March 31, 2025
Mr. Zach Dahl
Community Development Director
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave.,
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: PA24-065 620 Full Application Submittal - 668 E. 3rd Ave.
Dear Mr. Dahl,
Prometheus Real Estate Group respectfully and formally submits this Project Description Letter and associated materials for the full development application associated with the Project proposal located at 668 E. 3rd Avenue - PA24-065 620.
The Project’s pre-application was submitted pursuant to SB 330, which amended the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65889.5), the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code § 65920 et seq.), and created the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code § 66300). This full application is timely submitted to preserve the vesting secured by the pre-application.
The Project application is consistent with the guidelines of the adopted San Mateo General Plan 2040 in proposing a 128-unit residential development. It will allow an aging strip retail center and parking lot to convert to much needed market rate and affordable rental housing within walking distance to Downtown San Mateo and Caltrain and is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the San Mateo General Plan.
We believe that this request is fully consistent with San Mateo’s vision and goals of providing housing opportunities in focused areas of San Mateo as guided by the recently adopted General Plan. This 0.64- acre site is situated within the Mixed Use Medium II designation of the General Plan in downtown San Mateo.
1 This proposal supports guiding language of the San Mateo General Plan to “Encourage new development to maximize the density and intensity specified in the Land Use Plan and to efficiently use land and infrastructure resources” and ”provide a range of housing types, sizes, and affordability levels in all San Mateo neighborhoods” (Policy LU 1.3).” Accompanying this Project Description Letter are the required Project plans and application documents.
I. Project Description
The Project will consist of eight stories of residential units comprised of studio, one-bedroom, two- bedroom, and three-bedroom units over an internal and underground parking garage, the entrance of which will be visually minimized per Policy CD 7.4. Amenity spaces on ground floor, second floor, and the 8th floor will provide gathering space for the residents.
In keeping with Policy CD 7.3, the Project design enhances the neighborhood’s visual and architectural
1 The Project complies with the General Plan’s base density of 99 units per acre and therefore should be processed by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Municipal Code section 27.06.020(h).
character by providing high-quality materials and construction, open space, and resident amenities.
The proposed 8 story, 128-unit residential building embodies a refined blend of Spanish Revival and Mediterranean architectural styles that are integral to both the Downtown specific plan area and the Vision of the Gateway specific plan area outlined in the Objective Design Standards. Furthermore, the proposed Project is designed in accordance the standards set forth by each of the specific plan areas which include but are not limited to façade modulation, window/balcony alignments, light colored stucco facades, weathered brick facades, varied roof lines, and simulated red tile roofs and parapets.
Additionally, the objective design standards for both specific plan areas prescribe 13 architectural elements, 7 of which are to be included. The proposed Project implements multi-level roofs, asymmetrical massing, arches, ornamental details, multi pane windows, decorative tiles, ornamental details, and deep recessed openings at the ground story lobby. The proposed design is a modern interpretation on the Spanish Revival and Mediterranean styles, establishing a dialogue with the region’s architectural heritage and creating a vibrant community hub by blending contemporary living with cultural richness to foster engagement and enrich the urban landscape.
II. Density Bonus Law
The Project incorporates the use of the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 [“DBL”]). The DBL has four distinct primary components: (1) Density Bonuses; (2) Incentives; (3) Development Standard Waivers; and (4) Parking Standard Waivers. Although interrelated, each component serves a different purpose and is governed by unique standards.
A. Density Bonus
Section 65915(b)(1) of the DBL provides that requests for a density bonus must be granted “when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development” that meets one or more of the statute’s thresholds, including at least 5% of the units for very low income households.
The Project is located within the Mixed Use Medium II land use district of the San Mateo General Plan, which allows a maximum of 99 du/ac, and which equates to a maximum residential density of 64 units on the Project site. The Project implements the DBL to include 15% Very Low Income units (10 Units) to receive a 50% density bonus (32 units), and further provides 15% Moderate units (10 Units) to receive an additional 50% density bonus (32 Units), which equates to a total unit count of 128 units. (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(2).
B. Incentives
A local agency must grant an incentive request unless it can make a written finding, based on substantial evidence, that: (1) the incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs; (2) the incentive would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety, or upon an historical resource; or (3) would be contrary to state or federal law. (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1).) We submit that none of those findings can be made with regard to this Project.
Recent case law confirms that an applicant is not required to establish that the requested incentive will result in cost reductions. In Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5 th 549, 555, the court
explained that there is a presumption that an incentive will result in cost reductions and that an applicant “is not required to establish that cost reductions will result.” Instead, a city must approve the incentive request unless it makes one of the written findings set forth in Section 65915(d)(1) above.
(Ibid.) “By requiring the city to grant incentives unless it makes particular findings, the statute places the burden of proof on the city to overcome the presumption that incentives will result in cost reductions.” (Id. at 556.) Because of this presumption, a city is “not required to make an affirmative finding that the incentives would result in cost reductions, or to cite evidence to establish a fact presumed to be true.” (Id. at 560.)
The number of incentives is derived from the amount of affordable units that are provided. In this case, by providing at least 15% of the units for VLI households, the Project applicant may receive three incentives. (§ 65915(d)(2)(C).) This Project Application does not identify the use of any Incentives at this time.
However, we reserve our right to identify and seek the three incentives available in response to feedback from City staff during the entitlement process.
C. Development Standard Waivers
In addition to, and separate from, requests for incentives, a DBL applicant may request a waiver or reduction of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the Project proposed by the developer. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) The definition of a “development standard” includes a site or construction condition, including, without limitation, local height, setback, floor area ratio, onsite open space, and parking area ratio requirements that would otherwise apply to residential development pursuant to ordinances, general plan elements, specific plans, charters, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. (Gov. Code § 65915(o)(1).) A request for a development standard waiver neither reduces nor increases the number of incentives to which the developer is otherwise entitled. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(2).) Furthermore, there is no limit on the number of waivers that may be issued.
As with incentives, recent case law has clarified the legal principles regarding waivers. The Schreiber case confirms that a city may refuse a request to waive or reduce development standards only if it makes written findings that the waiver or reduction would have a specific adverse impact on the public health or safety. (Id. at 556; Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) In addition, another new case upholding a city’s approval of a DBL Project confirmed that waivers are based on the Project as proposed by the developer: “even if we assume the Project as designed is inconsistent with some of the City’s design standards, the Density Bonus Law would preclude the City from applying those standards to deny this Project.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5 th 755, 775.) Therefore, a local agency
may not respond to a waiver request that a Project could be redesigned to avoid the need for a waiver. (Id. at 774-775 [rejecting argument that the Project “could have been built more horizontally” to comply with design standards.”].) In addition, HCD has notified various local agencies that they cannot require a qualifying DBL Project to be redesigned in order to avoid the need for a waiver. Last year, HCD advised the City of Oceanside as follows: “HCD reminds the City that appellate courts have established (and continue to affirm) that local agencies cannot lawfully redesign a qualifying SDBL Project on the theory that if the Project were configured differently, it would not need the requested incentives/concessions and waivers. (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346–1347.) The City must consider the Project as proposed, inclusive of any requested concessions or waivers.”2
At this point, we identify the following waivers or reductions to the development standards identified below (As identified on page G002 of the Plan Set and below):
2 HCD Letter of Technical Assistance to City of Oceanside dated January 10, 2023.
• Building Height (GP Mixed Use Medium II – 4-6 Stories) o The Project proposes an 8-story building
o The development standard referenced would physically preclude development of the Project if the waiver was not provided
o See Page G010 of the Project Plans
• Blank Walls (Objective Design Standards, Section 4.1.1, limited to 20’) o The rear façade requires a blank wall in order to contain the internal parking garage and required space for utilities.
o The development standard referenced would physically preclude development of the Project if the waiver was not provided. o See Page G010 of the Project Plans
• Setbacks (Objective Design Standards, Section 7.7.1.A.2 & 7.7.1.A.3) o The development standard referenced would physically preclude development of the Project if the waiver was not provided. o See Page G010 of the Project Plans
• Stepbacks (Objective Design Standards, Section 7.7.1.B.1 & 7.7.1.B.2)The development standard referenced would physically preclude development of the Project if the waiver was not provided.
o See Page G010 of the Project Plans
• 4.4.1 Residential Entries (Objective Design Standards, 7.7.3.2.B & 7.7.3.3.A) o The development standard referenced would physically preclude development of the Project if the waiver was not provided. o See Page G010 of the Project Plans
• 4.2.1 Residential Entries (Objective Design Standards) – Entries located 18”-42” below or above grade:
o The development standard referenced would physically preclude development of the Project if the waiver was not provided.
D. Parking Standard Waivers and AB 2097
Parking ratio reductions are separate from the incentives and waivers identified above. By providing more than 11% VLI units, the Project may request a cap of 0.5 spaces per unit because the Project is within a half mile of a major transit stop with unobstructed access. (Gov. Code § 65915(p)(2).) Please be advised that pursuant to the recent enactment of AB 2097, the City cannot impose any minimum parking requirements on the Project, which is located within one-half mile of public transit. (Gov. Code § 65863.2.) The Project currently proposes 76 Parking spaces within the building.
As a brief introduction to our firm, Prometheus owns and/or manages over 13,000 apartment homes on the west coast and is the largest private owner of apartments in the Bay Area. Prometheus is a long- term owner and operator, having built its first project in Sunnyvale back in 1968. Two of Prometheus’ most recent projects are in the City of San Mateo, 303 Baldwin (the former Trags site and 1 st and B).
Prometheus Real Estate Group is a local firm with our headquarters in Downtown San Mateo.
We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to working with you and the City on
this proposed Project. Please contact me or Jonathan Stone at [email protected] (650.931.3448) should you have any questions regarding our proposed application or our firm.
Respectfully submitted,
Don Peterson
Senior Vice President
Prometheus Real Estate Group
1 North B Street, Suite 4000
San Mateo, CA 94401
(650) 931-3448
CC:
Jonathan Stone