San Mateo faces suit over its housing plan

Housing element adoption signals the beginning of the end of an arduous process, but advocates at the Housing Action Coalition have different plans, hoping to remain a thorn in its side until certain changes are made to the document. 

According to the lawsuit, several properties listed in San Mateo’s housing element as candidates for residential housing construction in the next several years are unrealistic. Some include an 8-acre portion of the Bridgepointe Shopping Center parking lot, which is listed as a likely housing site by 2031. The complaint says that “many of the retail and restaurant uses that depend on the parking lot are new, and have long-term leases that run for most or all of the planning period,” adding that the businesses have not shown any intention of relocating. Other dubious housing sites per the suit include Parkside Plaza Shopping Center, 1900 S. Norfolk St. and the Borel Shopping Center. 

Ali Sapirman, South Bay and Peninsula organizer at Housing Action Coalition, said San Mateo has been especially negligent regarding its housing element, particularly surrounding site capacity planning. 

“San Mateo is by far the most egregious in the Bay Area. They really have not made any effort to change and just fundamentally disagree with our analysis,” Sapirman said.  

While other Bay Area cities have faced lawsuits over their housing elements, this would be the first that directly challenges a city’s claim over land use feasibility, they added.

According to the current RHNA cycle, San Mateo must update its zoning and other housing-related policies to allow for more than 7,000 new housing units to be built over the eight-year period, with 40% of those dedicated to those making 80% or less of the area median income. That’s more than double the total assigned units from the previous cycle.

After a city adopts the housing element, it must submit the plan to the state for its official OK, or certification. Without that, cities are subject to fines and builder’s remedy projects, which allow developers to skirt local zoning and density policies. If passed, state Sen. Scott Wiener’s recently introduced Senate Bill 1037 could also tack on $10,000 to $50,000 per month in civil penalties.

Community Development Department Director Zach Dahl responded to some public comments during the City Council meeting Monday, May 20, including those from Sapirman, stating that ongoing commercial use and residential housing construction in the same area are not mutually exclusive.

“You could have an existing office building and then use the 5-, 8-acre site to generate … 400 units [of housing]. You may not need that full site to build that 400-unit project, so you could cluster it on a portion of the site over a parking lot,” he said. “We’ve talked to a lot of property owners with situations like that, where they’re not looking to discontinue all their uses to achieve housing on those sites.”

Deputy Mayor Rob Newsom also added that even if portions of the Bridgepointe Shopping Center don’t get developed, there are other applicable sites in the city that could be added to the housing element for residential use, such as the recently shuttered Marriott Hotel. 

San Mateo County cities have seen particularly high rates of noncompliance at this stage in RHNA cycle compared to other Bay Area counties. And in San Mateo’s case, that’s partially due to an ongoing tug-of-war over a frequently debated development concern within many Bay Area communities — buildings’ height and density limits. The resulting compromise, which moved forward during the May 20 council meeting, is an upcoming ballot initiative that, if passed, would repeal Measure Y — which caps most buildings to five stories — and allow for higher limits near some Caltrain stations.

Neither supporters nor opponents of raising heights have expressed particular fondness for the measure, albeit for different reasons, but if it fails, the city will need to dedicate another six months’ worth of resources to create a backup plan, leaving it vulnerable to more builder’s remedy projects, and ultimately, state decertification if it doesn’t meet its deadline. 

“If it doesn’t pass, they are going to be so far into the RHNA cycle that it will be too late for them to start moving quick enough to make up for the amount of housing that’s going to be lost,” Sapirman said. 

The city stated in a press release that while it’s now the subject of a lawsuit, it still plans to submit the housing element to the state’s Department of Housing and Development for review and certification.