Condo plans return before San Mateo City Council after costly lawsuit

The denial caught the attention of housing advocacy group California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, or CaRLA, which successfully sued the city leaning on state law that limits cities’ ability to deny developments that fall in line with previously established city plans. The parcel in question is across the street from a 60-unit building and is within an area the city had designated for more multifamily buildings.

“San Mateo isn’t the worst city out there as far as housing policy,” said Dylan Casey, CaRLA’s executive director. “But like a lot of other cities they use a process for considering housing development that allows a few neighbors to get in the way of a housing development that really benefits the whole city and whole region.”

The nonprofit hopes such lawsuits will set legal precedent to reduce local jurisdictions from blocking residential growth, thereby reducing housing costs by increasing supply. The city was required to pay $450,000 to the group in October when the case was decided by the California Court of Appeals.

The units were to be market-rate, something Councilmember Eric Rodriguez last year pointed to as being at odds with the city’s “history of expanding affordable housing opportunities.” He said the city had approved more than 2,000 new housing units since 2017, 430 of which were below-market-rate.

Per state law, cities must adopt plans to incorporate more housing. San Mateo must submit plans to the state Housing Department by the end of this year to accommodate 7,015 new homes between 2023 and 2031, a number determined based on jobs growth, local affordability and proximity to transit. Failure of the city to approve applications to fulfill such allocations can lead to litigation similar to the case at hand.

“I think everybody is going to be leery of the fact that this mistake cost us about a million dollars,” said Mayor Rick Bonilla, who was the lone member of the council who voted not to deny the application. “I understand the neighbors’ concerns, but I felt we were not able to exclude the fact that this was an application that fit within the envelope of what we were asking to have built there, and to deny it would lead to a problem.”

The city hired outside counsel for the litigation, carrying significant costs outside of the settlement amount.

“The building does blend in with the neighborhood because it’s on El Camino, it’s been zoned that way for like 30 years,” added Bonilla.

As part of the city’s original request to the developer, the Planning Commission had sought setbacks in the planned structure to aid in blending the building with its adjacent neighbors.

Casey suggested the city eliminate its discretionary review practice when approving new housing developments. Bonilla said the city is working to establish clear objective standards for the purpose, something “that should go a long way in avoiding this type of situation in the future.”

corey@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200, ext. 105