLIC SUPPORT IN SURVEY NUMBER TWO FOR REQUIRING NOTICE WITHIN 300 FEET BUT OTHER NOTICING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXAMPLE WE HAD PRETTY EVEN NUMBERS OF RESPONSES ABOUT THE RANGE OF DIFFERENT KIND OF MULTIPLE CHOICE OPTIONS FOR WHAT FOLKS COULD SUPPORT. in terms of more noticing, less noticing. So continue to hear a wide range of opinions and perspectives from the public. I do want to just highlight that these are online surveys, totally voluntary. Neither of these is like a statistically valid survey or a scientific survey. They're just intended to be an option for folks to offer input in a way that's convenient for them. And with that, I will turn it back over to Song to present some of the questions for tonight.

Great. Thanks, Joanna. Now that we've given Planning Commission quite a bit of information, let's dive into the questions. So question number one for single family districts. How should the R1 district development standards be updated to provide greater flexibility in how properties can be developed while still maintaining key requirements that align with community expectations and are important for supporting neighborhood character and context? Should the parking requirements for the R1 district be updated to increase flexibility and incentivize off-street parking? Opportunities include but are not limited to allowing tandem parking, allowing parking within required setbacks, and exempting garage area from floor area calculations. Three, how should the thresholds for when a single family project requires a planning application be updated or should planning applications for the single family projects that fully comply with zoning code be eliminated? Four, for single family projects that require a planning application, what's the appropriate level of notification that should be required? And then for the lower density multifamily districts, how should the development standards in the R2 to R4 districts, including setbacks, FAR height be updated to align the general plan and the housing elements? Are there specific development standards and or incentives that could support the production of small scale and missing middle residential development? How should the parking standards for duplex and multifamily projects be updated to align with state law while encouraging more off-street parking? to reduce the demand for on-street parking? And three, how should the review process for public notification requirements for duplex multifamily projects be updated to streamline and simplify the process while supporting appropriate public awareness and public engagement? Should certain alterations and additions to duplex and multifamily drawings that comply with the zoning code not be required a planning application? And these questions were drafted to kind of guide the Planning Commission's decision. The Planning Commission can provide other feedback for R1 through R4, and what staff is really looking for is high-level direction on these four standards. And so we can come back to the questions after the presentation, but I just wanted to give the Commission just an outline of the next steps. So we will summarize and evaluate all the input collected up to tonight's hearing. And then we anticipate publishing the draft zoning code, the draft zoning map and engaging the property owners starting in Q3 of 2026. DURING Q3 AND Q4 CITY STAFF AND PLACE WORK STAFF WILL BE DRAFTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT OF THE ZONING CODE AND WE ARE HOPING TO HAVE THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TO PLAN COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AT STUDY SESSIONS IN Q1 AND Q2 OF 2027 AND HAVING ADOPTION HEARINGS FOR THE ZONING CODE IN Q2 AND Q3 OF 2027. Thank you. This is the end of the presentation, and staff and consultants are available to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have.

Thank you so much. Actually, I think next we're going to go to public comment. So any members of the public who are watching online, because I don't see anyone here, who wish to speak on this item, please raise your hand now.

Through the chair, we have one request to speak in our virtual environment.

Great. With one speaker request, that will be three minutes.

Ken, you may unmute yourself and speak.

Hi, this is Ken Abreu, resident of San Mateo for over 40 years, and we have a business here as well. I just want to say this topic of the comprehensive zoning update is very important to get a handle on the housing shortage we have on the peninsula and in San Mateo as part of the peninsula. And I think looking at the staff report, I think they've done a good job of identifying ways to lower the costs, lower the time for proper developments to move ahead in terms of the parking area, parking issue. looking for ways to incentivize more off-street parking and give them flexibility to do that with the Tantum and parking in setback areas and not including a garage in the FAR all look like good ideas. So I would also say that the work they've done on looking at other cities that are models of what we could do that might be less restrictive while still maintaining a good community structure is very good. So I just want to encourage, let's look for ways that will lower costs. Let's look for ways that will reduce time consistent with having a good structure, but not causing additional unnecessary costs and time delays. So thank you for the opportunity to talk.

Thank you for your comment, Ken.

Sure.

and through the chair those are all our public commenters thank you i will go ahead and close public comment on this item so at this point i would like to pull my fellow commissioners and ask how many clarifying questions do y'all have i'm going to look to the left this time first Commissioner Bush is still counting. So I may have the answer to what I'm getting at.

Yeah, I have a bunch of questions. I have maybe six questions.

Okay, great.

Like just bigger picture. Yes.

Yeah.

I have a handful of five questions.

I THINK FOR ME, BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A BIG TOPIC, I THINK THINGS MAY COME TO ME AS WE KIND OF GO THROUGH, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OFF THE BAT.

I HAVE FIVE QUESTIONS, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE KIND OF SOME ARE PRETTY GENERAL, I GUESS. OKAY.

SO IF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE Good with this process. I'm going to suggest that since we don't have too many clarifying questions, we do all of our clarifying questions first. And then I'm going to suggest that we tackle these topics in the order that they were presented in the agenda report. So we start with single family and then we go through setbacks, parking, et cetera, et cetera, and then we move to multifamily and do the same. Does that make sense?

Can I say just one potential? Could we do the, to the extent there are, like my questions are grouped by single family and multifamily. And I worry that I'll forget.

So let's split our questions up by single family and multifamily. That would be helpful. Perfect. Okay. So I'm going to look left. Okay.

uh commissioner bush do you have any questions about single family um so thinking about um allowing garages to be excluded from the far could you just big i guess generally give us a sense of how much um buildable area would be gained on like a sort of representative house if we were to exclude garages from the far

So if you're looking at a two-car garage, it's about 500 square feet. And if you're looking at a three-car garage, it's about 750 square feet.

OK. Thank you all. Do you have any way of estimating, even anecdotally, how many of our discretionary review and SPAR applications per year involve projects that fully comply with all of the development standards but still require the discretionary review because they trigger one of these criteria?

Yeah, I think Elaine has a number in terms of how many single family related projects we have. Most of our projects are compliant. We don't get very many variance applications.

Elaine, do you have those numbers?

Yes, sir, the chair. Typically we receive 40 to 60 single family residential planning application a year. Okay.

And those are a range of small additions all the way to new houses potentially.

That is correct. Anything trigger planning application will be counted in this category, including ADODR, SB9, tool loss evaluation, and so on and so forth.

OK, SO IT'S PROBABLY NOT A FAIR FOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO ASK IF THERE'S A LIKE AVERAGE OR MEDIAN AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES TO PROCESS ONE OF THESE BECAUSE THERE ARE IT DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON WHAT THE APPLICATION IS FOR.

YEAH, IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE COMPLEXITY, HOW BIG THE PROJECT IS.

OK, THOSE WERE MY BIG PICTURE QUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SHAMKUL.

YEAH, I JUST HAD A QUESTION. With our current regulation, which provisions like, I guess, cause, generate the most confusion for applicants when pulling a permit for, say, an ADU?

THROUGH THE CHAIR, ONE PART OF CONFUSION STARTED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND WHAT TYPE OF PROJECT REQUIRE NOTICING A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. AND THE SECOND COMPONENT IS THE FLOW AREA CALCULATION. THE CITY'S FLOW AREA CALCULATION WAY TOO COMPLICATED. SAME THING GOES TO DAYLIGHT PLANE. WHAT PART CAN HAVE EXCEPTION, WHICH PART CANNOT HAVE EXCEPTION. THE FOURTH CHALLENGE IS BASEMENT DEFINITION. WHAT IS CONSIDERED AS A BASEMENT, WHETHER THAT COMES INTO FLOWER CALCULATION OR NOT. UM AND THEN LASTLY UM GO WITH FRONT YARD PAVING SO WE HAVE UM LIMITATION ON THE HARDSCAVE IN THE FRONT YARD WHICH IS ALSO A CHALLENGE FOR SOME DEVELOPERS THANK YOU YEAH I JUST WANTED TO ASK THAT SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT WITH THIS WOULD THIS BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS FOR APPLICANTS JUST TO MAKE THIS A LITTLE

you know, since we're doing the work, let's do the work that's needed for applicants. MY SECOND QUESTION FROM I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR BACK WE CAN QUERY THIS, BUT LET'S SAY WITHIN THE LAST TWO TO THREE YEARS, IS THERE ACTUAL OR YOU KNOW WHAT, HOW ABOUT WE GO BACK TO AS FAR AS THE ADU ZONING UPDATE, THE ADU UPDATE, HOW MANY APPLICATIONS HAVE WE RECEIVED FOR PERMITS FOR ADU BUILDOUTS?

I WANT TO SAY IT'S AROUND 90 IN THE APR, SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT.

IF WE GO BACK TO 2002 OR 22 WHEN WE ADOPTED THE UPDATED ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE WE'RE AROUND 350 APPLICATIONS. AND WE HAVE SLIGHT AROUND 300 PERMITS ISSUED FROM THAT.

JUST FROM OUR OWN EDIFICATION, HOW MANY OF THOSE ACTUALLY ARE SEEN THROUGH AND BUILT OUT OUT OF THOSE APPLICATIONS? number that or do those do any of those fall through the cracks and don't get built out

YEAH THERE'S ALWAYS A CERTAIN NUMBER FOR VARIOUS REASONS THAT YEAH THERE'S ALWAYS A CERTAIN NUMBER FOR VARIOUS REASONS THAT EITHER PERMITS THEY'RE APPROVED BUT EITHER PERMITS THEY'RE APPROVED BUT DON'T GET ISSUED SOMETIMES PERMITS DON'T GET ISSUED SOMETIMES PERMITS GET ABANDONED BUT I BELIEVE IN THE GET ABANDONED BUT I BELIEVE IN THE LAST YEAR WE WERE NORTH OF 90 PERMITS LAST YEAR WE WERE NORTH OF 90 PERMITS THAT WERE FINALLED BUT YEAH I THINK THAT WERE FINALLED BUT YEAH I THINK IT KIND OF THE NUMBER DWINDLES WITH IT KIND OF THE NUMBER DWINDLES WITH IT AT EACH LEVEL BUT OFTENTIMES AT EACH LEVEL ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF OUR ADU ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF OUR ADU ORDINANCE AND WE ACTUALLY JUST ORDINANCE AND WE ACTUALLY JUST WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS OUR CODE WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS OUR CODE UPDATE WON'T BE FOCUSING ON ANY UPDATE WON'T BE FOCUSING ON ANY CHANGES TO THAT OTHER THAN JUST ALIGNING CHANGES TO THAT OTHER THAN JUST ALIGNING IT WITH THE UPDATED SCHEME IN IT WITH THE UPDATED SCHEME IN THE ZONING CODE BUT WE'LL JUST BE THE ZONING CODE BUT WE'LL JUST BE ROLLING THAT FORWARD OBVIOUSLY ROLLING THAT FORWARD OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE ANY CHANGES WOULD REQUIRE BECAU

Okay, and just to piggyback off of that, so since everything's been certified by the HCD, was there anything that was agreed to from, that's gonna be required for us to implement now with this zoning update? Let's say, were there any amendments or anything like that in what was already certified by the HCD for, okay, when you guys do the zoning update, you must address X, Y, Z.

Yes, there are different facets, maybe not directly prescribing. We'd have to go back and look. But yeah, I think generally streamlining the process, simplifying standards. I don't know if we're looking so much in the single family context in this regard, but in our multifamily, we definitely have some policies and programs related to how we can support and facilitate missing middle. AND I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK BUT THERE WAS A COUPLE LOOK BUT THERE WAS A COUPLE OTHER PIECES AND PART OF OUR OTHER PIECES AND PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE IS MAKING SURE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE IS MAKING SURE THAT ANY APPLICAL REQUIREMENTS OR THAT ANY APPLICAL REQUIREMENTS OR CODE AMENDMENTS AS PART OF OUR CODE AMENDMENTS AS PART OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT WOULD BE FOLDED HOUSING ELEMENT WOULD BE FOLDED IN.

IN. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU CAN REFERENCE HOUSING YOU CAN REFERENCE HOUSING POLICY 1.6, 1.7, AND 1.12. POLICY 1.6, 1.7, AND 1.12. AND THAT'S TO ST

OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. I THINK THAT WAS MY QUESTIONS I THINK THAT WAS MY QUESTIONS I THINK THAT WAS MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW.

FOR NOW. FOR NOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KLAFTER, DO YOU COMMISSIONER KLAFTER, DO YOU COMMISSIONER KLAFTER, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

YOU SAID NONE, IF I REMEMBER YOU SAID NONE, IF I REMEMBER

I think I said they were going to come to me. Oh, they're going to come to you. Okay, great.

That's fair. That's fair.

No, just one though, just one right now, which is for R1, which is like the agenda report says primarily single family, but I think it would be good to kind of clarify that various new state laws allow for a greater number of units in R1 zones. Is that correct?

In R1 zone, SB9 does apply. And so that can be up to four units of, I think it's like 800 square feet. And then also ADU allows for three ADUs in addition to the main house. So that includes JADU, attached ADU, and a detached ADU. Okay, great. Thanks.

um i want to kind of piggyback um on earlier questions i guess we're talking about discretionary review and i want to make sure i'm understanding that correctly like what exactly does that mean versus a project i'm thinking about this from my past experience as an architect where you know a past project where you don't need to submit separately to planning you submit to the building department but it gets routed to planning for you know review of compliance and so tell me can you re can you sort of elaborate on those differences because if it doesn't need discussionary review it still needs a plan or two approve it.

If I may elaborate, I had a very similar question. So I think I'm going to piggyback off of you, which is you mentioned there's three pathways. There's the single family design review. There's the SPAR site permit. architecture review application, and then there's a special use permit. Oh, there they are. I was trying to figure out those three pathways, how they map onto that chart that you have as attachment three with the tier one, tier two, tier three, because I noticed some of these things say like SUP, but I didn't notice where these things require single family dwelling design review versus a SPAR application.

THROUGH THE CHAIR TO ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINISTRIAL APPROVAL AND DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. SO ALL BUILDING PERMITS ARE MINISTRIAL REVIEW. EVEN IF WE ENGAGE A PLANNER TO SIGN OFF ON THE PERMIT, WHICH WE JUST CHECK OFF THE ZONING STANDARDS, HARDLINE ZONING STANDARDS SUCH AS HIGH DAYLIGHT PLANE. WHICH THERE IS NO APPEAL PROCESS. THE DECISION IS MADE FINAL BECAUSE ALL THE STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING CODE AND PUBLIC WORK STANDARDS ARE OBJECTIVELY DEFINED WITH QUANTIFIABLE THRESHOLD. um is that the single family dwelling design review is that the ministerial path it is not this question okay so that ministerial path is not one of those three that are shown on that list that is correct okay all the items shown on the list is discretionary review process which means planner primarily is a planning application so planner will use um so-called subjective decision in review of consistency with the policy and guidelines such as the design shall be compatible with adjacent buildings neighborhood and then not detrimental to the development patents which will involve certain level of um discretionary review

Got it.

So we go back to that chart real quick. And I was just going to say my point in asking that is that I guess I want to point out that it will still be seen, every project will be seen by a planner, even if it's only at a ministerial level.

So and if I'm understanding correctly, it's the building permit that is the ministerial review on this list. Then once we go down to the next section, planning application, that means a SPAR.

SPAR or single family design review, SFDDR or SUP, which is special use. Perfect.

Got it. So all three of those things are considered a planning application. Do projects ever, sorry, I'm asking a thousand questions. I just totally took over from you. Go ahead. Do projects ever do all three? Like would you have both a single family dwelling design review and a SPAR application?

It can be, but it's really rare. It's either a spar with SUP or SUP with SFDDR.

Okay.

Thank you.

That was my question that I totally hijacked the floor from you. So please go ahead.

That's part of the conversation. No problem. I guess... mean i i guess the other question when you were talking about how you know what areas caused i know this is sort of like a weird question but as an architect i have to ask like how many of the projects that you were talking about where they're confused about far or they're confused about um you know the various things you were just mentioning how many of them are submitted without an architect and you know is that just a homeowner or do you feel that the applicant is inexperienced or unfamiliar with what they're doing?

That is correct. We have never done a survey to identify which I've done by licensed architect or which one I've done by designer and the homeowner. But typically speaking, if they are doing it the first time, they're definitely have some confusions. Even if they are hired architect, that architect have to have some experience with City of Sommertail to be able to pull the permits really fast.

I can confirm that.

I had a related I guess related to that I mean maybe this maybe this I was kind of touched on is there a is there a lead time a current lead time or does it just depend like we were somebody one of you guys asked this already like there's not a I mean is there a lead time I guess from the various, from submitting to getting approval that you can reference?

It depends on whether they need a neighborhood meeting or not so if a neighborhood meeting is required that cost typically 2 to 3 months just to get a neighborhood meeting done so that they can formally apply that planning application.

Once the supply does it take 2 or 3 months like that's not on the city that's on the applicant.

Partially, it's a process. For example, in the beginning, it will take a couple weeks for them to understand the whole process, which include a conversation, a long conversation with a planner, explain how to fill out the notice template. And then once that's been done, they need to formally submit it through the portal. And then we have a DRT, our technician, to review that. template and make sure they submit all the information that will typically take a week once that's approved we will provide a mailing list and then they need to mail out that plan and then notice at least 10 days prior to the neighborhood meeting and just print out all the plans and then put them in the envelope mail them out will typically take another week

I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COULD I ALSO ADD THROUGH THE COULD I ALSO ADD THROUGH THE CHAIR? CHAIR? THEY'RE ALSO WE'VE LIMITED THE THEY'RE ALSO WE'VE LIMITED THE NUMBER OF DATES THAT THEY CAN HAVE NUMBER OF DATES THAT THEY CAN HAVE THE MEETINGS BECAUSE WE WANT TO THE MEETINGS BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE AT TIMES MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE AT TIMES THAT ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE THAT ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. SO SOMETIMES ACTUALLY JUST SO SOMETIMES ACTUALLY JUST SCHEDULING THE MEETING IS SCHEDULING THE

Oh, one other question that's different than all of that, which is, Joanna, you mentioned on one of the slides all the different public meetings in your process, but I wasn't clear where we are in that process. That slide had a lot of things on your list.

Sure, through the chair. It's closer to the end, right before the questions.

There we go.

So this is our first Planning Commission study session out of the 12 total that we're gonna have with the Planning Commission and the City Council. We have had one meeting with the City Council as well. So we've done 10 out of those 12 so far, I would say. Stakeholder focus groups are a little more flexible. We had three focus groups in January and February. OF THIS YEAR, LIKE I SAID, WE HAD ONE VIRTUAL WORKSHOP BACK IN JANUARY, SO WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE. MY CURRENT THINKING WOULD BE THAT THAT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN AFTER THE DRAFT CODE IS PUBLISHED, BUT WE'RE JUST KIND OF WE DON'T HAVE THAT, LIKE, NAILED DOWN. WE WANT TO REMAIN FLEXIBLE FOR WHEN WE CAN DEPLOY THAT WHEN IT'S NEEDED. WE HAVE NOT HAD AN IN-PERSON WORKSHOP YET. AGAIN, I THINK IN MY EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS PRETTY technical information and it can be hard for the public to grapple with. And so we find that folks tend to get a little bit more interested, engaged when we have something to share. So again, I would anticipate those being most likely, those in-person workshops being most likely to happen after the code is published and we have something for folks to react to. And we have, I believe, a total of four online surveys anticipated. We've done two of those. But we want to very much remain flexible to be responsive to any public concerns or community ideas that come up.

If I may interject for a moment, I think you might have just answered one of my other questions and perhaps I missed it, which I was curious if there's going to be any study session with the city council before you develop that draft zoning code.

THROUGH THE CHAIR, I CAN WEIGH IN ON THAT. THROUGH THE CHAIR, I CAN WEIGH IN ON THAT. SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE PROCESS, NO. PROCESS, NO. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF VERY PARALLEL AND KIND OF VERY PARALLEL AND KIND OF TANGENTALLY RELATED TOPICS THAT TANGENTALLY RELATED TOPICS THAT WILL BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL. WILL BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE WE HAVE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE LOOKING AT ZONING CODE LOOKING AT ZONING CODE REGULATIONS RELAT WE ALSO HAVE A STUDY SESSION THAT WILL BE LOOKING AT SINGLE THAT WILL BE LOOKING AT SINGLE FAMILY REVIEW PROCESSES THIS IS FAMILY REVIEW PROCESSES THIS IS MORE FOCUSED ON THE BUILDING MORE FOCUSED ON THE BUILDING PERMIT SIDE BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT PERMIT SIDE BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP IF THE GOAL IS OF OVERLAP IF THE GOAL IS STREAMLINING AND SIMPLIFYING AND STREAMLINING AND SIMPLIFYING AND SO ACTUALLY A NUMBER OF THE TOPICS SO ACTUALLY A NUMBER OF THE TOPICS HERE I COULD SEE COMING FORWARD AND HERE I COULD SEE COMING FORWARD AND BEING PART OF THE DISCUSSION FOR BEING PART OF THE DISCUSSION FOR THAT STUDY SESSION BEFORE COUN I THINK THERE'S A THIRD. I THINK THERE'S A THIRD. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT DOING A WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT DOING A CITYWIDE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND CITYWIDE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND THERE'LL BE A COUNCIL STUDY THERE'LL BE A COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OR TWO ON THAT AND I SESSION OR TWO ON THAT AND I COULD SEE OVERLAP OR POTENTIAL COULD SEE OVERLAP OR POTENTIAL TOPICS THAT WOULD GET FOLDED TOPICS THAT WOULD GET FOLDED INTO THE ZONING CODE THERE. INTO THE ZONING CODE THERE. I THINK THOSE ARE THREE TOPICS I THINK THOSE ARE THREE TOPICS THAT WILL BE RELATED OR COULD THAT WILL BE RELATED OR COULD INFORM THE CODE

Oh, OK, thank you. Anybody else have any additional questions related to R1? I had a question.

What happens at a neighborhood meeting? It's just, hey, neighbors, doing this thing. Let me know how you feel about it, and I'll try to make my daylight plane different.

Yeah, that's kind of it. Did I nail it? That's my experience.

Having attended one or two on my street in many years in the past, it usually consisted of the getting to know your neighbors. Yeah. you know, saying, here, would you like a, here's some, here's a cheese plate and some wine and we'd like to show you our plans. And then me looking at it and saying, okay, sounds good. Nice to meet you.

I've been the, I've conducted them as the architect for homeowners and they are, um, often not that well attended because I haven't done any very controversial projects and people just want to see the plans and then they appreciate any help like walking through the plan and seeing what it is. So it's just a chance to talk and

MINE HAVE NOT BEEN THAT WELL ATTENDED SO WHICH IS ALL GOOD I IMAGINE IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE WHEN YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS AN OPEN HOUSE AND YOU'RE LIKE I'M GOING IN THE OPEN HOUSE BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON I THINK ONE THING I MIGHT ADD TO THAT TOO IS

the neighborhood meeting is conducted by the property owner and potentially their architect or designer city does not attend the city staff does not attend so it it really is just like hey neighbor yeah here's what i'm doing what do you think and are there certain things that are required to do or talk about you mentioned a template i assume that's just what information goes out to other homeowners but is there something they're supposed to cover while at the meeting or

WE DON'T REQUIRE ANY CONTENT TO BE COVERED IN THE MEETING. HOWEVER, WE REQUIRE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TO LAST 40 MINUTES FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND AT LEAST ONE HOUR FOR NON-SINGLE FAMILY. TYPICALLY IF THERE'S NOT WELL ATTENDED, THE APPLICANT HAVE TO STAY ONLINE AND RECORD MEETING SO THAT WE CAN RECEIVE A RECORDING AS APPROVED THEY HAVE DONE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. WE UPDATED THE NOTICE POLICY IN 2025. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FOR SINGLE FAMILY HAVE BEEN STREAMLINED. CURRENTLY THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT CONVERTED INTO A TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. So the number of the neighborhood meeting reduced significantly.

In your experience, after neighborhood meetings, do the applicants ever come back with input that they receive from neighbors? Have you ever heard that?

I mean, they're supposed to.

Yes, occasionally, if their neighbors provide comments for any improvement. OK, thanks.

And just a

CLARIFY ALAINE. CLARIFY ALAINE. FOR THESE LARGER PROJECTS STAFF FOR THESE LARGER PROJECTS STAFF OBSERVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD OBSERVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS BUT FOR THE SINGLE MEETINGS BUT FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY ONES STAFF DOES NOT FAMILY ONES STAFF DOES NOT OBSERVE?

OBSERVE? THAT IS CORRECT.

THROUGH THE CHAIR JUST KIND OF BUILDING ON THAT DISCUSSION I THINK SPEAKING MORE TO THE NON-SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS IN THIS NEW REALM WHERE STATE LAW DRIVES AND AS AS WE SAW WITH OUR EARLIER PROJECT TONIGHT I THINK THESE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS HAVE TAKEN ON A LARGER ROLE AND BECAUSE THEY IN A WAY CAN BE MORE OF THE FORUM AN EARLY LEARNING OPPORTUNITY AND SO INTERESTINGLY I THINK IN AN EARLY LEARNING OPPORTUNITY AND SO INTERESTINGLY I THINK IN THE NON-SINGLE FAMILY REALM THEY THE NON-SINGLE FAMILY REALM THEY HAVE EVOLVED AND I THINK STAFF HAS HAVE EVOLVED AND I THINK STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING TO KIND OF EVOLVE BEEN WORKING TO KIND OF EVOLVE OUR REQUIREMENTS WE DO NOW HAVE OUR REQUIREMENTS WE DO NOW HAVE A STAFF WE DIDN'T USED TO ALWAYS A STAFF WE DIDN'T USED TO ALWAYS HAVE A STAFF PRESENT AT THESE MEETINGS WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENT AT THESE MEETINGS WE NOW MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT AND NOW MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT AND DEPENDING ON THE also work with our public works team to have someone there so we kind of have identified them as an opportunity to provide resource and information so we're still observing but we may answer questions or engage or help support the discussion as it comes up

And I agree that it's really helpful for the neighbors to get familiar with it over time. So by the time the thing is built next door to them or whatever, they're used to it. And I would tell my clients to, if they don't know their next door neighbor, go talk to their next door neighbor and say hey there's going to be a neighborhood meeting and we're going to do this thing because otherwise they get something in the mail and then they're already kind of like on defense or offense i guess i should say so it's they're really valuable i think to start getting the neighbors familiar with what's planned yeah

FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I SHOWED ALL MY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS MY PLANS BEFORE I EVEN SUBMITTED THEM. I'M CURIOUS HOW MANY PEOPLE DO THAT. JUST SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA.

IT IS, YEAH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

YEAH. I GOT A QUESTION. SURE. IS THERE A COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP OR OUTREACH GROUP THAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS AT ALL ASIDE FROM planning commission here is there any other they're not a governing body or anything but just a community group like I know that we have other boards and commissions is there anything else that the community could provide input on in regards to this process we do not have a special committee for the zoning code update we've been taking direction from council what about the like neighborhood associations

I reached out to all the HOAs and invited them to this meeting.

Thank you.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. EXPEDIENCY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS EFFORT IS KIND OF A KEY EFFORT IS KIND OF A KEY EFFORT IS KIND OF A KEY PIECE OF IMPLEMENTING THE GENERAL PIECE OF IMPLEMENTING THE GENERAL PIECE OF IMPLEMENTING THE GENERAL PLAN AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT PLAN AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT PLAN AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE BALANCING AND SO WHY FOR WE'RE BALANCING AND SO WHY FOR WE'RE BALANCING AND SO WHY FOR THIS PARTICULAR EFFORT WE WE DIDN'T THIS PARTICULAR EFFORT WE WE DIDN'T THIS PARTICULAR EFFORT WE WE DIDN'T LOOK AT A KIND OF STANDING UP AN AT-HOT LOOK AT A KIND OF STANDING UP AN AT-HOT LOOK AT

Zone, scrolling through my notes. Okay. So I just want to confirm I am understanding our current code, specifically with regards to the daylight plane. I was curious what residential zones the daylight plane applies to, and if I am interpreting our municipal code correctly, I think it is only R1 and R2, because if you look at the R2 zoning code, There is a section 27.20.080 building height and daylight plane. And it says all regulations of the R1 district as to height and daylight plane shall apply to two family dwellings. And this is where I think there was a different project where I asked this before. Oh, it came up in the ADUs. So if you were to, this is a little bit in the weeds, so bear with me. If you do a single family home on, a R2 district, I think the R1 rules apply. And now in the R2 district, it says all regulations of the R1 district as to height and daylight plane shall apply to two family dwellings. So I think if you were doing a duplex in an R2 zone, this would kick you back to the R1 zone with respect to the daylight plane. But now we live in a world where you can do two primary units on a R2 zone. And I think you can also do three ADUs. You can do a JADU, an attached ADU, and a detached ADU. So that is the potential for five units on an R2 zone. if you were doing a project in an R2 zone that had five units all at once, like someone's scraping a property and is coming back and they're like, I'm gonna build my two primary units and my three ADUs all at once, would the building height and daylight plane of R1 apply or not because it's more than a two family dwelling?

Through the chair, the daylight plane and height still apply. However, for ADU, we do have ADU-DR process to allow them to encroach into the daylight plane. State law also carve out exceptions for by-right ADUs. By-right ADU means 800 square feet, so they can encroach into daylight plane.

Okay, thank you. That is helpful. So basically, Yes. All the 80. Yes. Okay. Yep. Got it. But if you were to do five units on an R4, the daylight plane would not apply because the daylight plane only applies to R1 and R2.

Through the chair. That's correct. Yeah.

Okay. I'm going to get into that later, but I just wanted to make sure I understood that correctly. OK, that was all my questions. So shall we move into comments? And I'm going to suggest that we start with a single family development standards and we start with setback requirements. So who would like to go first with input on setback requirements?

i have a i have one bigger picture input that i think applies to all the requirements from my perspective which is i don't think we should be the most restrictive jurisdiction for anything so there was at least one suggestion one setback where we are the most restrictive and i would suggest that that not be the case anymore do you recall which setback that was

I'm sure it's in my notes.

Yeah, it was the one that it was the rear setback, but I think in multifamily zones because it said it was potentially double or triple other jurisdictions.

Well, there was something about garages, too, where sometimes the setbacks are greater than the primary dwelling setback.

I would agree with that comment. I also think we should not be the most restrictive. Yeah, I guess to be even more

To share and even more on whatever to share another opinion about it. I think we should be my perspective writ large would be we should be like 75% of the way towards not restricted. I don't know how that's going to play out. And with with respect to each specific standard, but that's where I would fall on the general scale of there's some jurisdictions that seem to be quite restrictive for certain things. some jurisdictions that seem to be quite capacious.

On the bell curve, you want to be at the 75% point.

So that's just like a big picture thought. I do not have specific comments off the cuff about like specific setbacks currently, but I will maybe later.

We don't, there's no second story set, I'm not seeing a second story setback, a different setback for second stories. Corner lots. Huh?

It's for corner lots.

But just in general, I'm not seeing a different second story setback in the R1 zone, right?

It is for corner lots. There is.

For corner lots. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't see that.

Through the chair, we do have second story setback, further setback, even if not on the corner lot. Oh, okay.

Yes. Yeah.

in the r1 in r1 zoning district um the intent for the further setback is to tear off the second story massing from the ground floor so that we don't end up with a box like single family residence yeah

YEAH, IF WE'RE INTO COMMENTS.

YEAH, WE'RE INTO COMMENTS. GO FOR IT.

YEAH, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, I THINK, THAT THERE WAS A SECOND STORY SUBJECT. PLUS THAT AND THE DAYLIGHT PLANE, I DO THINK IT TENDS TO RESULT IN SOME PRETTY ODD-LOOKING SECOND STORIES.

WHERE I'M GOING TO INTERJECT AND ASK STAFF TO SHOW THE DIAGRAM THAT IS in section 27.18.090. I asked this to be put on a slide. Oh, it's actually the next one. No, wait, go back one. I think it's that one, isn't it? No, previous one. It is this one. yes so you will see on this diagram that there is a ground floor setback and then there is an additional second story setback and then the planes of the roof are meeting the daylight plane requirements um this is what i would say like i was going to have an overall general comment i'm just going to jump in and say up until this point my one overall general comment is it feels like up until this point we've kind of had a lot driven set of regulations like here are all these things that you can do with respect to your lot like framed from the perspective of your lot and i think what that does is it creates a building envelope that you can play in and this is the building envelope for corner lots And we often get asked questions. I often get asked questions. Why do new homes look so weird? And my answer to that question is because of this building envelope, because people are trying to maximize the amount of space in their home. And so they build the most that they can. And this is the envelope we give them. And so they build to this envelope. And my general comment, although I realize this is maybe not what staff was going for, is I actually think we should take a different perspective and think about what are the forms that we are trying to build and then what regulations do we need to make to allow those forms possible? Because I think what people like what the average person really cares about is what is the home look like? They don't really care about what is the angle of the daylight plane? Does it start 12 feet above the ground or 10 feet above the ground? Is the second story set step back at five extra feet or ten extra feet? At the end of the day, they just care that it's a nice looking home.

I disagree with some of what you said. So, I mean, my experience as, you know, 40 years of being an architect is, I think, is, you know, the lot is That is important. That's where we start. We're looking at the adjacencies. We're looking at the landscaping, the trees that are there or on neighboring sites. I mean, we're paying respect to the adjacencies. And that's why these setbacks are there. There's reasons for all of these setbacks. And maybe they're not. THE CURRENT WAY OF THINKING, BUT THEY DO HAVE TO DO WITH PRIVACY, NOISE, FIRE, FIRE SAFETY, LIGHT, SHADE, AIR, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE ACCESSIBILITY ON A SIDEWALK. IF YOU HAVE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE SET BACK continuous across the garage you have you have the cars blocking the pedestrian path of travel sticking out into the driveway so you know yes this diagram looks funny but that's not what the architecture looks like when it's done when it's done it's detailed it's got you know, obviously lots more to it, overhangs, windows, whatever. And then there was something else you just said. Oh, that people don't care about, you know,

a daylight plane well they do i mean i've been in neighborhood meetings where they're like okay you're you know your windows looking into my window or this is shading this and i mean that is what people care about yeah to clarify i didn't mean that they don't care about privacy i meant they don't care about the technical details of the daylight plane yes right like what they actually care about is like does this building look nice and do i have a sense of privacy yeah

I do think people start to care about some of these rules when they go to build a second story addition.

That is when people care.

And if you have to set in your second story wall from your first floor wall by a certain amount, there is a structural cost to that, which can get pretty difficult to cover because you have to I mean, you know a lot of times people are having to you have to rip off your entire ceiling your entire roof and restructure your entire you know top of your tire, you know plate above the first level and You know that would be a lot easier if you could just go straight up I now I don't think that I think I understand the idea of avoiding boxes To some extent you can do that by articulating the mass anything but I mean, we're going to get to the missing middle, and I'm going to make a comment there, but I'll just really quickly point out like we have these images of buildings which exist all over the this country and in older neighborhoods in this city where you know they've got flat roofs it's two three stories just stacked on top of each other the they they they generally have a nice aesthetic appeal people like you know either don't notice them or walk by and say oh that's a nice little duplex or whatever um and older homes you know older single family homes too usually are

Victorians, I've never seen a Victorian with a second story step back.

Boxes tend to be the most efficient form. I'd love to see, I'd love to see, I still love to see things that aren't just a box, MYSELF, BUT MY CONCERN ABOUT THESE SETBACKS AND THINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GO ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR IS THAT IT CAN, THERE'S A COST TO THAT AND IT DOES RESULT IN FORMS THAT I WALK BY AND I DON'T WANT TO SHAME ANY SPECIFIC HOMES. I'M LOOKING AT A HOUSE ON MY COMPUTER RIGHT NOW AND I'M LIKE I DON'T KNOW. THAT CLEARLY WAS DICTATED BY CODE AND I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD HAVE CHOSEN TO DO THAT OTHERWISE. there's other ways to achieve privacy goals too. I mean, you know, there's like, I was looking in preparation for this, I was looking at, you know, places where, you know, they're, they're, they're switching from, from the, uh, the setbacks and daylight planes and things. And they're thinking about like, okay, you know, like window placement and, and, uh, uh, landscape screening and, and other types of things that achieve similar goals without, um, being quite so restrictive in terms of the design.

I'M SORRY, I KEEP INTERJECTING. I'M SORRY, I KEEP INTERJECTING. I LIVE NEXT TO A BOX WHERE I LIVE NEXT TO A BOX WHERE THE SECOND FLOOR WAS ADDED TO A THE SECOND FLOOR WAS ADDED TO A KIND OF 1920s BUNGALOW HOUSE. KIND OF 1920s BUNGALOW HOUSE. SO I HAVE A GIANT TWO STORIES SO I HAVE A GIANT TWO STORIES STUCK A WALL NEXT TO MY HOUSE AND STUCK A WALL NEXT TO MY HOUSE AND YARD. YARD. AND WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS. AND WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS. I LOVE THEM SO I OVERLOOK THE I LOVE THEM SO I OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THE SIDE OF THEIR FACT THAT THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE IS REALLY UGLY. HOUSE IS REALLY UG I also have to your point I have done numerous second floor additions and that was like one of the first things we talked about is how destructive it is to the first floor and the cost of adding sheer walls and footings below and all of those things but you know I mean in the scheme of things they get a full another floor over the house so nothing's no nothing's everything's costly yeah

SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LIKE THE SPECIFIC COMMENT IS LIKE REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT THE SECOND FLOOR REQUIRES A GREATER SEPARATE FROM ONE OR MULTIPLE SIDES.

SO I DERAILED US BECAUSE I MADE THIS GENERAL COMMENT THAT WAS LIKE I DON'T LOVE TAKING A lot based approach. I would prefer to take a form based approach. Commissioner Williams disagreed with me. That's cool. That's what this is about. But yes, we were supposed to be talking about setbacks. I do have very copious and detailed opinions on setbacks, but I don't want to dive into my list before everybody else has a chance to discuss their opinions on setbacks in single family zones.

I will just say that I think the setbacks are satisfactory.

OK. I did have some that I found. I just finally found my notes, lots of notes. I guess I agreed with the things flagged in the agenda report as maybe not making a ton of sense. So the garages having setbacks sometimes that are greater than the primary dwelling setback. with the understanding that you would want to, try to think about people parking and not blocking the sidewalks. So I think trying to make that more uniform makes sense. There was a comment about San Mateo having larger street side setback requirements for primary structures than most jurisdictions or maybe some other jurisdictions. So I would be fine mirroring more of the other jurisdictions and reducing the required setback on the street side particularly um and then we don't have a mechanism for reducing side and rear setbacks and some other jurisdictions have that that mechanism to do so on irregular or small lots and i would be comfortable with with that creating a mechanism for doing so with the understanding that i do think that privacy is like maybe if not the most important thing to a lot of homeowners and that it should be of paramount concern to i think my goal with setbacks particularly would be To the extent the goal of the comprehensive zoning code update generally is to streamline and make things easier, I'm fully in support of doing whatever we can to do that. But I think that maintaining people's privacy in the R1 districts I think would be a paramount concern of mine because I think most people would say that that is critical to their enjoyment of their home. I think setbacks are a place that can start to encroach on privacy if we get too liberal with them.

I WILL MAKE ONE QUICK RESPONSE TO THAT WHICH IS I THINK IT IS A LITTLE BIT ODD THAT WE ARE GENERALLY MORE CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY IN R1 ZONES THAN IN R2, R3, R4 ZONES. IS IT THAT THE PRIVACY OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY HOMES DOESN'T MATTER AS MUCH? IS IT THAT PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY ZONES DO SO KNOWING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE LESS PRIVACY AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH THAT?

Wait, who said that we don't care about privacy?

Well, we don't have as many of these requirements, right? We don't have daylight plane requirements in R3, R4. I don't know if we have window offset requirements. Like it's never come up before. I mean, just now when we did 616, nobody talked about like, are the windows offset to the Gramercy next door?

RIGHT, BUT THAT'S A MUCH BIGGER DISTANCE. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT ALL THE TIME WHEN WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, AN L-SHAPED BUILDING AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK IN THOSE PEOPLE'S WINDOW. ACROSS THE STREET IS NOT USUALLY AS CRITICAL.

WELL, IN SOME OF THESE, LIKE, THERE'S NO SOME OF THESE BIGGER PROJECTS ARE COMING TO US AND GETTING A WAIVER FOR NO SETBACK, RIGHT? EVEN ON THAT PROJECT, 616, HAD A ZERO FOOT SETBACK ON THE REAR LOT. So it just seems odd to me that we're so concerned with privacy in the R1s and we don't have similar requirements for the other zones.

Well, we can't have similar requirements. They can request waivers and concessions and we can't say anything about it. So, I mean, you're asking the wrong person. Yeah, I know. But I wanted to just comment on the comment about the, you know, Creating the same plane across a garage as the rest of the house that brings the garage front and center and you know what I love to see is when the garage is less important than the front door and you see the front door and the entryway first whether whatever kind of Zoning it is whether it's our one or two or whatever You know the garage door is should be recessed and not just for protecting the pedestrian zone in front of the house but also to like create some articulation in the front of the house. So I feel like that's really important to maintain 20 foot setback to a garage door.

Well that's kind of interesting because in my neighborhood the front doors are on the side of the house and or they are set they are set back farther than the garage so i think yes i think i think creating the flexibility to allow the garage to be as far up as the primary but then allowing homeowners to design it in the way that they think looks best is i think to the extent we're trying to create efficiencies and flexibilities like that would be a way a way to do it

Yeah, and I would respectfully disagree with you because I live in a neighborhood that homes were built in the 1920s and the 1930s. And all of the homes around me have garages that are either flush with the front door or actually more prominent. Yeah, Spanish colonial style, right? And so I look at these old Spanish colonial homes where, especially on corner lots where the garages are on the side and they are more prominent, they're not set back, or even ones where the garages are on the front and you've got like the garage and the porch in a pretty equal plane. And those are like beautiful old Spanish colonial homes. I don't think that they're ugly at all. So I think it completely depends on the architecture. Yeah. Yeah. I have more detailed thoughts, but I don't want to get into my laundry list until other people get to talk.

Yeah. I just, I think for me in the R1, because I think in the R2, some of these, like some of the, especially like second story setbacks, like really start to make a lot of missing metal, I think difficult, if not impossible. But in the R1, I think it comes, you know, it's like if, again, I'm thinking more about people who want to renovate and want to expand, want to go up and find that it is a lot more expensive than they anticipated because of some of these daylight plane, plus the setback happening at the same time And I don't think that loosening that or reappraising that or thinking about how to make that a little bit. And I imagine there are ways to do that that do not infringe on people's privacy to a grievous extent. Sometimes that can mean just like going up, maybe part of the addition can go up, directly up. And maybe part of it has to be set back or stepped back rather than set like just set back based on the on the edge of the lot, for instance. And again, like maybe some of these kind of newer ideas, like, you know, if you have a neighbor and they're. you know, bathroom is direct, like windows directly across from where you want to put a big window. Maybe there would be something say, well, no, you actually kind of have to angle that window a different way, or you have to move it over a little bit or something like that. And that gets you the privacy without, you know, being quite so restrictive on the form. Because again, I see a lot of additions going up. I'm pretty sure I'm in an R1 area and I see a lot of additions going up and I'm like, why does it look like that? And it's like, oh, it's because they did not have any choice.

Yeah, I mean, I totally agree. I remember we were talking about ADUs, like some of the options were, oh, you can't have a window if you're going to be within this. So I'm totally in alignment with other opportunities to create, to maintain privacy even if the even if we do decide that you know it would make it easier and cheaper for people to build a second story if you didn't have to have the the setback um where on this chart oh on the chart where does it talk about the depth or maybe on this about the depth of the second story separate bottom left corner 10 foot minimum oh 25 feet there okay yeah Is that true of all lots or just because this one has like weirdly two garages, I get it's a corner lot.

Oh, it's just showing you that if you have your garage on the side, you would have it, it would still have to be 20 foot set back.

Yeah. I do think looking, it's funny, I mean, I imagine the age, I imagine this diagram is about that old, but I'm looking at this diagram and I'm thinking this looks exactly like a lot of homes in my neighborhood, which are from the 50s and, you know, probably they were building exactly that box with that garage. up through the 70s or 80s or something like that. I'm seeing the age of the house just looking at this diagram. And I think that also kind of speaks to like, yes, I'm glad we're working on an update now because architecture has changed a little bit. I don't want to be in a position where I'm dictating to people every single little detail of style. in every case.

In the interest of moving us forward beyond the first bullet point of 12 bullet points, I'm going to go through my laundry list now. Please.

That'll help.

And then maybe that'll spur some additional comments. So I already went through my general comment about thinking about form-based codes rather than lot-based codes. Talking about garage setbacks, I was trying to figure out and this is where I've mentioned before I mentioned this in the in the staff meeting, it would be great to have intent written down somewhere, like ideally in the zoning code, because sometimes you come here 50, 70 years later and you're like, what? Why was why did they do that? Why was this like this? So I was thinking about like, why was there this requirement that the garage be set back so far and farther than the primary dwelling? And so one thought I had is maybe to your you mentioned Commissioner Williams, like garages can be kind of ugly and like I don't want them super prominent in the facade. So like maybe this is about hiding ugly garages. And I think if that is the goal, we can solve that through design requirements. RIGHT.

A PARKING SPACE IS TYPICALLY A PARKING SPACE IS TYPICALLY LIKE 18 FEET LONG. LIKE 18 FEET LONG. YEAH. YEAH. I'M GETTING TO THAT TOO.

I'M GETTING TO THAT TOO.

YOU'RE PARKING IN THE PUBLIC YOU'RE PARKING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. RIGHT OF WAY. YEAH.

YEAH. AND SO THEN THE NEXT IDEA I AND SO THEN THE NEXT IDEA I THOUGHT WAS WELL MAYBE THE GOAL THOUGHT WAS WELL MAYBE THE GOAL OF A GARAGE SETBACK IS A WAY OF A GARAGE SETBACK IS A WAY TO FORCE PROVIDING OFF STREET TO FORCE PROVIDING OFF STREET PARKING BECAUSE YOU NEED A PARKING BECAUSE YOU NEED A DRIVEWAY TO GET TO THE GARAGE DRIVEWAY TO GET TO THE GARAGE WITHOUT RUN THEN I WORRY THAT IF WE REQUIRE THIS REALLY LARGE GARAGE SETBACK, RIGHT, LIKE AN 18-FOOT SETBACK, THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE WITHIN THAT HALF MILE RADIUS OF MAJOR PUBLIC TRANSIT, THAT THEY WILL TRY TO FIT AN 18-FOOT SETBACK OR 20-FOOT SETBACK OR 15-FOOT SETBACK and then a garage on their lot and we'll be like this is really complicated i can't get this like tetris to work the way i want it to and will instead decide to forego off-street parking so i'm a little worried if we make the garage setback requirement too onerous people just won't provide off-street parking within those zones And at the same time, sorry, again, this is really in the weeds. I don't know how to square. Like at first I thought exactly what commissioner Bush said, let's just have the garage setback match the dwelling setback. Right. Then it's simple. But then a lot of these setbacks, um, like for our one B, uh, and R1C and R2 are 15 feet, but a legal parking space is 18 feet, I think, right? Right. So then you've now created 15 feet of wasted space because you cannot legally park a vehicle on that driveway without overhanging the sidewalk.

Yeah, people are going to walk into it.

Yeah, and so then I'm like, maybe garages should have no setback because the idea of requiring an amount of space that is less than the distance of a legal vehicle just feels like forcing people to have wasted paved space on their lot. I don't actually have an answer here. I'm hoping to have a discussion because this was one of the ones where I went around in my head a million times of what the right answer is. I don't love the idea of forcing people to have a setback that is wasted paved space, but I can also understand why some people might recoil at the idea of a zero garage setback. Although there's one directly across the street from me and it looks lovely.

I MEAN, I SEE THAT ON THE ALLEYS LIKE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. YEAH. AND THEN SOME, YOU KNOW, THE GARAGE IS RIGHT UP TO THE ALLEY TO THE PROPERTY LINE. YEAH.

WHAT I FINALLY CAME UP WITH IS MAYBE THE RIGHT ANSWER IS TO ALIGN THE GARAGE SETBACK TO THE PROPERTY SETBACK BUT TO SOMEHOW INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO VOLUNTARILY PROVIDE A GREATER SETBACK THAT WOULD CREATE A LEGAL PARKING SPACE IN THE DRIVEWAY. THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

We couldn't even get the last applicant to voluntarily put high visibility crosswalks somewhere.

I had a concern that I think touches on this, which is that a lot of people in a lot of our neighborhoods use their garage as storage space. Yeah. Reducing the setbacks so that there's not parking in the driveway, I think, is going to lead to a lot of people parking on the street. Because a lot of people do not use their garage to park. You know, maybe that changes if the if the if when we get to the discussion about the garage not counting towards far so that your house can be a little bigger and then maybe that accounts for the storage space. But yeah, I'm I would say the majority of people in the neighborhoods I frequent do not park more than one car in their garage. So I don't know, just adding that to the mix here.

I'm not sure about the zero foot setback but I could see like if I could get behind like a five foot setback on a garage in the front in the rear maybe no setback or wherever these alleys are they're talking about so my next item in my very long laundry list is I think we need to consider properties that abut an alley as a special use case because right now they're not and so I think garages facing an alley should be allowed to have a zero setback And the rear yard requirement currently constrains the size and placement of a garage abutting an alley. So you can have a zero foot setback as long as you don't cover more than 50% of the required rear yard and as long as the garage is not above a nine foot plate height in R1. So that's just a lot of extra constraints that don't exist if you are putting your garage on the front or the side. And if people abut an alley, then you know, to me, it makes sense to just let them have the zero foot setback. And clearly that used to be the case at some point, because I mean, clearly a lot of this is new from 1930s. Cause again, I look at my neighborhood and every property on my alley has a garage with a zero foot setback. Isn't that currently allowed? I mean, but only if you don't cover more than 50% of the required rear yard. And if you limit the plate height to nine feet, So there's extra requirements that aren't present for garages in other locations. And I think that makes sense if you don't abut an alley, right? Because there's a yard right next to you. But if you abut an alley, there's not a privacy concern of the plate height. There's not like your garage isn't going to be looming over someone else's property.

Yeah, I mean, my garage is an eight foot plate height. It's adequate and it's a single car garage and it has a zero lot, zero setback to the to the alley.

But if we're trying to incentivize more off street parking, we probably want to have people provide more than one space. And I'VE BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE, BUT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ARE THEORETICALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PARKED AND COVERED OFF STREET PARKING. THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PARKED ON THE STREET AND MANY OF OUR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES THESE DAYS ARE TALLER THAN AN EIGHT FOOT PLATE HEIGHT GARAGE WOULD FIT.

COULD I GET A QUICK CLARIFICATION ON THE, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN R1, A, B AND C.

YEAH.

THROUGH THE CHAIR, SO R1A, B, AND C REFER TO DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT. SO EACH OF THE ZONING DISTRICT TYPE REFER TO DIFFERENT MINIMUM LOSS SIZE, DIFFERENT SETBACK, AND HIGH REQUIREMENT. WELL, HIGH REQUIREMENT TYPICALLY ARE THE SAME.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND I THINK THE BIG THING HERE IS LIKE notice the difference between the garage setback distance and the street side setback distance so that means like what you end up have happening is that people who have corner lots that want to make a garage end up having to basically put the garage in the middle of their backyard if they want the garage to access from the street side it's just an incredible amount of wasted space OK, I've beaten the garage. We don't have to talk about the garage anymore. I think I think I gave my thoughts. So street side setbacks. I'm not done yet. OK, I don't understand why street side setbacks are larger than interior setbacks. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THE PURPOSE OF A SETBACK TO COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS POINT AND COMMISSIONER BUSH'S POINT IS PRIVACY IMPACTS AND NOT HAVING PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY LOOMING OVER THEM REALLY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. ON A STREET SIDE, YOU'VE GOT SIDEWALK AND A STREET AND ANOTHER SIDEWALK BETWEEN YOUR PROPERTY AND ANOTHER PROPERTY. And so it's never made sense to me that our street side setbacks are larger than our interior side setbacks. I would have actually thought it would be the reverse. And so I asked my little planning commissioner hive mind and and it turns out in other jurisdictions, they're not larger. So San Bruno is an example. And someone should double check me on this because maybe he I THOUGHT IT WAS TO MAINTAIN THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ALONG THE

Yes, I can weigh in on that. The general principle is that a corner lot, you're relating to two different blocks. And both of those blocks for the adjacent interior lots have front yards. And so your corner exterior side yard setback is kind of bridging the difference. Obviously, a corner lot would be significantly constrained if you had two front yard setbacks. But on a block where, say, maybe you have an adjacent interior lot on each side, a larger exterior side street corner lot, you're bridging the gap. So maybe you're a 25 foot front yard setback on that adjacent lot on either side. You've got your 25 foot on one. PUTTING 25 ON BOTH WOULD REALLY PUTTING 25 ON BOTH WOULD REALLY CREATE A CONSTRAINED ENVELOPE. CREATE A CONSTRAINED ENVELOPE. BUT YOU DON'T WANT A HOUSE THAT BUT YOU DON'T WANT A HOUSE THAT STICKS SO MUCH FURTHER OUT THAN STICKS SO MUCH FURTHER OUT THAN THE RHYTHM OF THE REST OF THE THE RHYTHM OF THE REST OF THE STREET. STREET.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THAT SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THAT EXTERIOR SIDE SET BACK THE WAY IT EXTERIOR SIDE SET BACK THE WAY IT IS. IS. WE HAVE YET ANOTHER WE HAVE YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR EDGE CASE OPPORTUNITY FOR EDGE CASE CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IN MY CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IN MY NEIGHBOR SO THERE IS NO CHANGING RHYTHM BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT, YOU HAVE AN ALLEY AND THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER LOT. AND SO BOTH OF THE, THERE'S NOT LIKE A MIDDLE PROPERTY BETWEEN THE TWO CORNER PROPERTIES THAT WOULD HAVE A DEEPER FRONT YARD SETBACK. So that's why like in my neighborhood, I was always like, why is this street side setback bigger? It doesn't make sense to me.

It was your comment specifically about corner lots or it's all the...

So street side setbacks only apply to corner lots because that's what a street side is. It's the secondary street on a corner lot property. Okay, thanks. I got it. yeah so that's just my comment the point about edge cases i i think the goal here is to is uniformity totally yeah but uniformity but like flexibility at the same time yes right yes because like that in that neighborhood that requirement doesn't make sense and it just feels like

I mean that argument doesn't make sense but the I think that the increased setback may still make sense because you you're walking along the street let's say or riding your bike or your trike or whatever you know I mean children like it gives more green space it gives more SIDEWALK AND THE PERSON'S BEDROOM WINDOW OR SOMETHING. BEDROOM WINDOW OR SOMETHING. SO LIKE WHY NOT? SO LIKE WHY NOT? WHY NOT PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE WHY NOT PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE BREATHING ROOM BETWEEN THE PUBLIC BREATHING ROOM BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND THE WINDOWS OF THE HOUSE? AND THE WINDOWS OF THE HOUSE?

SO AGAIN I'M OBVIOUSLY VERY SO AGAIN I'M OBVIOUSLY VERY BIASED BY MY OWN EXPERIENCE AND BIASED BY MY OWN EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE AND THIS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT KNOWLEDGE AND THIS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS BUT IN MY IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS BUT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THE PROPERTY LINES ARE NEIGH So then when you have another seven and a half foot setback, that's like 11 and a half feet.

It's because the right of way was never built. Yeah, the full width.

Meanwhile, on the interior side, like both my home and my neighbor's home are built pretty close to the five foot setback. So it just feels like

when you look at from from the front of my lot it's like why is this whole building shifted over but you can't rely on you know your property line like you have to rely you have to think of it from your property line because your right of way was never built to its full potential and someday somebody 10 years from now might say that street should be wider and they could go in and make the street wider maybe nobody would like it but i'm just saying it's a possibility so your property line is your you know your guiding PRINCIPAL. AND IF YOU BUILD YOUR HOUSE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN YOU'RE CLOSER TO THE CARS IN THE FUTURE.

I GUESS I WILL JUST RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE AND SAY THAT LIKE I DON'T THINK TWO AND A HALF FEET IS MAKING, BECAUSE IT'S FIVE FEET AND SEVEN AND A HALF FEET IS THE DIFFERENCE. I DON'T THINK TWO AND A HALF FEET IS ADDING APPRECIABLE BREATHABILITY, BUT IT DOES MAKE LAYING OUT A PROPERTY weird sometimes like you get into weird like again the building envelope ends up looking weird and so then you end up in these like weird designs so that's just my comment i i would consider and people could disagree with me like simplifying the whole side setback thing and just making them more uniform and so that goes into my next note i don't love the percentage based setbacks it doesn't make sense to me why a larger lot would have a larger setback like to what commissioner williams is talking about like there's a human plane element to this like as a human like there is some distance that feels good for the property to be set back maybe it's five feet maybe it's 10 feet maybe it's 15 feet But every time I see like one of these requirements that's like X percentage of the lot width or 15 feet, whichever is less, like it just doesn't make sense to me why we'd want a bigger setback on a bigger lot. Like the number should be uniform to whatever feels right for a human, in my opinion.

What are... this i hope this is correct aren't um the size allowable size of houses dependent on the size of the lot based on far yeah they're based on far so then if you have a larger lot and a larger far and a larger house it does make some sense to me that the larger the house the farther back you might want it set in order to have that same that same atmosphere of whatever, you know, just space and breathability. That does make some sense to me. But I, I also see your point that I just think it's a complication.

And if we're talking about streamlining, right?

Yeah.

Yeah. And I think the percentage based requirement is what's making us have a rear setback that is two to three times bigger than other jurisdictions. Because it's like half the building height, or, you know, 25% of the lot with YES. YES. YES. THERE WAS A SUGGESTION FROM THERE WAS A SUGGESTION FROM THERE WAS A SUGGESTION FROM STAFF ABOUT REDUCING SIDE AND STAFF ABOUT REDUCING SIDE AND STAFF ABOUT REDUCING SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS TO ACCOMMODATE REAR SETBACKS TO ACCOMMODATE REAR SETBACKS TO ACCOMMODATE SITE-SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS. SITE-SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS. SITE-SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS. LOVE THIS IDEA. LOVE THIS IDEA. LOVE THIS IDEA. BIG FAN. BIG FAN. BIG FAN. ALSO AGREE WITH HAVING IT ALSO AGREE WITH HAVING IT ALSO AGREE WITH HAVING IT GRANTED AT THE ADMINISTRATOR GRANTED AT THE ADMINISTRATOR GRANTED AT THE ADMINISTRATOR LEVEL.

LEVEL

YEAH. THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION I THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION I THINK THEY MENTIONED PALO ALTO. THINK THEY MENTIONED PALO ALTO. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT CITY I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT CITY THEY SAID DOES THIS. THEY SAID DOES THIS. BUT IF YOU HAVE AN ODDLY SHAPED BUT IF YOU HAVE AN ODDLY SHAPED LOT OR IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULARLY LOT OR IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULARLY SMALL LOT THERE'S A PROVISION LIKE SMALL LOT THERE'S A PROVISION LIKE ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORING ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS HAVE A PROVISION TO ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATOR TO GRANT A REDUCED SIDE AND REAR GRANT A REDUCED SIDE AND REAR GRANT A REDUCED SIDE AND REAR SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE SITE SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE SITE SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS.

SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS. SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS.

SO, AGAIN, THAT'S FLEXIBILITY. SO, AGAIN, THAT'S FLEXIBILITY. SO, AGAIN, THAT'S FLEXIBILITY. BIG FAN OF FLEXIBILITY. BIG FAN OF FLEXIBILITY. BIG FAN OF FLEXIBILITY. HAS THAT BEEN THE CASE? HAS THAT BEEN THE CASE? HAS THAT BEEN THE CASE? WASN'T THAT THE CASE BEFORE? setback defined by the percentage is also speak to the street yard setback so that if you have a narrower lot then you can have a smaller street side setback so that you don't need to align your front well your side yard to the front yard of your neighbors but you have a wider lot then we encourage people or mandate people to align their side yard with their neighbor's front yard. If you're in the corner or not.

Yeah. I just think it's overly complicated.

That's what architects are for.

I'm here to offer streamlining solutions. The next one on the setback list, I noted the combination of the daylight plane and the step backs or second story and third story setbacks. to me, I think are redundant. If your goal is privacy, right? I think if your goal is privacy, if your, if your property follows the daylight plane requirement, that seems sufficient requiring additional second story or third story setbacks or requiring step backs. If you make it be about the property itself, THINK HAS THE PROBLEM THAT COMMISSIONER KLAFTER DESCRIBED WHERE IT JUST SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THE COST OF DOING A SECOND STORY OR A THIRD STORY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO YOU HAVE TO RESTRUCTURE AS YOU POINTED OUT RIGHT WELL IT CAN I THINK IT CAN INCREASE THE COST IT COMPLICATES THE FLOOR IT COMPLICATES EVERYTHING IT MAKES IT IT'S LESS ENERGY EFFICIENT ACTUALLY SOMEBODY WHO WORKS IN green energy should double check me on this, but I've heard from people that anytime you have like any kind of step back in the massing or articulation, like from a heating, cooling perspective, that it makes it less efficient. So my opinion is I feel like if the goal is privacy, I think the daylight plane is sufficient and we should not have second story and third story setbacks or step backs. And if the fear is like ugly boxy buildings, then we should solve that through design ornamentation. And there's many old historic pre-war buildings that are lovely boxes and very beautiful and we can use those as inspiration.

I'm suddenly thinking of a classic American housing type, which is called the four square, which is literally four square walls, two stories, maybe got a porch slapped on the front and you see them in every architectural style and you see them in every older neighborhood. in across the country, and they were very inexpensive to build a lot of the time. And I think people generally think that they're nice and they exist in neighborhoods, and I don't think they cause privacy problems.

And if someone wants to build a brand new Victorian, they should be able to write and it will look really goofy if you had to step back.

I agree with what you're saying. Four-square kind of craftsman homes typically or oftentimes are really great. I don't think that us using the argument that adding a second floor to a one-story house is expensive if you have to set in the sides, to increase the side setbacks. I MEAN, IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO WORRY ABOUT THE COST. I MEAN, IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO WORRY ABOUT THE COST.

THAT'S ONE OF THE GOALS OF THAT'S ONE OF THE GOALS OF THIS, THOUGH, IS TO REDUCE THIS, THOUGH, IS TO REDUCE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS ZONING CODE UPDATE.

ZONING CODE UPDATE. WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S I MEAN, THE WHOLE PROJECT IS I MEAN, THE WHOLE PROJECT IS VERY COSTLY TO ADD A SECOND FLOOR TO A VERY COSTLY TO ADD A SECOND FLOOR TO A ONE-STORY HOUSE. ONE-STORY HOUSE. AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S SIGNIFIC to increase the setback at the second floor is not just cost. It's because it limits how big of a house you can have. You want to be able to have a bigger house.

I think there's many reasons. I think there's cost. I think it limits what you can do. It creates goofy floor plans. And I also think the energy efficiency is another reason.

I mean, I can look at the list of general plan policies, CD 7.2. which is uh encourage single family additions uh new dwellings that address the preservation and enhancement of neighborhood visual and architectural character through context sensitive building scale materials architectural style and details and privacy so privacy is on there i'm just not sure that it's in balance right now with these other considerations in that list YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE RESULTING DESIGNS ARE ALWAYS AN ENHANCEMENT AND MY PERSONAL VIEW IS THAT OFTENTIMES THEY FALL SHORT BECAUSE OF SOME OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. AND SO, YEAH, MAYBE THAT'S HOW I WOULD FRAME IT IS LIKE I WANT TO SEE THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS ON THAT LIST IN BETTER BALANCE. And I feel like this is an opportunity to like creating, providing some more flexibility in how these, how setbacks and how second stories are allowed to be constructed will help achieve that balance.

THROUGH THE CHAIR, I WANTED TO OFFER A COMMENT AND A THOUGHT. RECOGNIZING THE BALANCE OF ROBUST DISCUSSION WITH ALSO GETTING THROUGH ALL OF THE TOPICS AT HAND TONIGHT AT A REASONABLE HOUR, I WANTED TO OFFER A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS OR SUGGESTIONS ON CONTINUING MOVING THROUGH. ONE, WE ARE STILL AT THE FRONT END OF THIS PROCESS. I THINK THERE WILL BE MUCH MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION ONCE WE PUT PEN TO PAPER. WE HAVE MORE DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR EVERYONE TO REVIEW, PROVIDE INPUT ON, AND SO PROVIDING HIGHER LEVEL DIRECTION TO STAFF TO SAY, HEY, WE THINK THESE SETBACKS SHOULD BE REDUCED, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A DEFINED NUMBER. I THINK THAT GIVES US DIRECTION TO THEN WORK WITH STUFF AS WE THEN DEVELOP THE CODE. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS, OTHER THINGS WHERE IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE EXACTLY DEFINED TONIGHT SO MUCH AS IS THERE A PRINCIPLE YOU WANT US TO ACHIEVE OR DON'T TOUCH IT, IT'S PERFECT AS IS, THAT IS GOOD PRODUCTIVE FEEDBACK THAT HELPS US KEEP MOVING THINGS FORWARD. THE OTHER THING IS RECOGNIZING THE OTHER THING IS RECOGNIZING THE OBJECTIVES OF WHAT WE WANT TO DO THE OBJECTIVES OF WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS THE WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS THE R2 TO R4. R2 TO R4. AND THERE IS DIFFERENT AND THERE IS DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES THERE. OBJECTIVES THERE. PART OF THE GOAL OF THE GENERAL PART OF THE GOAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN WAS BALANCING GROWTH AND PLAN WAS BALANCING GROWTH AND CHANGE, FOCUSING ON OUR HIGHER CHANGE, FOCUSING ON OUR HIGHER DENSITY AREAS, MAINTAINING KIND OF DENSITY AREAS, MAINTAINING KIND OF INTENSITY DENSITY IN OUR LOW

Thank you. With that, shall we move on to parking requirements in single family zones? My list is shorter on this one.

I support all three of the recommendations in the agenda packet. Which I can say for the benefit of the group, tandem parking, allowing parking in the required setbacks and not requiring garages, I think, and allowing garages to be exempt from FAR to encourage garages. Although, as I mentioned, TBD, in my opinion, how much of an impact that actually has on whether people use their garage to park their cars or not. But I see why I see why it incentivizes it.

I would I would say that to your point, I was thinking the same thing. I thought, OK, you know, you could build a very large garage And I mean, you know, depending on how this is, depending on how the, this.

Can I pause you? I think the idea is there'd be a maximum amount of the garage that would be exempt from FAR.

Yes. And that, I was just, yeah, that was my exact thought. When I read this, I said, okay, I think it could be like, TYPICALLY 400 SQUARE FEET X YEAH LIKE YEAH LIKE STANDARD SPACE FOR TWO CARS OR TWO POINT WHATEVER CARS OR WHATEVER WHATEVER THE WHATEVER THE CALCULATION IS YEAH WOULD BE EXEMPTED AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A STORAGE AREA THAT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT STORY BECAUSE I I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE SOMEONE BUILDING A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT GARAGE AND SAYING YOU KNOW NO I THINK IT'S TYPICALLY LIKE 400 SQUARE FEET I MEAN I'VE SEEN THIS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND UM YOU KNOW I AGREE THEY THESE ALL MAKE SENSE TO ME

I WOULD SUGGEST WE LEAVE IT TO THE DISCRETION OF STAFF OF WHAT THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE.

YES.

WITHOUT BEING OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE. BUT I THINK, YES, WE'RE ALL IN GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT I ALSO AGREE WITH THE THREE SUGGESTIONS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED. YEAH, I DO TOO. BUT I HAVE A COUPLE MORE DETAILED COMMENTS. If you have any parking stuff, I would talk about it now.

Tandem parking, great parking in the required setbacks. Um, I don't always love. Like, I'm fine with cars and driveways. I don't always, yeah.

That's in the setback, though. Yeah, it is the front setback. That's what we were talking about.

Yeah, but, you know, sometimes we'll see, sometimes I'll see, not necessarily in San Mateo, but I'll see, you know, around, you know, the whole front yard is covered in cars. I don't think anybody wants that. Maybe a percentage of the front setback.

I don't think that's what this means though it means that like you can have it does mean you can have parking everywhere just means that your your parking can be within your 15 foot or whatever it is, I mean or 20 if it's the speed that.

When I think to if there's a I my understanding is there's a some cap on the amount of HARD SCAPE YOU CAN HAVE.

EXACTLY. THEN THOSE TWO COMBINED MAKES MY COMMENT REDUNDANT.

I AGREE WITH ALLOWING TANDEM PARKING AND WE CLEARLY DID AT SOME POINT BECAUSE THE FIRST HOUSE I LIVED IN SAN MATEO FOR SEVEN YEARS HAD TWO TANDEM PARKING GARAGES SIDE BY SIDE WITH A LIVING SPACE ON TOP. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT WENT AWAY. TANDEM PARKING IS GREAT. I AGREE WITH ALLOWING PARKING AND REQUIRED SETBACKS BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY. I have a required side yard setback and I have a side access garage. And my required side yard setback is seven and a half feet, but also my property line is set back four feet from the sidewalk. So am I correct that it is currently not legal for me to park a car on my driveway in the first 11 and a half feet of my driveway? And I'm bringing this up because I'm worried that this is not enough of an incentive because everybody is already parking in their driveway within their required setback. And so just saying, hey, we're not going to come after you for doing this thing that we're already not coming after you for, to me, doesn't feel like an incentive.

I do support removing things that are I do support removing rules that are only selectively enforced.

Yeah.

I think kind of the objective here is you've got two parts. It would be you would still need to have a sufficiently sized parking space, whatever that is. So I think in your case, if your car is overhanging a sidewalk, that's potentially a code violation. So you might get a notice from code enforcement if someone complains. We're generally more reactive than proactive on the enforcement side like that. So I think for the purposes of this, it's right now, even though I don't know that we always do this, in general, the code doesn't recognize parking in a setback. So you can't get credit for meeting your on-site parking requirements, but it's still a

curves so yeah so if i were to submit a planning application and i were to show you like two parking spaces in my driveway planning would come back and be like no no the first 11 and a half feet of that driveway don't count for a legal parking space so you'd actually have to have a 29 and a half foot driveway if you wanted two legal parking spaces in your driveway so that's the part that we're fixing

Yeah, I think it goes hand in hand with the idea that there could be a recommendation that you don't have to have a garage. So in that circumstance, if you were allowed to park in your driveway and it was allowed to count as your parking on site, you would need a garage.

um to cover your parking requirements totally which i support yeah okay i just wanted to be clear that i think a lot of people are already parking in their required setbacks if their driveway is that doesn't mean they're on the sidewalk i mean that doesn't mean they're on the sidewalk no totally yeah yeah this is this is uh also something that affected san francisco up until recently and they made the change to officially allow people to park in their setbacks which previously had been subject to selective enforcement and uh yeah So they've this is a very similar fix.

Yeah. And then I had this note about like there was this comment about reducing covered parking requirements. And yes, I'm just all for more flexibility. So reducing covered parking requirements sounds like a good idea to me. But then I was like, well, just more flexibility in general. Like if someone wants to provide if someone wants to provide covered parking within a setback, maybe let them. Maybe not if it's a garage and that feels too imposing. I don't know. I don't have a clear direction here. I'm just, I think my direction is more flexibility.

Consider more flexibility.

And then yes, I think that exempting, I agree. I think exempting some amount of garage space from the FAR calculation is a good idea. I don't actually think it will incentivize people to park in their garages. I think the only thing that will incentivize people parking in their garages is when street parking in their neighborhood becomes painful. Then they'll clear out the garage.

And people have less stuff.

Yeah. And the next item is review processes and public notice requirements.

OK. So it sounds to me like the neighborhood meetings are just city-encouraged block parties. so i poorly attended poorly attended generally speaking i'm in favor of reduce like again in line with the some of the suggestions in the agenda report yeah streamlining perhaps reducing the distance of notice for to be more in line i know there was a jurisdiction that required 300 feet instead of 500 feet I did a quick little scan of what a thousand feet and what I think a thousand feet applies to these big projects which makes sense to me but the some of these smaller alterations or whatever that require 500 foot notice I did a quick kind of scan and I was like I do not care what's happening at that house 500 feet from me so I'd be supportive of reducing the certainly reducing the distance and then i think yeah reducing the um the number of times meaning the number of situations in which um in which notice is required that these neighborhood meetings are required and probably the number of situations in which a planning application at all is required given that um one of the questions i asked in the response was these people are meeting all of our development standards. Now the balance of that to that consistent with what I've been saying is that that discretionary review does allow for consideration of things like privacy and things like that, like are you consistent with the people next to you and that type of thing. So I do see value in the discretionary review for certain types of things. So I think one of the suggestions in the agenda was about whether we might get rid of discretionary review for SECOND STORY ADDITIONS OVER 200 SQUARE FEET, IF I GOT THAT RIGHT. 200? DID I SAY THAT RIGHT?

I DO KNOW, SO IT SAYS SECOND STORY ADUs PROCESSED THROUGH A MINISTERIAL BUILDING PERMIT DO NOT REQUIRE ANY NOTIFICATION AND WHAT'S THE USUAL SIZE OF THOSE ADUs? HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS THAT? IF I COULD BE REMINDED.

ADU TYPICALLY IS 800 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

Yeah, so for an 800 or 900 square foot ADU, state law, ministerial, and then if you want to do a 200 square foot second story addition, you have to invite all of the neighbors over for a cheese platter. Zoom.

YEAH, I'LL JUST JUMP IN AND JUST SAY I'LL JUST SAY I THINK WE SHOULD DO WHAT MOUNTAIN VIEW DOES. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GREAT IDEA TO QUOTE THE STAFF REPORT IN MOUNTAIN VIEW REMODELS ADDITIONS AND NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GENERALLY DO NOT REQUIRE A PLANNING APPLICATION EXCEPT IN LIMITED CASES SUCH AS ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING HOMES, EXTERIOR CHANGES TO HISTORIC HOMES OR DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO CREEKS. I don't know why creeks. Maybe that's not relevant for us. Maybe it is. Hi, creek.

Okay.

Sorry. And so to me, that seems great, really streamlines the process.

Yeah.

Because if it conforms with the zoning requirements, then, like, what is the point of the cheese plate party? Your neighbor's going to be like, I don't like what you're doing, and you're going to be like, well, it conforms with zoning requirements, so I'm sorry. I...

I'm not disagreeing necessarily, but I think there's value in the neighborhood meeting as a homeowner. I mean, as an architect, I would tell the homeowners, talk to your neighbors. And if a neighborhood meeting's not required, they're not going to go talk to their neighbors, probably. And they should. They should tell their neighbors what they're planning to do, because it just makes the process easier. When construction's noisy and people are thinking everything's difficult, well they've talked about it in advance they've started a rapport so i think the neighborhood meetings have a place and a purpose but i i don't think they're that well attended so i'm not do you think both the neighborhood meeting and the noticing like what if the noticing was like heads up this is happening but there's no invitation to the cheese plate party i mean that's how well first of all they're zoom usually they're not really hard for people to just jump on a zoom and hear like see what's happening

I was told they were cheese plates. What the hell?

This is what he says. I have not seen that. I'm the only one here like, build in my neighborhood.

Maybe that was the old code. I don't know. Yeah.

The new code does not require cheese or certainly not wine, unfortunately. But I, yeah, I mean, the noticing, it's not like, I don't see how that is really... like a burden on the applicant, no matter whether it's 500 feet, 300 feet, 1,000 feet, whatever it is, because you get the, sure, you have to pay some money on postage, I guess, but you get the names from either the city or from an outside service, right? It's not like you have to look at everybody else.

I hear you, but I'll just also point out that the goal of this is to reduce costs and to reduce time. And we heard from staff that it takes like doing a neighborhood meeting adds three months on average to the process. So that's costly from a time standpoint.

I mean, I guess it's possible if you have someone that's not really on top of your project, but that's frustrating then.

I will also add in terms of noticing, you mentioned 300 feet. For our ones, not higher, when we're literally talking about a single family home or a single family home addition or maybe an ADU, to your point, why even 300 right like at that scale i think the people who are going to care the most are the adjacent properties because they're the ones who are going to like notice the difference like yeah but there's like construction if you're building a second story edition there's going to be dumpsters there's going to be construction so yeah i totally agree with respect to the thing i guess that's fair from the construction impact standpoint yeah but

But I had a question. I mean, you know, there's reference in the report, and Commissioner Clafter mentioned ADUs. Can you, the discretionary review for the single family homes, there's some subjectivity from the planner. For the ADUs, that's, we're not allowed to use subjectivity under state law, right? Like there's no, there's not like objective design standards, or are there objective design standards for the ADUs? I'm trying to figure out like, Whether if we went the Mountain View approach, whether we have in place like objective design standards that would apply that would, you know, protect some of the interest that we heard from the survey that homeowners are concerned about. One of the things that the survey responses showed was that people wanted notice and people wanted there to be a planning application for second story additions over 200 square feet. So I'm just trying to figure out how would it work in practice if we got rid of the discretionary review for the additions larger than 200 square feet, what is it they have to comply with in order to proceed without a planning application? Are there like objective standards they still are applying, complying with? Yes.

We do have, through the chair, we do have ADU ordinance, which the standards largely controlled by the state law. Typically, especially to the by-right ADUs. However, if you create a two-story ADU and then you need to encroach daylight plane, that's not protected by the state law. And we review those type of application by single family design standards. That is a discretionary process.

For ADUs as well?

For ADUs, yes.

Okay, so I think the point stands, I think I think there's maybe some value in certain situations, to the discretionary review of second story additions, but I could be persuaded that the size of the addition should be larger before it triggers. I also could be persuaded that it's not necessary as long as there are as long as the standards that are being applied, account for some of the things that the discretionary review is intended to protect. Like having more objective design standards that would make it like you shouldn't have windows that align with one another or whatever it is, I don't know.

And are you talking about noticing right now? No, well, sorry, I thought it was two topics.

We're talking about review process and public notice requirements.

So one question is should it be subject to a planning application at all? And then for things subject to a planning application, what are the notice requirements? So I was talking about.

And I will just say, like, if it meets the zoning standards, to me, I don't know why it should have to submit a planning application. Like, I don't know why it should have to go through discretionary review if it meets the zoning standards.

So what do people think about transparency in, I guess it's a question for staff. When things happen in the city, people get surprised and complain and the best sort of response to that is transparency. and so if you if i i understand that's not the goal i'm just curious what your thoughts are like do are you creating are we creating like less transparency when things you know change in someone's neighborhood and they they haven't been told about it they don't know anything about it like i'm just wondering what your thoughts are about it as can i add to that real quick though but like is it possible to have to require noticing or a neighborhood meeting

but also do ministerial approval?

That's a good question.

I'LL OFFER A COUPLE THOUGHTS AND THEN HEATHER STUFF FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN AND THIS WILL BE THIS IS TWO JURISDICTIONS I'M FAMILIAR WITH REDWOOD CITY UM JUST WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS MYSELF THAT WAS I THINK TO YOUR POINT THE TRANSPARENCY PIECE SO BEFORE THERE'S A PLANNING APPLICATION REQUIRED FOR A TWO-STOREY EDITION I THINK OVER 50 SQUARE FEET AND YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF THAT YOU CONNECTED WITH EACH OF YOUR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS SHARED THE PLANS WITH THEM And then they sign it, you go in. So then Los Altos, prior jurisdiction I worked for there, you had to notify for a second story edition of any size or a new two story house, the 12 adjacent neighbors, kind of three across the street, two on either side, two or three behind. So both of those, the objective was, I think to what has been noted is the property owner's most adjacent, both in terms of near term construction impacts, you'll be feeling those. So you're creating the opportunity for advanced awareness, NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT IDEALLY YOU'RE WORKING YOU'RE BEING NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT IDEALLY YOU'RE WORKING YOU'RE BEING SENSITIVE AND CONNECTING WITH YOUR SENSITIVE AND CONNECTING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS TO HELP HELP STAY NEIGHBORS TO HELP HELP STAY ENGAGED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS BUT ENGAGED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS BUT THEN ALSO THE LONGER TERM YOU'VE NOW THEN ALSO THE LONGER TERM YOU'VE NOW GOT A NEW SECOND STORY EDITION GOT A NEW SECOND STORY EDITION THOSE PRIVACY VISUAL IMPACTS THOSE PRIVACY VISUAL IMPACTS IT IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES IT IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT FEEL IT THE MOST SO THOSE

WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROCESS AND THE NOTIFICATION WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROCESS AND THE NOTIFICATION BECAUSE THAT COULD HELP INFORM BECAUSE THAT COULD HELP INFORM WHAT THEN GETS BROUGHT FORWARD WHAT THEN GETS BROUGHT FORWARD TOO SO I THINK THERE'S SOME TOO SO I THINK THERE'S SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS THERE INTERESTING QUESTIONS THERE ASK A FOLLOW-UP TO THAT ZACK ASK A FOLLOW-UP TO THAT ZACK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THOSE OTHER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THOSE OTHER JURISDICTIONS IF LET'S SAY THE JURISDICTIONS IF LET'S SAY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DIDN'T SIGN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DIDN'T SIGN OFF ON THEY DON'T HAVE

THE CITY OR IS THAT AN ACTUAL REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WOULD THE CITY OR IS THAT AN ACTUAL REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO I DON'T KNOW GIVE THEIR HAVE TO I DON'T KNOW GIVE THEIR APPROVAL OR THEY'RE NOT OF THAT APPROVAL OR THEY'RE NOT OF THAT IF THEY WON'T IN REDWOOD CITY IF THEY WON'T IN REDWOOD CITY IF THEY WON'T SIGN OFF I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO SIGN OFF I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF THAT YOU MAILED THEM PROVIDE PROOF THAT YOU MAILED THEM NOTIFICATION AND A SET OF THE PLANS NOTIFICATION AND A SET OF THE PLANS AND THEN I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT AND THEN I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT PER PROPERTY MIGHT ALSO GET A NOTICE PER PROPERTY MIGHT ALSO GET A NOT the neighbor doesn't they they're encouraged to but if they they don't have to so and and they even say in the disclosure this isn't approving of the project just acknowledging that you were contacted by your neighbor and they showed a set of plans um they might still choose not to and then you would share that with them and i think they would so you it doesn't become an obstacle to the process but um I think in there, the objective felt like it was as much connect with your adjacent neighbors. So one, they have awareness and two, maybe there's a connection facilitated to help have an open line of communication during construction. Or if there's windows or acute privacy challenges, maybe there's an opportunity to address something.

I like both of those better than the current. Both of those options better than the current. I think to... The current meaning... The 500-foot plus a neighborhood meeting, I just don't... I don't see the value of the neighborhood meeting really at all, but I hear that there has been value in your experience. I think the three, two, two, three structure sounds like it makes some good sense about that three in front, three behind, two on either side makes some good sense. if you're required to provide notice and go chitty chat with them in person, that's great.

And I'll reiterate that if there is an option, I agree with Commissioner Williams and the value of people not being surprised, like that is I think the biggest source of tension. for us is when people feel surprised. So if there is a way to like match what Mountain View is doing, where like that whole list of things that doesn't require a planning application doesn't need a planning application, but you are required to do like you have to let the three to three properties know so that it's not a surprise to them. I think that could be.

Yeah, just to be clear, there's two topics I agree about. like for notice for planning applications, I think this three, two, two, three could be great. I also agree it might make sense in some situations to require, if we're going to reduce the number of situations that require planning applications, like let's say we say any second story above 400 square feet, I'm just saying, then it might make sense in situations where you have any second story addition, you require the same notice, but it's not, you don't require a planning application, right? You get rid of the discretionary review. I kind of agree that that could make good sense. But I would say I do still believe that there are probably some situations where discretionary review makes sense. So I'm not sure I would go as far as Mountain View goes, unless I could be assured that we had sufficient objective design standards that they have to meet, not subject to discretionary review, to protect against some of the things that we care about. Those are my thoughts.

THROUGH THE CHAIR. THROUGH THE CHAIR. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PLANNING IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ASKING STAFF TO COMMISSION IS ASKING STAFF TO LOOK INTO COURTESY NOTICES.

LOOK INTO COURTESY NOTICES. YES. YES. I THINK YOUR SUMMARY WAS I THINK YOUR SUMMARY WAS PERFECT. PERFECT. IF WE'RE OKAY TO NOW MOVE ON TO IF WE'RE OKAY TO NOW MOVE ON TO MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

Before we do that, I just want to say, like, one thing I kind of made some notes to myself that I've been wanting to, like, say, you know, I've thought about this a lot over the time I've been a planning commissioner. Like, we hear a lot about, like, the delays and how long the process takes. It's not on the planning staff, I'm just going to say. I mean, I know that it takes a while, and you described all that stuff, but it's the applicant, it's the homeowner, it's the architect, it's like... It's changes that somebody decides to make, and so the process could still be long because the homeowner might be indecisive and want more than they can afford, and then they need to get an estimate, and then they can't afford that, and then they need to backtrack. I'm telling you, a lot of the delay is on the owner and applicant and architect side and not on the city side. So we hear a lot about this. We hear about it from Sacramento and everybody, like streamlining the process. I just want to say kudos to this, not just this city, but cities do a lot of work to get projects through. We already have timelines. They already have timelines in place for, you know, declaring when a project is, an application is complete. And, you know, I mean, they have timelines they have to meet. And so, I mean, it's great to try to streamline it, but there's only so much you can do. That's my thing I've been thinking about a lot over the years.

Okay. Should we talk multifamily?

Multifamily.

Yes. So the first section in the agenda report. Were we going to do questions? Oh, yes, please. Let's do questions. Sorry.

Do you think the questions, the way we did it still makes sense? Yeah.

If you have questions related to multifamily, I would go ahead and ask them now. I do not have any, so I will pass.

I have a lot of comments. I don't know that I have any questions at the moment.

So I had one big picture question, which was, is it possible, putting to the side for one second, this creating inefficiencies, which I know is the exact opposite goal, But is it possible to create a set of standards or a set of exemptions to standards that apply to missing metal housing such that, you know, as a way to incentivize missing metal? So it sounds like missing metal housing can fit under at least R2 and R3, maybe even R4 standards. Can we, is there a universe in which we can create a set of. Like, an overlay of exceptions or standards that are more lenient for missing metal housing than they are for other types of housing in these types of districts.

I mean, the answer is yes, if that's what the Planning Commission would like to do. What I would recommend is start with the base district standards for R2 to R4. And then if you think that some of those base standards are too restrictive for certain missing middle product types, then that's when you can add the exceptions.

What are some of the reasons why we might not want to do that?

I think it's many of the things we've talked about before. Like if you were to look at the examples of missing middle housing that are provided in the attachment, many of those examples are not possible under our current regulations and because of setback and step-back requirements.

Yeah, no, I'm asking, so yes, which is why I wanted to do it. I'm asking why we might not want to add any kind of specific exceptions for missing middle housing to these.

One thing you could consider is if you wanna have special standards for missing middle product types, why not make it universal for the zoning district in general instead of just missing middle? So it allows for all sorts of different types of products, not just missing middle product types, if that makes sense.

Yeah, there could probably be some negative consequences of that depending on the style of whatever the thing is, but yeah.

Well, like things like the, maybe I'm getting a little out of order, but like the sliding far scale, like that's a way where you're basically saying if you're doing a single family home in the R2 zone, you don't get that additional far. If you're doing a six unit, you know... building you get that additional far to make that possible and that and in that way it's applied you apply that to the whole zone but if you're it only is relevant if you're doing missing middle right yes that's a that is a that's a good example of of a standard that would apply

uniformly throughout the whole what do you call them districts or um throughout the whole district but has the incentivizes specifically missing middle which i agree as it seems like a good idea my question my question was can we have is it possible to have specific standards for for missing middle that are not applicable to the whole district answers yes but maybe it makes it more cumbersome i think yes do we have any other questions about multi-family

Okay. My general comment is, and I kind of said this before, but it's hard for me to offer suggestions for how to streamline or make missing middle possible without understanding beyond a vague setbacks, you know, like what is actually preventing them from being built today or what is causing, um, maybe preventing is a strong word, but like, what are the biggest um disincentives to producing missing middle and this is where i again look at the examples that you provided which i think might have been this lovely alfred two illustration if i know who made this um i believe it was alfred two planning commissioner in berkeley uh so For example, one of the sample photos that was shown in the presentation is a cottage court on Idaho Street that's two blocks from where I live. I love that cottage court. Every time I walk by, I am jealous that I do not live there. It is the most adorable thing ever. And I look at that, and I don't understand, why could that not be built today? I would suspect that it is not conforming to some of the rear and side setback requirements. um they are largely one and two story dwellings so i think that they're complying with well i also don't know if a cottage court would have to comply with a daylight plane requirement it's an r2 zone got into that whole question before i'll just skip that for now but if i were to try to build a cottage court today i don't understand like what are the impediments to doing that and that makes it hard for me to suggest changes to make it more possible And that's why I kind of said, I think we need to start by looking at this and evaluating like, and going outcome based. I would love to enable more cottage courts. I would love to enable, I think in Boston, they call them triple deckers. where it's just like three units stacked on top of each other straight up, but you know, with porches and beautiful like ornamentation that makes them nice. Yeah, flats. I would love to enable more townhounds. And I think you had this idea for a townhome court where the townhomes face an interior courtyard.

Yeah, are we jumping around now?

I mean, we're still talking about missing middle. I think what I'm trying to say is like, yes, I think we all want to support missing middle, but I am struggling with what to suggest changing to make this more possible, except that I have this vague sense that you can't do some of these things today. There's a really, under multiplex, like there's a really cute triple decker, right?

The next two slides in that attachment seven that we got, where it shows the palette of missing middle housing types. And you can kind of look at them and say, okay, what would be allowed and not allowed, right? Again, most of them have a second story or a third story or whatever that goes straight up on the sides. Maybe they've got light wells or... you know, insets there, but then some of them have like a zero are shown in the, in the illustration with, uh, right up to the lot line.

Literally all of these examples do not have a step back on the second or third story.

Um, town, a townhouse, uh, in this case with a detached garage or the backyard in between, which is something that I was going to touch on later. Um, you've got. the courtyard housing um and there are examples of these types of things already existing in san mateo and most of them are older and um you know then there's a huge gap and then there's the stuff that we're seeing being built today um but yeah i mean i think i think i think creating a separate for the R2 and above, if you're going to add the units, then maybe along with the far scaling, maybe it's like, okay, you start to get some flexibility where your setbacks are, how deep they are. If you have a court, cottage court, like is shown in some of these illustrations and the homes are facing towards the interior right of the lot the rear of the of the home is technically the side a setback and so um usually in the in the examples that we we were given there's almost no setback on the sides

I mean, you can look at this example, right? And what I'm thinking about is like, we have this rear yard requirement, which would preclude you from doing those, like a final cottage at the rear of that lot. Because the rear lot requirement would be the rear of the lot and not the rear of the cottage court units.

And in the Idaho Street example that you cited, the two units at the very back, which are actually, the other side is the alleyway there, Those are a little bit larger, and I believe there's additional parking on the alleyway, and I think there's an additional kind of apartment there. In this example, in this pallet here, there's a slightly taller, larger kind of building at the back of that cottage court. And then most of these cottage courts, you know, it's one story. So if you have a one-story building and the setback is a lot smaller, It's not looming over the neighbors. There's not as much of a privacy issue if you have a decent fence.

It's not you know Yeah One story set of cottages they could be you know two-story townhouses or something maybe that's not and then they could be held back and have a a individual patio space that's you know slightly more than the setback somewhere in between you know somewhere in between a full setback I mean something which is approaching this which is modern and in town is the other example that we got which was 737 2nd Avenue

you know where it's not quite a cottage court but it's got the at the back of the property there's a kind of a landscaped area i you know it but i think i think some of the you know some some of the current kind of conditions are holding these things back because you know they they had to have um you know they usually have the the entrance on one side and the garage on the other side And so then you have to have this sort of landscape pathway and it's not usable for anything really. And that's probably being dictated partly by setback and partly by other code things.

I think we should, I think it sounds like we're all supportive of figuring out how to enable more missing middle housing. And we maybe are struggling like me a little bit to say how to do that. So why don't we go to the next section, which is setbacks for multifamily.

Maybe we've provided enough direction generally. Yeah.

Through the chair, just one thought. Yes, I think what you're highlighting is the challenge with missing middle housing. I think the main impediment to missing middle right now isn't the zoning regulations. I think there's broader economic issues at play. There's liability insurance. Anecdotally, I've heard that the small home builder was decimated in 08-09, and they were a big provider of these, and so cost. So I think there's a lot of factors beyond our control. So I think saying, hey, let's make sure our zoning regulations aren't an impediment, but also recognizing there's probably other issues that are kind of obstructing the production of these housing types. we can definitely look at it we can we've got a housing element objective to try to facilitate so i think if you're giving us the thumbs up we can continue to explore and support and move forward regulations that could help support them if they're economical before we move on real quick is there a way for us so is there are there provisions now that are precluding the builder from

building these middle income, is there anything that we have now that's a barrier for them to get over? I guess I'm trying to address, is there a way for us to incentivize with extended concessions and waivers for that product type of the missing middle?

I mean, I can maybe speak to my personal experience a little bit here, which is I own a property in an R2 zone. I intentionally looked for a property in an R2 zone because I wanted to build more units, do my part to help the housing crisis. And when we decided to build a second unit, we were originally thinking, because we have a single family home in an R2 zone, we would just build a second unit. We're allowed up to two units. But the R1B standards applying to R2 zones, including the daylight plane, the setbacks, and the stepbacks, created a very, specifically the rear yard requirement with the, I think it's like a 15-foot rear yard. created a very small build envelope where that second unit could go. And so what we ended up doing is doing an ADU because the requirements for ADUs are much more permissive, right? We could now go, you know, within four feet of the setbacks. And I think particularly this is like one of my little in the weeds comments somewhere, but especially for these multifamily lots, and maybe this is only affecting our two, like we need to rethink the rear yard requirement because when you're trying to do multiple units and privacy is a consideration, like for us, we wanted the two units to be as far apart as possible and have a shared yard in between. But having to do a 15 foot required rear yard at the rear of the lot and then a unit and then another unit meant the two units were really squished together. Like the only real way to do it was as a connected in a joined duplex where it's like really one building, but then there's a wall separating them too. And we didn't want a shared wall for sound and privacy reasons.

And it's just interesting, too, that some R2, you know, are like on a, you know, the standard size lot is like 5,000 square feet. And, you know, to be zoned R2 is, yeah, it's tough to do that.

It's particularly tough for small lots. And that's why I was like, again, this is very in the weeds, but... maybe for R2 and above, the rear yard is not a rear yard requirement, but it's an open space requirement. Because part of what you're trying to solve for with the rear yard requirement is privacy. Like you don't want a building close to the property line into the adjacent neighbor's yard. But part of what you're trying to solve for is outdoor space. And I think if you're trying to do multiple units, having more flexibility where that outdoor space goes and making it so that, you know, there can be one large shared outdoor space, like a little park for your lot, would provide a lot more flexibility in making missing middle work.

I also was thinking about like, you know, state laws affecting the viability of missing middle and other state laws which are coming into effect soon um i'm really hoping that like some of these some of these missing middle types um you know lend themselves to condos and condos are very difficult right now for legal reasons and there is some traction on that in sacramento so i'm very hopeful that that will help us locally But, you know, obviously can't plan for that right now, but we could try and set ourselves up for success if that were to come to pass to some extent. And then also just, you know, SB 79 is coming soon. And my thinking with relation to missing middle is, you know, these are usually, you know, it's fewer units, larger units, family size units. SB 79 is likely to encourage people if they can't, If this is not the path of least resistance or if it's not an easy enough path, people are going to go into our two zones, particularly close to downtown, which will be going straight up to FAR 3 or 3.5 and they're going to have to maximize the number of units that they can put on that lot and they're going to request all the waivers that they need for the density bonuses and they're going to ignore setbacks and they're going to ignore height restrictions and they will be able to do that um regardless because that's state law but i would like to whatever we do here encourage people make it's very important to me that this is a viable alternative path that this that our local missing middle uh rules work that they function um so yeah um i'm gonna start talking about setbacks in the interest of moving us forward through this list so um

One high-level comment, as I was thinking through setbacks, which is, to me, it makes less sense to categorize these regulations by zoning district, R1, R2, R3, R4, and it makes more sense to categorize them by the number of units you're building. Like if you are building one unit, you should follow the single family zone requirements, the R1 requirements. But if, and I brought this up earlier, if you're on an R2 lot and you're building two primary units and three ADUs, you're subject to a whole bunch more regulations than you would be if you were building five units on an R3 lot. and so my my high level idea was like figure out how to make these regulations apply to the number of units and not to the zoning districts because i think that would provide more flexibility that may be really complicated and really hard and so my other idea was like maybe group r2 with r3 and r4 instead of grouping r2 with r1 Because right now, a lot of the requirements for R1 apply to R2. But if we want people to do missing middle housing on R2 zones, I think we need to make it less restrictive, like R3 and R4. AND THEN I ALSO HAD UNDER SETBACKS AND THEN I ALSO HAD UNDER SETBACKS RETHINKING THE REAR YARD RETHINKING THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENT FOR MISSING MIDDLE REQUIREMENT FOR MISSING MIDDLE AND INSTEAD MAKING IT AN OPEN AND INSTEAD MAKING IT AN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THE SPACE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THE MOST FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THE MOST FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THE BUILDINGS ARE SITED AND HOW YOU BUILDINGS ARE SITED AND HOW YOU CAN MAXIMIZE PRIVACY BETWEEN CAN MAXIMIZE PRIVACY BETWEEN MULTIPLE UNITS.

MULTIPLE UNITS. I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING FINDING A WAY TO INC open space or usable open space. Um, we see a lot of these, these, uh, you see a lot of projects where again, like it's a very nice landscaped pathway to the front door of the house or the homes, and it's not really usable for anything else. Uh, and, um, I would. I look at a cottage court or any of those types of older things where they've sort of concentrated the open space in a way that's a little bit more functional. And then they push the, they really kind of reduce the setbacks on the edges. And it just makes for a better experience for the residents. And I think it can be done in a way that doesn't overwhelm the neighbors.

Yeah, I agree with reducing the setbacks generally. Like the staff report says that San Mateo's setback requirements are in some cases double or triple the length of its peer jurisdictions. This kind of goes back to my first comment of the day, which is let's not be the most restrictive jurisdiction out there.

I was going to echo that. I was going to say I also have in my notes, like, yes, let's align with our peer jurisdictions and not be the most restrictive. But I like your idea of you are like, I'm comfortable with a shooting for like 75% on the bell curve towards more lenient than more restrictive. yeah i would love for us to be you know one of the least restrictive jurisdictions in order to incentivize all the developers coming here but i understand like maybe other people would have more comfort with choosing 75 percent instead of a hundred percent yeah and my bell curve honestly might be because you know i'm 50 in r1 and i'm 90 in r2 through four

But yeah, and then, you know, there's a lot of information in the staff report about the buffers between R1 districts when R3 and R4 are adjacent to R1 and R2 and how that can be really restrictive, especially for small lots. So I'd be in support of less restrictive requirements even when adjacent to R1 and R2 for smaller missing middle types, but maybe a little less in favor of less restrictive requirements for larger R3 and R4. You know, so still being respectful of the R1 single family homes nearby by not having this huge, not incentivizing some larger, you know, 20 unit, whatever, but would definitely be in favor of encouraging townhomes, cottage, whatever we're calling it. I keep thinking cottagecore every time you guys say it. I know. I keep trying to resist to say that. I'll say it, don't worry. um and then just uh the last thought is um um yeah there there is a note in the agenda that the city could adopt reduced setback standards for small scale missing middle housing types in r2 to r4 districts as an incentive and that goes back to my big picture question of like can we have specific setbacks or specific standards for missing metal i think i would be in support of less restrictive standards generally for r234 but also i'm much more comfortable with significantly less restrictive standards for these smaller missing middles that fit into a neighborhood fit into you know a location a little bit better than a mid-rise apartment complex

Through the chair, can I bring back the graphic?

Yes.

If the commission can clarify what they mean by smaller. Are we talking duplex through courtyard apartments or bungalows?

Yeah, to me it's like through the, maybe through townhouse. I don't know it's more like definitely through bungalow these these I think it's the the the types that allow for um design that can you know still feel like every every example in the um I don't think the examples included a live work like 40 unit they included like bungalows and yeah So it's more of that nature, the kind that feel like, look, if this got added down the street, I wouldn't be like, what the heck is this doing here if it was designed well? But if it, you know, multiplex, I think is starting to push the boundaries of that certain apartment building.

I think through townhouse, right? Like we're starting to see a lot of townhouses pop up in neighborhoods and they feel okay.

They don't feel out of place. Like that one at the corner. Yeah, I guess I'm not 100% sure how you define a townhouse, but that one at the corner where that convenience store is, that feels perfectly reasonable there. And it's designed in such a way that it doesn't seem to encroach on...

kind of the single family homes that are on there in in uh right outside right east of downtown so um one of the things i'm wondering about is the um lot size so when we look at if you uh you know that that span of different things i think it makes sense to consider these you know, changes to the setbacks, as you've said, unless we're, you know, looking at a really small lot or, you know, because then you have less, I was trying to think, I think then you're, you have less choices, I guess, on a smaller lot and you're, which, I don't know, I guess I'm kind of torn. It's like on the one hand, you're gonna be crowding and And if it's a series of small lots, the adjacent properties are close as well. So I feel like that should be a consideration, lot size. Because all these things that we were looking at on the example, the little renderings, were larger than kind of a normal single family, or just a minimal single family lot.

Yeah, I'm not sure how much you can fit on like a 5,000 square foot lot like in that. And all of those little drawings.

Duplex, triplex, maybe, but like. No, not, I mean, like those were all lots that are greater than 5,000 square feet, I would think, according to the little diagrams. I know they're just generic or they're just, you know, diagrammatic, but.

THROUGH THE CHAIR. TYPICALLY WHEN I SEE A PERCENTAGE OF THE LOT WIDTH FOR SETBACKS, IT'S TYPICALLY WHEN THERE'S LIKE NARROWER LOTS. SO IF THERE'S A THREAT, I MEAN, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IF THERE'S THRESHOLDS. SO LET'S SAY IF IT'S LIKE 50 FEET WIDE OR 40 FEET WIDE AND WE CAN LOOK AT PERCENTAGES OR EVEN STRAIGHT NUMBERS FOR NARROW LOTS.

Okay. Any other comments on setbacks or should we move forward to floor area ratio?

Just real quick on the R2, on the R3, R4 buffer zones, you know, if I'm like looking at the zoning map and we have a lot of situations where you have, you know, R2 where it's just one, it's like one parcel deep and it's immediately next to a large R2 zone or, you know, a couple of R4 properties next to, Um, R1, uh, and so like it really can restrict it. It's kind of, it's kind of basic. You're kind of basically what you're really doing is you're extending the lower density zone into what is supposed to be a higher density zone.

You're creating, in some cases, maybe an empty lot, right?

Because if you're trying to build a... You're just preventing projects from happening. So you're basically freezing whatever's there in place, I would say, is probably what's most likely. And again, for these sections that are within the... transit zones the path of least resistance becomes uh density bonus becomes uh waivers and concessions and all those sorts of things um so i'm not sure if maybe the the compromise is just to instead of instead of having it again again having it be um like the setback be you know based on the Um, on the height, maybe just have a lower height for the transition properties or something like that. I don't know.

Or, I mean, I still think people will use SB 79. Well, that's the thing, right?

Like, like I'm trying to think of a compromisation. I think probably the cleanest thing is just to say, just. you know, reduce that, reduce that setback, um, substantially at a minimum because otherwise those properties are not buildable to what supposedly they're zoned for. Um, and, and again, people will just revert to density bonus. Um, and, uh, and then, you know, and, and it can, that will result in outcomes that I think people are less satisfied with in the, at the end of the day. than a slightly taller building slightly closer to their house.

Any other comments on setbacks? Seeing none, I'm actually going to ask if we should take a vote to extend the meeting. Yes. Okay. Want to aim for an hour?

Let's say an hour. Okay. I move to extend the meeting to 1145. Is that wording?

Oh, sorry, I was gonna say midnight. Oh, midnight. Yeah, an hour past the normal time, yeah.

Second.

And for the vote, Commissioner Bush? Yes. Vice Chair Clafter? Yes. Chair Patel? Yes. Commissioner Schoenblatt? Yes. And Commissioner Williams? Yes. Motion passes.

Yeah, let's do a bio break. I will also note that I have lost the bet, because I bet 11.

When you talk about how excited you are.

I was super excited. Yes. Why don't we return at 10.51, five minute break.

What was the bet? I bet 11.

🎵 🎵 🎵 🎵 🎵 do do Thank you. you you Thank you.

the chair where you're ready to resume great thank you welcome back everyone we are discussing multi-family development standards and i believe we just finished talking about setbacks and are going to move on to floor area ratio who has comments on floor area ratio and would like to go first just stare um well i heard

Our wonderful planning staff say that our floor area ratio is a nightmare to calculate. I'm paraphrasing.

Didn't you say that?

That it's very difficult to apply or something.