www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111 -4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Christian H. Cebrian
415.262.5123
[email protected]
May 18, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
Joanna Winter
Planner Manager
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Email: [email protected]
Re: Revised Density Bonus Request
220 W. 20th Avenue, San Mateo
APN No. 039-030-400
Dear Ms. Winter:
Our client, SummerHill Apartment Communities (“Applicant”), submits this density bonus request in support of its concurrently submitted formal development application. The proposed 232 residential unit project (“Project”) at 220 W. 20th Avenue (“Property”), in the City of San Mateo (“City”), is subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards that existed on June 27, 2025, the date by which the Applicant had submitted the preliminary application (“Preliminary Application”)1 and applicable fee pursuant to Senate Bill 330 (“SB 330”). This revised request includes the removal of one waiver and revised descriptions of two other waivers compared to our April correspondence.
I. Project Description
The Property currently is developed with an approximately 28,500 SF office building.
The Applicant proposes to develop multiple-family rental units on an approximately 1.54 acre condominium unit (Unit 2) (APN No. 039-030-400) on an approximately 3.95 acre tract of land, with associated amenities including a leasing office, lobby, fitness center, club room, rooftop decks, landscaping, utilities, and other infrastructure improvements. The Project would include a single seven-story apartment building with 232 residential units and 279 parking spaces located in three levels of structured parking, including one level below grade. Further project details can be found in the enclosed plan set.
1 The Preliminary Application identified a 230-unit project. The increase of two units is less than a 20 percent change and therefore does not impact the Applicant’s rights under its Preliminary Application. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)(E).)
Joanna Winter
May 18, 2026
The Applicant intends to designate 15 percent of the Project’s 153-unit base project (23 units) for Very Low income households as defined by State law and an additional 5 percent of the base project (8 units) for Moderate income households.
IV. Density Bonus Law
A. Eligibility for State Density Bonus Law Benefits
Because 15 percent of the Project’s 153-unit base project will be reserved for Very Low income households, the Project is eligible for a 50 percent density bonus, incentives/concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and specified parking standards pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (“DBL”). (See Gov. Code, § 65915(b)(1)(B), (f)(2), (p).) Because an additional 5% of the base project will be Moderate income units, pursuant to California Government Code 65915(v)(1)(B), the Project is entitled to an additional 20 percent bonus for a total of a 70 percent bonus (261 units).The Project requests, a 51 percent density bonus, for a total of 232 units.
B. Waivers Under the State Density Bonus Law
The Project is entitled to unlimited waivers or reductions of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development. (Gov. Code, § 65915(e)(1).) A “development standard” is defined broadly as “a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, a minimum lot area per unit requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation that is adopted by the local government or that is enacted by the local government’s electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, whether that power is derived from the California Constitution, statute, or the charter or ordinances of the local government.” (Gov. Code, § 65915(o)(2).) Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) provides, in part, that “in no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.” The courts have broadly interpreted the right to waivers. (See Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346–1347 [“Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period. [] The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed.”)
“[A] city must offer a waiver or reduction of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the density, or with Joanna Winter
May 18, 2026
the requested incentives, permitted by the Density Bonus Law. [] For example, if a city ordinance imposes a building height limitation, a city must waive that limitation for a development that is eligible for a density bonus if imposing the height limit would physically preclude construction of the proposed building with the requested incentives and at the density allowed by the Density Bonus Law. There are no financial criteria for granting a waiver.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 770.) A city is strictly limited in denying requested waivers to circumstances where the waiver would have a specific, adverse impact on health or safety for which there is no feasible method to mitigate; or the waiver would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; or if granting the waiver would be contrary to state or federal law. (Gov. Code, § 65915(e).) Importantly, “none involves a determination that the Project could theoretically be redesigned to achieve the same density without the requested waivers.” (California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) November 12, 2024 Notice of Potential Violation to the City of Jurupa Valley.) As summarized by HCD, “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, 1346-47.) The City must consider the Project as proposed, inclusive of any requested concessions and waivers.” (HCD January 10, 2023 Letter of Technical Assistance to City of Oceanside.) HCD further explained:
… project applicants need not consider various alternatives that might be plausible on the site without concessions, incentives, or waivers. As the applicant provided reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the waivers requested—in that it qual ified for a density bonus and could not build the project as designed without them — the City must waive the development standards requested pursuant to Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e).
(HCD January 20, 2022 Notice of Violation to the City of Encinitas) [emphasis added].) While an applicant may be required to provide a basic explanation as to why a project is eligible to receive a waiver, an agency cannot require preparation of a supporting report or study. (HCD Notice of Violation to City of Encinitas, dated Mar. 25, 2021, at pp. 3–4 [“The Legislature was clear that no additional studies, reports, or analysis were to be required.”]; see Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1287, effective January 1, 2024 [amending Gov. Code § 65915(a)(2) to remove “incentives or concessions” and “waivers or reductions of development standards” from the list of items for which a local government may request reasonable documentation].) It is the City’s burden to demonstrate that the requested waivers should be denied. (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(4).)
Joanna Winter
May 18, 2026
The Applicant requests waivers for the Project of the following development standards that would physically preclude construction of the Project at the proposed density, for the reasons set forth below. None of these waivers would have a specific, adverse impact on health or safety for which there is no feasible method to mitigate, have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resource, or be contrary to state or federal law. The Applicant reserves the right to request additional waivers during processing of the formal development application for the Project.
GP and Zoning
Standard
Requirement
Proposed
Building Height
(Building Height is per
General Plan
§ 27.24.055)
This standard requires a 6 story
maximum height.
The project proposes 7 stories. This
exceeds the maximum height of 6
stories. A reduction in the number of
stories would result in the loss of units.
Front Yard Setback
27.22.070
The standard requires a minimum
15’ setback and buildings greater
than 3 stories require minimum
setback ½ the height of building.
The Project requests a waiver for a 9.5’
setback to property line. Increasing the
front setback would decrease the size
of the building and result in the loss of
units.
Side Yard Setback
27.22.080
The standard requires a minimum
setback of ½ height of building and
maximum required setback 25’.
The Project requests:
West side: 0’ proposed to subterranean
garage, 6.5’ to vertical building.
East Side: 4.5’ from subterranean
basement, 9.5’ to vertical building.
Increasing the side yard setback would
decrease the size of the building and
result in the loss of units.
Rear Yard Setback
27.22.090
The standard requires a minimum
setback of ½ height of building and
maximum required setback 25’.
The Project requests a 9.5’ setback to
property line on north side. Increasing
the rear yard setback would reduce the
size of the building and result in the
loss of units.
Open Space
Dimensions
27.22.100(b)
This standard requires at least 200
square feet of open space per
bedroom for the first bedroom in
each dwelling unit and 100 square
feet of open space for each
additional bedroom.
The Project requests a waiver of this
standard. The proposed balconies are
smaller than this standard and meeting
this standard would require decreasing
the size of the building and would
result in the loss of units.
Joanna Winter
May 18, 2026
Standard
Requirement
Proposed
Open Space
Dimensions
27.22.100(c)
The required open space for each
ground floor dwelling unit must
have a minimum dimension 10' in
any direction
The Project requests a waiver of this
standard. The building includes ground
floor patios and balconies with
dimensions less than 10’. Increasing
the dimensions to 10’ or greater would
require decreasing the size of the
building and would result in the loss of
units.
Open Space
Dimensions
27.22.100(d)
This standard requires that
balconies be no less than 100
square feet with no dimension less
than 6’.
The building includes balconies that are
smaller than 100 SF and with
dimensions less than 6’. Increasing the
balcony dimensions to 6’ or greater and
balcony size to at least 100 SF would
require decreasing the size of the
building and would result in the loss of
units.
Parking Standard
3’ Clear
The City’s parking standards
require 3’ clear at the end of a
dead end aisle.
The Project provides approximately 2’
at the end of dead-end aisles. Providing
3’ at dead end aisles would require
increasing the size of the structured
parking which would intrude into, and
result in the loss of, residential units.
Parking Standard
Ramp
Drawing set 3.1.194 requires that
garage ramps be 24’ wide and 28’
wall to wall.
The Project requests a waiver for a 22’
wide garage ramp. Widening the ramp
to meet this standard would require an
additional approximately 6.5’ to 7’ feet
of ramp width, which would intrude
into, and result in the loss of, first and
second floor units.
Parking Standard
Width
Drawing set 3.1.191 requires that
standard parking stalls have a
width of 9’ and compact parking
stalls have a width of 8’.
The Project requests a waiver from the
9’ stall width standard. The majority of
the stalls are 8’ 6” with some as narrow
as 8’. Widening those stalls would
require increasing the size of the
structured parking which would intrude
into, and result in the loss of, residential
units
Joanna Winter
May 18, 2026
Objective Design Standards
Standard
Requirement
Proposed
ODS 4.1.4 – Massing
Breaks - Generally
This standard generally requires
that buildings over 60’ in length
follow the rules of thirds in which
the structure is divided into at
least 3 primary masses
The building is not broken into 3
horizontal masses to avoid the loss of
units. On the east elevation (Elkhorn
Court) the building is broken into two
horizontal masses as breaking it into
more than two would result in a loss of
units because three masses would
require pushing the building farther
from the setback to create the dictated
articulation. The north frontage is one
horizontal mass, breaking it into more
than one would result in a loss of units
due to requiring the building to jog in
to create the mass break. The west
elevation is broken into two masses,
breaking it into three would result in a
reduction in the number of units as
creating a mass break would require a
portion of the building to move farther
from the property line.
ODS 4.1.6 (B) (1) –
Massing Breaks –
Mid-Rise Buildings –
Horizontal Wall Plane
Breaks
This standard generally requires a
5’ long 2’ wall plane offset every
20-40 feet of horizontal building
length.
The Project includes sections of
horizontal building length that exceed
this standard. Including a 2’ horizontal
offset would require moving a portion
of the building further away from the
property line, resulting in a loss of
units.
ODS 4.1.6 (B) (2) –
Massing Breaks –
Mid-Rise Buildings –
Vertical Wall Plane
Breaks
This standard generally requires
wall depth changes of the wall
plane along the height of all
building facades through use of
roof cornices on the top floor,
minimum five (5) foot step backs
or projections between the base
and body of the building, a change
in building material or color
between the base and body of the
building characterized by a twelve
(12) inch minimum offset from the
The Applicant requests a waiver for the
top floor of the building along Elkhorn
Court to be stepped back 7.5’. Stepping
the building back further would require
moving the wall of the top story away
from the street, resulting in the loss of
units.
Joanna Winter
May 18, 2026
Standard
Requirement
Proposed
surrounding building wall, or a
minimum ten (10)-foot stepback
immediately above the building
base for the top floor along all
building facades facing a right-of-
way.
ODS 4.2.2 - Entries
This standard generally requires
that residential entries be located
18-42” above or below the grade
of the adjacent residential
sidewalk.
The building has three (3) residential
entries on W. 20th Ave. The finished
floors of these first-floor units have
been increased to an elevation 24’
above mean sea level (MSL), while the
amenity areas at the southeast corner
are at 21’ MSL. The slope of the street
is such that while the furthest east of
these three units will be 18” or greater
in height above grade which complies
with the standard, the two
westernmost units will be 16.5” and
12” above grade. The Applicant
requests a waiver from this standard for
these two units because raising their
finished floor level to meet this
standard would result in the loss of
these units due to deficient ceiling
heights.
C. Incentives or Concessions Under the State Density Bonus Law The Project is entitled to at least three incentives or concessions because it provides 15 percent of the total units for very low income households. (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(2)(C).) The Applicant is not requesting any concessions at this time but reserve the right to do so during processing of the development application.
D. Parking
Because the Project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, there is no minimum vehicle parking requirement under AB 2097. (Gov. Code, § 65863.2.) Therefore, the Project does not need to avail itself of the reduced parking ratios permitted under Gov. Code, § 65915(p) for its proposed 279 parking spaces.
Joanna Winter
May 18, 2026
V. Conclusion
The Applicant looks forward to working with the City to provide much needed housing, including affordable housing, to the community pursuant to critical state laws that are designed to facilitate housing production.
Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Christian H. Cebrian
cc: Elaine Breeze
Richard Norris
109262\18785335v8