c
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
ELEVENTH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233
TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800
FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388
www.berliner.com
Branch Offices
Merced, CA • Modesto, CA
____________ ____________
FOUNDERS
SANFORD A. BERLINER (d. 2020)
SAMUEL J. COHEN
OF COUNSEL
STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON
PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY
FRANK R. UBHAUS
NANCY J. JOHNSON
JEROLD A. REITON
MICHAEL B. IJAMS
NANCY L. BRANDT
BRADLEY HEBERT
FRED A. SILVA March 26, 2026
Elizabeth Gagliardi, Planner
City of San Mateo Community
Development Department
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Nazareth Vista LLC Mixed-Use Development Project
616 South B Street - APNs 034-194-030, 034-194-140
Density Bonus Request Letter
Dear Ms. Gagliardi:
This letter is on behalf of applicant Nazareth Vista LLC (“Applicant”) in support of their entitlement application for a housing development project on 616 South B Street, San Mateo, CA 94403 (“Project”). This letter addresses the Project’s density bonus, parking ratio, and several waivers that are being requested by the Applicant for the Project in support of the current permit application.
Project Overview
The Project consists of the construction of an 8- story, 162,119 square foot, mixed- use building, including 94 multi -family residential units, 7,286 square feet of commercial space, 117 vehicle parking spaces and 98 long-term bicycle parking spaces. The Project places the commercial retail space and parking garage on the first floor, parking garages on the second and third floors, and residential units on the remaining floors. The Project will also provide site improvements to ANDREW L. FABER
JAMES P. CASHMAN
JONATHAN D. WOLF
KEVIN F. KELLEY
MARK MAKIEWICZ
JOLIE HOUSTON
BRIAN L. SHETLER
HARRY A. LOPEZ
CHARLES W. VOLPE
CHRISTINE H. LONG
AARON M. VALENTI
CHRISTIAN E. PICONE
SUSAN E. BISHOP
SANDRA G. SEPÚLVEDA
KIMBERLY G. FLORES
DAWN C. SWEATT
TYLER A. SHEWEY
JAMES F. LANDRUM, JR.
MICHAEL J. CHENG
EILEEN P. KENNEDY
JOSHUA BORGER
BENJAMIN M. JOHNSON
STEPHEN C. SCORDELIS
C. DAVID SPENCE
BRANDON L. REBBOAH
TIMOTHY K. BOONE
STUART B. SPENCER
WENDY C. KROG
BLAINE R. COX
DAVID A. BELLUMORI
ERIC D. CAPRON
CRAIG A. TANABE
ALEXANDRIA N. NGUYEN
MONICA S. HAMMER
LEILA N. SOCKOLOV
ALAN LAW
ANGELA SHAW
SADIYA S. AHMED
NATHAN C. BRADY
GIULIANA R. FERRANTE
LINDSAY I. WALCZAK
MAKAYLA A. WHITNEY
JACE D. LYNCH
MARISA J. MARTINSON
MARIA I. PALOMARES
KEVIN S. LANDIS
OMEED RAJAEE
TIFFANY A. SCOGGIN
CHRISTIAN D. WICK
VEENA A. BANSAL
YAO VANG
JOSEPH H. FELDMAN
MATTHEW C. TOSCANO
JEANETTE MARTINEZ
ISAAC D. NIEBLAS
ROBERT AVERSA-GOODMAN
SHANY KLEIN
MILAN NEDA
KIM G. DESCAMPS
MORGAN H. WAHLER
JUSTIN D. GAZZANIGA
JOSEPH C. FORGATCH
GARRETT D. BERGTHOLD
TONY INFANTE
IAN M. DURUPT
RAMSIN YOUKANA
ADAM M. CARDOSO
EDUARDO FLORES-
COVARRUBIAS
RACHEL M. HICKINGBOTTOM
Elizabeth Gagliardi, Planner
March 26, 2026
-2-
enhance pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, such as new sidewalks, curb and gutter enhancements, bicycle racks, and street trees.
Of the 94 residential units, 10 units would be designated as affordable to Very Low-Income households, including six studio units, three 1- bedroom units and one 2- bedroom unit. The residential units include studio apartments (42 units), 1- bedroom apartment s (41 units) and 2- bedroom apartments (11 units). The affordable units are distributed evenly across the four residential floors and three-unit types. The Project site is 0.64 acres, resulting in a project density of 150 dwelling units/acre.
The Project site General Plan designation is Mixed -Use Medium II, which allows a residential density of 51- 99 dwelling units/acre and a building height of 4- 6 stories. Mixed- use development is supported by this designation. The site is zoned C1- 3/R-5. Adjacent zonings are C1-3/R-5 (NE and SE), R6-D (SW), and CBD/R (NW). The R6-D zoned parcel is adjoining while the other zoned parcels are separated by intervening streets.
For Density Bonus calculations, it is important to note that per the Government Code Section 65915(f)(5), all numbers shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Also, the percentage of affordable units is to be calculated based on the proposed density prior to application of a Density Bonus per Section 65915(b) (1), which reads in part: “A city, county, or city and county shall grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall be as specified in subdivision (f)… if an applicant for a housing developm ent seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this section…”.
The base density for the Project site is 64 dwelling units. Ten Very Low -Income units represents 16% of the base density, thereby qualifying the Project for a 50% density bonus, or a total of 94 residential units. Accordingly, the Project also qualifies for waivers or reductions of development standards as necessary to utilize the density bonus and for concessions/incentives if needed to make the project feasible. The Project is eligible for three concessions/incentives, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(2)(C). At this time, the Project proposes use of one concession/incentive, and further the Applicant reserves the right to modify the Project to take advantage of additional concessions/incentives, if necessary or appropriate. Finally, the Applicant requires several waivers as outlined below.
Parking
The Project also incorporates the parking ratios set forth in Government Code Section 65915(p)(2)(A). Government Code Section 65915(p)(2)(A) provides that a housing development with at least 11% Very Low -Income units that is also one -half mile from a major transit stop to have a parking ratio that does not exceed 0.5 spaces per housing unit. Because 15% of the base units of the Project are designated as Very Low Income, and the Project is approximately 0.4 miles from the San Mateo Station serviced by Caltrain, the Project will be entitled to a parking ratio that does not exceed 0.5 spaces per housing unit. Therefore, the Project is required to provide a minimum of 47 spaces to support the proposed residential uses.
Elizabeth Gagliardi, Planner
March 26, 2026
-3-
The Project will have 96 residential parking spaces, exceeding the minimum parking requirement of 47 spaces. The Project will have an additional 21 spaces dedicated for visitor and retail parking, satisfying the requirement for 14 retail/visitor parking spots (1.9/1000). Thus, the Project satisfies both the residential and commercial parking minimums.
Waivers
Government Code Section 65915(e) states that the City shall waive any applicable development standard that would have the effect of physically precluding the Project unless the local agency finds that the waiver would (1) violate state or federal law; or ( 2) have a significant and unmitigable impact on public health or safety, as defined in Government Code 65589.5(d)(2).
The standard for considering waiver requests was interpreted by the court recently in Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755 (“Bankers Hill”). In Bankers Hill, neighborhood groups challenged a height waiver for a project that was granted by the City of San Diego, because they claimed that the project could have been redesigned to avoid the need for a height waiver. The court found that the city lacked discretion to deny a height waiver because once the applicant had “established its eligibility for the density bonus . . . , it was entitled to a waiver of any development standards that would preclude construction” of the proposed project unless the city could make findings of a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or unless granting the waiver would violate state or federal law (Bankers Hill, p. 774).
As a result, the Applicant has the initial burden of justifying a waiver by showing that under Government Code Section 65915, the Project qualifies for the density proposed, and that the Project cannot be constructed as proposed unless the waiver is granted. If the Applicant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the City to identify a significant, adverse impact on public health or safety, or a violation of federal law. The Applicant is not required to consider or propose alternative projects that attempt to achieve the same density without the waivers sought.
As outlined in the Project Overview above, the Project qualifies for a density bonus with a maximum density of 94 units. The Applicant has designed the Project with 94 units. The development standards discussed below would physically preclude construction of the Project.
Thus, the Project is entitled to be granted the below waivers from standards unless the City makes a finding for denial as described above. The Applicant is unaware of any circumstances that would justify finding for denial.
Building Height
San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 27.30/055 establishes a maximum allowed height for the Project site through reference to the General Plan. As stated in the General Plan, the maximum height for the property is 6 stories. The Project is 8-stories in height. Reducing the height of the Project to 6 stories would significantly reduce the number of residential units as well as affordable units in the Project. The Applicant asks that the City grant a waiver to this height requirement to allow the Project to be constructed as designed at the proposed density.
Elizabeth Gagliardi, Planner
March 26, 2026
-4-
Setback Requirements
For mixed-use projects, SMMC Section 27.29.116 states that setbacks are determined by the underlying zoning district, which in this case is the C1- 3 district. SMMC Section 27.30.060 identifies required setbacks for parcels adjoining residential parcels. As the Project is located on a parcel adjoining residential use, per this Section, the Project is required to provide a rear yard setback equivalent to the side yard of the adjoining R6- D parcel. The Project would thus be required to provide a 15-foot rear setback per SMMC Section 27.28.086. For parcels that front on to a street with a district with at least 80% residential use across the street must similarly provide a front setback equivalent to that required for the opposing residential district. In this case the Project’s 7th Avenue frontage is required to provide a 20-foot setback.
The Applicant requests a waiver to the 20-foot setback requirement along 7th Avenue per SMMC Section 27.28.084. The Project currently has no setback along 7th Avenue, so enforcing the 20-foot setback requirement would preclude the Project from being constructed as designed at the proposed density. Adding a 20- foot setback would result in reducing the building’s footprint and as a result, losing affordable residential units. Because the Project has qualified for a density bonus, the Applicant cannot be required to redesign the Project under Bankers Hill. The Applicant asks that the City grant a waiver to this setback requirement to allow the Project to be constructed as designed at the proposed density.
The Applicant requests an additional waiver to the 15-foot rear setback per SMMC Section
27.28.086. The Project currently has no rear setback, so complying with this setback requirement would significantly decrease the building’s footprint and reduce the number of affordable units the Project can provide. Because the Project has qualified for a density bonus, and this setback requirement would also prohibit the Project from being constructed as designed at the proposed density, the Applicant asks that the C ity also waive this setback requirement pursuant to the holding in Bankers Hill.
Floor Area Ratio/Density
The Applicant requests a waiver to the floor area ratio limit (FAR) applicable to the Project.
The Project is in a C1 -3/R5 district, which has a FAR of 3.0 pursuant to SMMC Sections
27.26.050, 27.28.050, 27.29.110, and 27.30.050. The Project is on a 27,921 sq/ft lot and has a total floor area of 109,219 sq/ft. Consequently, the Project has a FAR of 3.6. If the Project was required to comply with a FAR of 3.0, then it would be required to reduce its total floor area to 83,763 sq/ft.
This would result in eliminating housing units from the Project and reducing the total number of affordable housing units. The R5 overlay limits the maximum residential density to 50 dwelling units/acre. A waiver from this limitation is necessary to utilize the density bonus as discussed above.
Vertical Wall Plan Breaks (ODS 4.1.7.B.2)
The City’s Objective Design Standards (Objective Standards) include several provisions applicable to the Project identified as High Rise Standards. The Project conforms to most of these but would not fully conform to the Vertical Wall Plan Breaks requireme nt. The Objective Standards requires three out of four criteria to be met, but the Project only meets two of the criteria.
Elizabeth Gagliardi, Planner
March 26, 2026
-5-
The Project is able to meet the two criteria that pertain to architectural treatment (roof cornice and material changes), but not able to meet either of the remaining two, both of which require a stepback that would reduce the building square footage. Accordingly, incorporation of such a stepback would reduce the number of units that could be placed within the building and would therefore be inconsistent with use of the Density Bonus Law.
Shadow Requirements (ODS 5.1.2)
“Fifty (50) percent of required open space shall be unshaded between the hours of 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the spring and fall equinox. This standard shall not apply where the open space is already shaded by an existing building and no other opportunities for access to sublight exist on the site.” As designed, the Project open space would be 13% unshaded during this timeframe.
Increasing the unshaded are to 50% would require a significant reduction in building height such that the Project would lose the units provided through the Density Bonus Law.
Loading Zone
The project will not conform to two of the City’s standards for loading zone. The City normally requires a 10’ width for a loading space and the project provides a 9’ wide space. Additionally, the loading space does not meet the City’s standard of a 50- foot separation from the nearest street intersection. It would not be feasible for the project to be modified to meet these requirements without the loss of residential units and/or the parking that is provided as an amenity for those units. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting waivers from these standards.
Objective Design Standard 7.1.2.F
ODS7.1.2.F requires that three architectural façade design features (cornices, cornices above second floor awnings, and windowsills) be placed at the same height as on adjacent buildings. This would only be possible with changes to the height of each floor within the building and would result in the loss of residential units and/or parking due to a less efficient design.
Concessions/Incentives
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(2)(C), the Project is entitled to three Concessions/Incentives, independent of any Waivers granted to the Project. In the case of Concessions/Incentives, the City has the obligation to demonstrate that the Conce ssion/Incentive would either not result in a cost reduction for the applicant, have an adverse effect on the public welfare, or be contrary to State Law.
The Applicant requests that the Project be granted a Concession/Incentive for relief from Mixed-Use Section 7.1.2 (A, B, and C) of the Multi -family and Mixed- Use Objective Design Standards (Mixed-Use Standards). Section 7.1.2 of the Mixed- Use Standards req uires that new development in the Downtown area implement a Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style.
While the Project conforms to some of the criteria in the Mixed -Use Standard, it does not fully conform to the following: Required Architectural Eleme nts; and Additional Architectural Elements. (Note that the Project would also not conform to the Building Façade Materials and Colors standard, but conformance to this standard is optional given that the Project otherwise conforms to the Mixed-Use Standard 4.1.)
Elizabeth Gagliardi, Planner
March 26, 2026
-6-
Full adherence to the requirements set forth in the Mixed- Use Standards would impose additional costs on the Project in the form of expensive architectural features and details inconsistent and incompatible with the proposed height and density for the Project. Adding architectural elements such as historic ornamentation, elaborate chimneys, decorative tiles or extra deep recessed windows would increase both construction and maintenance costs, as well as be inappropriate for use on the proposed 8- story building, as they are associated with lower density forms of development. In some cases, qualifying elements for this standard (e.g., low-pitched roof, round or square towers, and deep recessed windows) would require a reduction of habitable building area, thereby also undermining use of the density bonus. Granting this Concession/Incentive will result in cost savings for the Project while not endangering the public welfare or being contrary to state law; the Project therefore is entitled to this Concession/Incentive.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Project qualifies for a density bonus and associated waivers and for use of one Concession/Incentive as requested. Please let me know if I can assist you further in understanding the Project.
Very truly yours,
BERLINER COHEN,
LLP
JOLIE HOUSTON
E-Mail: [email protected]
cc: Prasanna Rasiah
San Mateo City Attorney
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403