1 From: Kyle Dargis
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2026 12:59 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Public comment on item 25 - apartments on 20th ave Council,
While I support the need for new housing in San Mateo, I ask you to deny the project on 20th Avenue as is it currently planned.
First, I agree with the Shriner's concerns about locaƟng the entrance on Elkhorn Court.
Second, there is limited parking in the area and eight guest spots for that many units is insufficient. This will impact seniors, disabled adults, and families who would be unable to visit residents as when they have small children, they cannot rely on Ubers, a 20 minutes walk from Caltrain with strollers and such. This would already compound an exisƟng shortage of parking.
The contrucƟon will likely cause the child day care and special needs adult care to close. There is already a shortage of day care opƟons, and this will also only hurt San Mateo residents.
Please do not approve the plan.
Kyle Dargis
1 From: Alison L
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2026 7:18 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Public comment- Item 25
Greetings council,
I do not support the contruction of over 300 units on 20th Avenue in San Mateo due to safety reasons and the negative impact on the surrounding area. Given the many projects being planned and the many layoffs in tech I ask you to hold off for three years until we know the impact. Alternatively, reduce the number of units and make it a two story complex.
Thank you for your attention.
Alison Lewis
San Mateo
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 From: James Lloyd
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 11:12 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom
Cc: City Attorney's Office; Community Development Distribution; City Mgr; Joanna Winter; Clerk
Subject:
Re: public comment re item 25 for tonight's Council meeting Attachments: San Mateo - 220 W. 20th Avenue - HAA.pdf
Apologies, please replace our recently submitted comment letter for tonight's meeting with the version attached to this email.
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 2:09 PM James Lloyd wrote:
Dear San Mateo City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 25 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 232-unit housing development project at 220 W. 20th Avenue, which includes 23 units dedicated to very low-income households and eight units dedicated to moderate income households.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Jun 15, 2026
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 220 W. 20th Avenue
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Dear San Mateo City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 232-unit housing development project at 220 W . 20th Avenue, which includes 23 units dedicated to very low-income households and eight units dedicated to moderate income households. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 130.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) or reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) unless, again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.
Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to height, front yard setback, rear yard setback, open space dimensions, parking dimensions, massing breaks, and entries. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66.) Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v.
County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-
flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
2 of 3
1 From: Joanna Winter
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 10:24 AM
To: Norris, Richard
Cc: Stephanie Davis; Zachary Dahl; Breeze, Elaine; Simin Zakavand; Martin McTaggart; Chantal Eaton
Subject: FW: 220 W. 20th Avenue Residential Project
Attachments: 220 W. 20th Residential Project - Letter to Zach Dahl - 6-15-26.pdf Thanks, Richard. We appreciate the additional voluntary measures you’re proposing. I’m including Simin and the City Clerk’s oƯice as well.
Joanna
Joanna Winter (she/her)
Planning Manager | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 | [email protected]
From: Norris, Richard
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 10:08 AM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>; Stephanie Davis <[email protected]> Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Breeze, Elaine Subject: FW: 220 W. 20th Avenue Residential Project
Hi Joanna and Stephanie,
Please see the letter I just sent to Zach that I missed cc’ing you on.
Best,
Richard
Richard Norris
Vice President of Development
SummerHill Apartment Communities
All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes/SummerHill Apartment Communities and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes/ SummerHill Apartment Communities. All rights reserved.
2 From: Norris, Richard
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 10:05 AM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Jason Hallare <[email protected]>; John Thompson <[email protected]>; Oleksii Chuiko ; Breeze, Elaine ; Cebrian, Christian H.
Subject: 220 W. 20th Avenue Residential Project
Hi Zach,
Please find a letter as a follow-up to our meeting on Thursday.
Oleskii, please share this letter with Robert and your members and tenants as appropriate.
Thank you,
Richard
Richard Norris
Vice President of Development
SummerHill Apartment Communities
shapartments.com
777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 ph one 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 SHApartments.com
June 15, 2026
Zach Dahl
Director of Community Development
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Avenue
San
Mateo, CA 94403
Re: 220 W. 20 th Avenue Residential Project
D
ear Mr. Dahl:
On behalf of SummerHill Apartment Communities (SHAC), thank you for coordinating a third meeting with our neighbors, the Asiya Shriners, to further discuss our project located at 220 W. 20th Ave. with th
em. As you know, our company values community engagement and creating solutions to neighbor concerns when we are reasonably able to, and we appreciate you creating opportunities to learn more about their concerns to continue to do so on this project.
From our most recent meeting with the Asiya Shriners (Shriners), we understand that the Shriners are concerned that our project’s construction would affect both the Shriners and their tenants, the Little Bloom Child Development Center and Partners for Independence Adult Day Center due to traffic, dust, and noise.
Following our meeting, we reviewed the project’s conditions of approval as well as relevant laws and regulations that govern the construction and operation of our buildings. Several of the most pertinent of these are described in detail below. In addition, we have reviewed the concerns with our construction management colleagues as well as technical consultants and would like to share a voluntary suite of additional accommodations we are prepared to implement beyond our existing robust conditions.
Project Design
Changes in Response to Community Outreach
As presented in detail to the Planning Commission, SHAC has made many changes to the project design as a result of feedback we have received during our community outreach process and this is reflected in our current plans.
Additional Accommodations
As we described during our meeting with the City and the Shriners, in response to their concerns, we have also offered to implement the following accommodations subject to their approval and/or the City San Mateo’s:
2 • Repaint and extend the Passenger Loading Zone and install enforceable city signage on Elkhorn Court
• Add reduced 15 MPH School zone speed limit signs on Elkhorn Court at W. 20th Ave. • Ad
d striping and/or signage for tenant parking with times in the Shriner’s parking lot
As a follow-up to the meeting, subject to City coordination approval, we would also propose the following:
• Add a temporary construction ingress driveway on West 20th for the demolition through slab-on- gr
ade portion of the construction. This would allow vehicles to enter from W. 20th Ave. and exit on
to Elkhorn Ct. reducing trips on Elkhorn by 50% during this phase and keep vehicles on the project side of the street.
• Add “T’” parking striping on the southern side of W. 20th (non-project side). This was suggested by
Corte Bella residents. We have already proposed this striping on our side.
Construction Management
Conditions of Approval
Condition of Approval 4 requires that prior to issuance of any permits, SHAC shall submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP), for review and approval by the Community Development Director, which will be implemented throughout all phases of construction that includes:
• Construction Timeline
• Construction Phasing Plan
• Project 24-Hour Liaison and Disturbance Coordinator Name and Contact Information • Construction Sign as required in Pre-Construction Meeting Guide • Construction Hours Acknowledgment and Work Hour Waiver Requirements for Extended Operations (e.g. large concrete pours, crane hoists, etc.) • Winterization Plan (If excavation/grading will occur in wet season) • Documentation of Adjacent Street Condition (when applicable) • Traffic Control and Logistic Plan
• Road or Sidewalk Closure Plan,
• Construction Hauling Routes,
• Worker Parking Location and Agreements
• Materials and Equipment Staging Plan
• Construction Equipment List including compliance with applicable Air Quality and Emission Regulations
• Erosion and Dust Control Plan
• Vibration Monitoring Plan
• Construction Noise Mitigation Plan
• Vector Control Plan
• Pre-construction Conference
3 By complying with this condition, SHAC will address many of the Shriner’s concerns regarding traffic safety and dust during construction.
Neighbor Pre-Construction Meeting
In addition to the actions required by the CMP, SHAC will host a Neighborhood Pre-Construction Meeting onsite, typically two (2) months before the start of construction. During this meeting, neighbors will meet SHAC’s construction management team supervising this project, obtain their contact information, learn about the project schedule and process, and be able to ask SHAC’s team any questions they have about the project.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to Reduce Dust
Condition 4 requires an erosion and dust control plan as well which will include incorporation of the Bay Area Air District’s recommended Best Management Practices (BMP). BMPs that will be implemented during construction of the project will include:
• Watering unpaved exposed surfaces twice daily
• Covering the beds of all trucks transporting loose soil, sand or other materials off-site • Using a wet vacuum truck to remove visible mud and dirt tracked onto adjacent roadways • Limiting speeds on unpaved roads to 15 MPH, paving all roadways, driveways, and sidewalks as soon as possible (unless seeding or soil binders are used) • Suspending all excavation, grading, demolition activities whenever wind speeds exceed 20 MPH • Washing all truck and equipment tires prior to them leaving the site • Providing the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints
• Posting the Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints’ phone number
Noise Attenuation
Conditions of Approval
As described above, the CMP requires that we create a Noise Mitigation Plan per the City’s guide. We will include the following measures:
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited. • Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors and property lines. If they must be located within 35 feet of receptors and property lines, adequate muffling (with barriers or enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors.
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
In addition, the project will also comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance which includes regulations for construction hours and levels of noise.
4 Additional Accommodations
Following our meeting with Asiya Shriners and City staff, SHAC engaged Salter Inc., the project’s acoustical engineering firm who has previously studied the project, to develop a list of additional voluntary noise reduction accommodations that we could implement during construction of our project.
Please see attached Memorandum dated June 12, 2026, which SHAC will implement. They include:
• Conducting construction activity to reduce noise impacts at adjacent property boundaries wherever possible
• Using well maintained equipment judiciously to be as quiet as practicable • Selecting hydraulically or electrically powered equipment while avoiding pneumatically powered equipment where feasible, prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines • Requiring equipment to be turned off if not in use for over 5 minutes, and installing exterior building sheathing at the upper floors as early as is feasible to act as a barrier to noise at the adjacent uses
• Erecting, in locations as directed by the City, 8-foot high construction noise barriers at the eastern and southeastern perimeter of the site prior to commencement of ground-level construction activities. Doing so is intended to block direct noise line-of-sight to exposed facades of adjacent buildings, reducing the noise level by at least a 5 dB at the receiver when the barrier breaks line of site to the source.
Please let me know if you, or any of your colleagues, have any questions regarding how the conditions of approval or other regulations will be implemented by the project, or if we can offer any additional details on the voluntary suite of additional accommodations outlined above. I can be reached by e-mail at We look forward to cont
inuing working
with the City of San Mateo and community on this projec t.
Sincerely,
Richard Norris
Vice President of Development
CC: City of San Mateo Mayor and City Council
Alex Khojikian, City of San Mateo
Matt Fabry, City of San Mateo
Joanna Winter, City of San Mateo
Stephanie Davis, City of San Mateo
Jason Hallare, City of San Mateo
John Thompson, City of San Mateo
Oleskii Chuiko, Asiya Shriners
Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Apartment Communities
Christian Cebrian, Cox, Castle, Nicholson
Enclosure: Construction Equipment Noise-Reduction Measures, June 12, 2026
220 20th Avenue
12 June 2026
Construction Equipment Noise-Reduction Measures
Barriers on the site perimeter should have a minimum height of eight (8) feet above the surrounding grade. These barriers should remain in place during all ground level work, such as demolition, excavation, grading, shoring, building pad preparation, foundation work, framing, insulation, and sheathing work on Levels 1 and 2. A closable gate made of solid barrier material is allowable but must be maintained closed when not in use.
8. Exterior building sheathing at the upper floors should be installed as early as is feasible to act as a barrier to noise at the adjacent uses.
* * *
This concludes our discussion of potential construction noise-reduction measures for the project. Please reach out if you have any questions.
Best,
SALTER
Eric Mori, PE
Executive Vice President
cc: Elaine Breeze
SummerHill Apartment Communities
1 From: George Terry <
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2026 3:31 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: City of San Mateo City Council Meeting June 15, 2026 / Agenda Item #24 Re: City of San Mateo City Council Meeting June 15, 2026 / Agenda Item #24
To the esteemed City Councilors of San Mateo,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the New Multi-Family Residential Development (PA-2025- 063 ). I am a 40-year resident of San Mateo County and an active member of the Asiya Shriners. As a retired parking control officer with decades of experience, I have worked to ensure safe streets for pedestrians and drivers. In 2021, I led the Asiya Shriners as Potentate and built partnerships with local businesses and organizations. These experiences give me a unique perspective on this proposed project.
I would like to raise concerns about the proposed New Multi-Family Residential Development (PA-2025- 063):
1. First, as an advocate for intergenerational mentorship that the Asiya Shrine provides to the Little Bloom Child Development Center, I am deeply concerned about the safety of these children and their families due to the increased construction and resulting traffic created by this development.
2 2. Secondly, traffic at Elkhorn Court and 20th Avenue is already experiencing bottlenecks and congestion due to the limited number of cars turning onto Elkhorn Ct during rush hour, at the end of sports practice at Junipero Serra High School, and during the development center’s pickup time. I fear this crosswalk will become a real danger with the proposed development’s increased traffic on Elkhorn Ct.
3. Additionally, the intersection at 20th Avenue and El Camino Boulevard is regularly gridlocked from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on most weekdays, with rush-hour traffic attempting to merge onto the J. Arthur Younger Freeway (92 Eastbound). The proposed development will vastly increase the congestion at this intersection and the resulting gridlock, with ripple effects up and down a major thoroughfare.
4. Finally, I encourage you to take a look at the community around this proposed development. This calm residential community is mostly three stories or fewer, very limited in parking, and still feels walkable. The proposed complex will dwarf the surro
unding homes, provide no additional public parking,
and fundamentally change this unique corner of San Mateo.
In summary, without substantive traffic, parking, and street-safety improvements, this proposal will not only be a nuisance but also a danger to the public. I implore you to reconsider approving this project until a pedestrian-safety and traffic study is completed. A community of at least 4 generations meets at the corner of Elkhorn and 20th. I know our city councilors will do everything in their power to keep us safe, including saying “no” to this proposal as is.
3 Sincerely,
George Terry
Past Potentate, Asiya Shrine