1 Holeva Finau
From: Joanna Winter
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:27 AM
To: Steve Carlson
Cc: Greg Powell
Subject: RE: PA 2025-031 715 North San Mateo Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Mr. Carlson,
Thank you for sharing your comments, which have been received and will be shared with the Planning Commissioners. Please see the updated staff report, viewable at our Public Meeting Portal, which contains the requested study. I am copying the project planner, Greg Powell, in case you have questions.
Thanks,
Joanna Winter (she/her)
Planning Manager | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 | [email protected]
From: Steve Carlson
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2026 2:04 PM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: PA 2025-031 715 North San Mateo Drive
Mr. Winter:
I was revieing the online Staff Report for PA 2025-031 and it identifies a Transportation Study prepared by Hexagon in Attachment 6. However, it is not attached to the packet. The issue of impaired views for operators of vehicles egressing from the garage and pedestrians along Villa Terrace is a vital safety concern.
The vehicle entry should be from San Mateo Drive in order to minimize increasing vehicle congestion on Villa Terrace, eliminating vehicle headlight glare into neighboring single family dwellings living rooms, eliminating noise from the garage operations, and reducing the impacts of vehicles exiting the project site traveling westbound on Villa Terrace and using the newly improved Highland Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (providing enhanced safety for pedestrian and cyclists) - eastbound vehicles attempting to make
left turn onto North San Mateo Drive at Villa Terrace and State Street is becoming increasing difficult due to the increased traffic volumes and sight line on North San Mateo Drive so much so that I try to avoid making turns these intersections. Traffic and parking effects associated with this major residential development is of utmost concern. I did review the brief summary in the
2 Staff Report and found lacking in detail and substance. The project target clients appears to be single tech sector workers (based on the amenities, cowork space, package room, ample bike storage, lounge, pool and spa and predominance of single bedroom units etc.) that the project is intended to rely on third party transportation vendors for travel and service. The analysis from this project appears
to undercount the traffic associated with this project as it does not appear to include taxi service (eg.uber, lyft, waymo) parcel/package deliveries (e.g. Amazon, Fed Ex, UPS) or other services (eg. grocery and food) with I raised this and other concerns at the Neighborhood Meeting conducted on Feb 26, 2005. Please provide a copy of the said Attachment 6.
Respectfully, Steve Carlson
1 Holeva Finau
From: Joanna Winter
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:24 AM
To: Holeva Finau; Greg Powell; Steven Lizzarago
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Sung H. Kwon
Subject: FW: 715 /723 N. San Mateo Drive 247 Villa Terrace Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Comment letter received.
Joanna Winter (she/her)
Planning Manager | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 | [email protected]
From: KATHY WEINGAND
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:18 AM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>; sue dreyer ; Stone, Jonathan
Subject: 715 /723 N. San Mateo Drive 247 Villa Terrace
March 20, 2026
Dear Joanna Winter, Jonathan Stone, Prometheus Real Estate Group, and Members of the City of San Mateo Planning Department and Commission,
We, the undersigned residents of San Mateo Heights, respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed development at 715/723 North San Mateo Drive and 247 Villa Terrace..
While we recognize the importance of thoughtful development, we believe that the current proposal raises several significant issues related to scale, design compatibility, and neighborhood impact. As currently planned, the project appears substantially taller and denser than surrounding structures, with minimal setback from the sidewalk. We respectfully request that the height of the development not exceed that of existing buildings on the west side of North San Mateo Drive, in order to maintain consistency with the established neighborhood character.
In addition, the architectural style of the proposal does not reflect the predominantly early-20th- century character of the neighborhood, which includes Arts and Crafts, Craftsman, Victorian, Spanish, and Colonial influences. We encourage consideration of a design approach that is more harmonious with these existing styles.
2 We also note the absence of meaningful green space or landscaped areas in the current plans. Given that such features are a defining element of the neighborhood, we respectfully request the inclusion of park-like landscaping, a community green space, or similar amenities that contribute positively to the environment and quality of life.
Setbacks are another important concern. Homes along Villa Terrace and State Street maintain consistent front yard setbacks, contributing to the visual cohesion of the neighborhood. We ask that the proposed project incorporate a comparable setback—approximately 15 feet—along these streets to align with existing development patterns.
With regard to parking and traffic, residents have consistently expressed concerns about existing congestion and limited street parking. At the preliminary meeting on February 26, 2025, it was clearly communicated that current conditions are already strain ed. The proposed ratio of 181 residential units
to 180 parking spaces appears insufficient given typical household vehicle ownership and visitor needs. We respectfully request that the project include adequate parking provisions to prevent further burden on surrounding streets and residents.
We are also concerned about potential impacts on airflow, sunlight access, and overall quality of life for neighboring properties. Appropriate setbacks and design considerations should be incorporated to mitigate these effects.
Furthermore, we ask that construction logistics be carefully managed to minimize disruption.
Specifically, we request that construction vehicles and equipment not be permitted to park on State Street or Villa Terrace at any time during the construction period.
In addition, the City Council of San Mateo recently voted to close Villa Terrace and Bellevue Ave. at the train tracks which will obviously restrict traffic flow and cause immeasurable congestion throughout the entire neighborhood adding another reason why this project needs to be scaled back..
We would also like to raise concerns regarding information presented in the project application about the property on Villa Terrace (Parcel B). It is our understanding that this property is currently a duplex and occupied, contrary to its description as a single-family residence. We respectfully request that all project documentation accurately reflect existing conditions to ensure transparency and informed decision-making. Also the notice of the Planning Commission public hearing reflects Ross and Diana Bowling as property owners giving the insinuation that they are somehow project developers when in fact they are not. This affordable housing Duplex will be torn down to make way for these market rate unaffordable apartments.
Finally, we believe that new development should contribute positively to the broader community. In light of the cumulative impact of development over recent decades, we encourage the inclusion of community-oriented amenities such as green space, a garden, or a small recreational area.
Furthermore, many of us just received notice of the hearing on March 19th for the March 24th hearing which is not adequate time for residents to adjust their schedules to attend the hearing.
As a neighborhood, we remain committed to constructive dialogue and collaboration. As long-time residents, we expect to be heard, if not by the Prometheus Group, then by the Planning Commission of San Mateo, as we are direct stakeholders and expect that the planning commision advocate for us. We provided these comments a years ago and have not seen any change to the project based on our comments. We respectfully ask that Prometheus Real Estate Group work with residents and the 3 City to develop a revised proposal that is lower in density, consistent in scale with surrounding buildings, architecturally compatible, and inclusive of adequate setbacks, parking, and green space.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Residents of San Mateo Heights
Kathy Weingand
Shawn Carter
Paige DeRadt and Ankit Singh
Ray Parres
John Junkerman
Camella Mumm
4 David and Suzanne Dreyer
Julia Jun
1 Holeva Finau
From: James Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 12:40 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: City Attorney's Office; Clerk; Community Development Distribution; City Mgr; Joanna Winter
Subject: public comment re item 1 for tonight's Planning Commission hearing Attachments: San Mateo - 715 N. San Mateo Drive - HAA.pdf Dear San Mateo Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 1 for tonight's Planning Commission hearing, the proposed 181-unit housing development project at 715 N.
San Mateo Drive, which includes 19 very low-income units.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
Mar 24, 2026
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
By Email: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear San Mateo Planning Commission,
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 181-unit housing development project at 715 N. San Mateo Drive, which includes 19 very low-income units.
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 reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) or render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)), 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 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,
floor area ratio (FAR), setbacks/yards, landscape
buffers, blank walls, open space, and yard dimensions. 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.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
2 of 3
1 Holeva Finau
From: Joanna Winter
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:35 PM
To: Zachary Dahl; Prasanna Rasiah; Greg Powell; Steven Lizzarago; Holeva Finau Subject: FW: PA 2025-031
Forwarding comment received
Joanna Winter (she/her)
Planning Manager | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 | [email protected]
From: Steve Carlson
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:01 PM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: PA 2025-031
Ms. Winter:
Thank you for placing Attachment #7 Transportation Study on the Staff Report. am submitting a few comments regarding the proposed project with this email.
Respectfully,
Steve Carlson
To: San Mateo Planning Commission
From: Steve Carlson
Re: PA 2025-031
PROJECT NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW
Due to the incompleteness and inadequacy of the project description and the incompleteness of the Notice, and the 73-page Transportation Study referenced in the City Staff Report made available on-line mid-day on Monday March 22, 2026.
Staff Report does not include sufficient analysis of Transportation Study nor several other long term and project related issues of importance to neighborhood residents including concerns voiced at other projects, and voiced at the applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting conducted on
2 February 26, 2025 – over one year ago. Building brutalist design, 75-foot height, massive bulk, large scale details, lack of setbacks and landscaping, lack of on-site parking, impact to on-street parking, generation of noise, odors, off-site glare, and construction impacts.
Several studies associated with project need to be completed prior to any public hearing decisions-
makers can make an informed design on the appropriateness of the design and the life safety and economic harms caused to the area residents.
On-street Parking Study, Wind Alteration, Shading Study, Noise Study, Off-Site Lighting and Glare Studies Soils and Geotech, and a Phase I Environmental Assessment. The applicant and City Staff have had ample time upwards of one year to conduct these studies and has not significantly modified the site plan nor the building design.
The meeting needs to be continued.
ISSUES
NOTICE
Incomplete description and identification of required entitlements.
DESCRIPTION
Incomplete Key details left out. Off-site improvements 750 linear feet and soil nailing permanent use of public right-of-way, and on-street garbage bins loading zone and truck loading Removal of 4 tree qualifying as major vegetation. Bicycle parking for 208 bicycles.
Grading of 53,000 square feet and excavation of 21,000 cubic yards. Elimination of unknown number of on-street parking spaces.
ENTITLEMENTS
All of the required entitlements are not identified.
SITE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
No description of purpose of the map.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPROVAL
The purpose of the ADPA, removal of 4 trees constituting major vegetation is absent. 3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPROVAL
Grading of over 53,000 SF and Soil Excavation/Off-haul of over 21,000 cubic yards.
TRANSPORTATION STUDY – Attachment #7 – The 73 page report was made available on March 23, 2026 and only after public comment that the attachment was missing from the Staff Report.
The public nor the Planning Commission can reasonably be expected understand the traffic impacts without reading the report. Reliance on a public presentation by the City’s Transportation consultant nor the Staff Reports two paragraph summary adequately co nveys the
details of the study – e.g. what was included, what trip distributions were assumed, what data bases were utilized, what intersection were evaluated, were building operations included (e.g. garbage pickup, taxi and delivery service, unit turnover, visitation, business use).
LIFE SAFETY HAZARDS
Construction, Grading and Excavation Impacts –
Fugitive dust, odors noise, parking, traffic and
circulation impacts lasting weeks. Sensitive receptors including children, nearby schools, transitional housing, day care, CDBG related service and senior assisted living Auto related uses.
Excavation - Adverse harms imposed on abutting residences. Forced financial burden associated with protecting their own properties from excavation (e.g. legal representatives insurance costs, bonding and Geotech consultants, and shoring (sheet piling?)).
Villa Terrace Garage Entry – Creates permanent Pedestrian/Vehicle conflicts at garage entry/public sidewalk leading to potential accidents. The pedestrian/vehicle conflict created by the building design by the lack of an adequate sight-line has not been addressed.
Phase I Environmental Assessment – Specifically required as a Condition of Approval by CEQA, but not included. Given the age and past use of existing structures and buildings likely contain toxic and hazardous materials. Given the immediate adjacency of residential properties identification and removal is important for the public safety. Ideally, this study would have been completed so that the decision-makers and the public were informed prior to a decisional meeting.
NOISE ODORS AND OFF-SITE LIGHTING GLARE AND NIGHTTIME AMBIENT
LIGHTING LEVELS
The Villa Terrace garage entry will create permanent off-site glare on single family dwellings opposite the entry.
Operation of the west facing open recreation areas will generate noise odors and off-site glare.
All uses in the E2 zone district are required by the SMMC Title 27 to be enclosed. 4 The nighttime use of the building may significantly increase the nighttime ambient lighting levels on neighboring residential properties adversely affecting occupancy and landscaping.
WIND
Building height and slab design, with limited setbacks may block prevailing west winds resulting in channeling and altering winds, accelerating ground level wind speeds adversely affecting neighboring residential properties and potentially the sidewalk areas.
PRIVACY
VIDEO RECORDING CAMERAS- Video recording of persons walking, cycling and driving will have images recorded by an unknown vendor and final image disposition. Can acts to deter anyone using project streets. Vendor, Length of storage, sale of image information.
ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS - West facing dwelling units and open recreation areas and observation deck lounge have unobstructed views of neighboring properties thereby eliminating what little privacy residents possess.
DESIGN
QUALITY OF FIT – Building height, bulk, non-existent setbacks, it emphasis on verticality, brutish design, large scale details, single entry, lack of unified single-entry garage and pedestrian entry, self-contained gated community and pedestal design with open recreation pools fronting on public streets is incompatible with open landscaped small scale 1 to 2 story residences neighborhood. Existing suburban residential neighborhood is intended to encourage neighborliness and foster calm. The proposed monumental building does not reflect any of the established pattern or qualities of access to light air and tranquility. The building does not increase opportunities for neighborliness and engagement with area residents except within the building- an essential hallmark of suburban community design.
The building creates more isolation through limited access gated pedestrian entry on North San Mateo Drive facing the commercial areas and the separate single garage enty/exit on Villa Terrace.
Concentration of vehicle traffic on Villa Terrace and on-street truck and garbage loading.
Potential significant reduction and adverse impact to existing supply of essential street parking.
Spreading parking impacts to the area on adjacent streets.
Increase in traffic and noise will not increase the areas attractiveness and interest, but will increase nuisances and congestion and conflicts.
ECONOMIC HARM
5 EXCAVATION, SHADING AND WIND – The proposed building and immediate juxtaposition to abutting properties subject the owners and residents to permanent harm. To protect their property from the proposed excavation, owners are required to shore their property and improvements and protect the excavated property from harm. Owners may need to hire a Geoteh engineer, a contractor legal counsel and may experience insurance issues.
The Shading caused by the building will likely permanently increase energy costs during the period between the Fall and Spring Equinox. This will likely be exacerbated by rising energy costs. The shading will adversely affect landscape planting and use of outdoor area resulting in further costs.
Increases in ground level wind speeds may contribute to increased energy costs by affecting ground level temperature and evaporation. Outdoor use areas may be adversely affected in terms of activity and landscape planting. Increase wind speeds can adversely affect door and window operation.
1 Holeva Finau
From: Max Mautner
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 9:24 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Greg Powell
Subject: Thank You – Approval of PA-2025-031 – 715/723 N San Mateo Drive Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for unanimously approving the multi-family residential project at 715/723 N San Mateo Drive (PA-2025-031) on March 24.
I live three blocks away on Highland Avenue and want my support on the record.
This project is exactly the kind of infill density San Mateo needs on a transit, walking & biking accessible corridor: 181 units including 19 for very-low income households.
Today, it is a vacant surface parking lot that has blighted my neighborhood for years--but I hope that a few years from now it will have foot-traffic and vibrancy, especially with its lower parking ratio:
2 I hope to see more decisions like this one.
I also want to validate my neighbors who spoke at public comment: curb parking congestion will occur when this project is fully leased.
While a review of the city's curb parking program is outside the planning commission's purview, I urge you to push council to act.
My neighborhood would benefit from a residential parking permit program, and with continued infill development citywide it will become an unavoidable political priority that is best addressed sooner rather than later.
Yours truly,
Max Mautner
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Tel
ephone: | Facsimile:
www.allenmatkins.com
David H. Blackwell
E-mail:
Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
July 14, 2026
San Mateo City Council
San Mateo City Hall
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: City Council July 20, 2026 Meeting
Agenda Item __(1. Old Business)
Appeal of 715 N. San Mateo Drive
(PA-2025-031)
Hon. Mayor Loraine and Council Members:
This office represents Prometheus Real Estate Group, the applicant of the above-referenced multifamily residential development project. We have reviewed the Application for Appeal filed by Steve Carlson. Rather than addressing the merits of the appeal, or lack thereof, the purpose of this correspondence is to set forth the statutory framework applicable to this project. A brief analysis of this framework should assist with the Council’s consideration of this matter and should lead to an immediate denial of the appeal.
I. AB 130
On June 30, 2025, a new statutory CEQA exemption for multifamily housing development projects was enacted as part of Assembly Bill 130 (“AB 130”) and became effective immediately. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66.) The new AB 130 statutory CEQA exemption is similar to the existing categorical Class 32 exemption under the CEQA Guidelines, except that AB 130 reduces legal risks by limiting opportunity for third party challenges because no “unusual circumstances” challenges are permitted.
Unlike the Class 32 exemption, an analysis of potential impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality is not required to support the exemption. Instead, the project site must meet all of the SB 35 siting criteria, as here. In advance of the Planning Commission’s consideration of the project, this office submitted a memorandum to the City that demonstrates the
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
San Mateo City Council
July 14, 2026
project’s qualifications under AB 130. That memorandum should be incorporated into the administrative record for this Agenda Item. It is clear from the evidence in the record that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA, and the CEQA-related complaints raised in the appeal 1 are irrelevant.
II. HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
A. Background
The Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) establishes the state’s overarching policy that a local government may not deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible qualifying housing development projects. The express intent of the HAA is to promote housing development: “It is the policy of the state that this section [HAA] should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).)
As enacted in 1982, the original HAA (referred to as “the anti-NIMBY law”) directed local governments to approve housing projects that complied with local land use standards. Now codified in subdivision (j), the HAA specifies that a city cannot disapprove a project or condition it to be developed at a lower density if the project complies with all objective local development standards, unless the city finds that the project would have non-mitigatable health or safety impacts.
Subdivision (j) applies to both market-rate and affordable housing projects.
B. Legal Standards
In order for a local agency to disapprove a housing development project, it must base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence2 on the record. (Gov.
Code § 65589.5(d)(j)(1).) If a court determines that the local agency violated the HAA, the court:
may direct the local agency to comply with the HAA; may direct it to approve the project if it determines the agency acted in bad faith; shall award attorneys’ fees and costs; and may impose fines and multiply those fines under certain circumstances. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A).)
1 With regard to the appeal’s complaint that the project should be conditioned on the submission of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Prometheus had already prepared both a Phase I and a Phase II for the project, thus making the requested condition moot.
2 “The HAA evidentiary standard of a preponderance of the evidence is a high bar for a local agency to make a finding of a ‘specific, adverse impact.’” (HCD Letter of Support and Technical Assistance to City of Los Angeles, 10/18/24.) “The expression ‘preponderance of the evidence’ does not suggest deference to the City factfinders. The City must find that the balance or the weight of the evidence supports its determination.” (HCD Notice of Potential Housing Law Violations to City of Simi Valley, 7/22/20.)
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
San Mateo City Council
July 14, 2026
As noted above, the project is protected by subdivision (j), which applies to any housing project that is consistent with the local agency’s objective planning, zoning and design standards.
Under this subdivision, the key written finding that a local agency must make to disapprove a project is that, based on a preponderance of evidence in the record:
The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
There is simply no evidence, nor could such evidence be created, that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety based on objective, written public health or safety standards. The appeal provides no such evidence. Therefore, there is no legal basis to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval.
III. DENSITY BONUS LAW
The other relevant pro-housing statute is the Density Bonus Law (DBL), which “is a powerful tool for enabling developers to include very low, low, and moderate-income housing units in their new developments.” (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329, 1339.) The DBL is one of several California statutes designed to implement “an important state policy to promote the construction of low-income housing and to remove impediments to the same.” (Bldg.
Indus. Ass’n v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 744, 770; Gov. Code § 65582.1(f).) We recognize that the City has processed a number of DBL projects over the years, and that this Council is already aware of the DBL’s four distinct primary components: (1) density bonuses; (2) incentives/ concessions; (3) development standard waivers; and (4) parking ratio reductions.
Therefore, this letter will not provide an exhaustive analysis of the DBL’s application to the project, which your Staff can clearly provide if necessary. In addition, the appeal does not reference the DBL or any of these components, nor does it identify any City objective development standards to which the project does not comply. As set forth in the Staff Report, waivers have been applied to the handful of development standards to which the project does not comply, which both Staff and the Planning Commission support.
This letter serves as a reminder 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 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
San Mateo City Council
July 14, 2026
specific adverse impact on the public health or safety. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) In addition, appellate court and HCD options3 make clear 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.”].) As the state Department of Housing and Community Development recently advised another local agency that it cannot deny a waiver request based on the possibility of a redesigned project, “the courts have made it very clear that if a project qualifies under [the Density Bonus Law], and if waivers are needed to physically allow that project to go forward with the incentives and concessions granted, the waivers must be granted.” (1/20/22 Notice of Violation to City of Encinitas.)
Based on the foregoing, Prometheus respectfully submits that because the project is subject to the DBL and is also protected by the HAA, there is no basis upon which this Council can grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval. The required “specific, adverse impact” finding that applies throughout this statutory framework simply cannot be met here. As such, Prometheus respectfully requests that the Council deny the appeal.
Very truly yours,
David H. Blackwell
cc: Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney
Don Peterson
3 See, e.g., HCD Letter of Technical Assistance to City of Oceanside dated January 10, 2023; HCD Letter of Support of Technical Assistance to City of Riverside dated February 27, 2025.