The California Department of Housing and Community Development has officially given the stamp of approval to San Mateo’s housing element, a blueprint cities must develop every eight years outlining how they will zone and plan for their state-assigned housing goals.
Lisa Diaz Nash
“What I appreciated about the process was that it encouraged everyone, no matter who they were, to be involved,” Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash said. “It’s a really good collaborative effort so that we can grow as a community, so that we can be more diverse and welcome more people and help more people.”
Each city must adopt a compliant housing element, which then requires certification from the state. While Nash said she is proud of the work the city has achieved thus far, the multi-year effort has also been punctuated with ongoing community disagreements.
One of the most controversial housing element conversations surrounds the identification and designation of historic structures, which mostly originated from an ongoing dispute in the Baywood neighborhood when several residents pushed back against a neighbor’s proposed demolition of their Spanish colonial-style home. Some pro-housing advocates have claimed that a handful of residents’ efforts to designate the affluent community a historic district — which would impose certain requirements over a home’s exterior architectural design — is a deceptive tactic used to stifle development and infringe on property rights. Others, including the group spearheading the effort, San Mateo Heritage Alliance, have argued the designation is meant to preserve the neighborhood’s architectural history.
The city is also part of a lawsuit filed by Housing Action Coalition, alleging its housing element identifies sites which grossly overestimate their potential housing capacities. The complaint alleges that the 8-acre portion of the Bridgepointe Shopping Center parking lot — which is listed as a likely housing site by 2031 — is frequently used by patrons of adjacent retail and restaurant stores which “have long-term leases that run for most or all of the planning period.” Other dubious housing sites, per the suit, include Parkside Plaza Shopping Center, 1900 S. Norfolk St. and the Borel Shopping Center.
And the entire housing element hinges on whether the city’s voters pass a ballot measure this November which would amend Measure Y and raise the current five-story building cap in certain areas, such as near Caltrain stations and along El Camino Real. If it doesn’t pass, the city will have to undergo substantial revisions to its housing element. Jeremy Levine, policy manager at the Housing Leadership Council, said the city ended up making positive, substantial changes to its plan, though the process could have been accelerated if it weren’t for Measure Y.
“Measure Y is an enormous constraint that most cities do not have,” Levine said. “San Mateo also took a really long time to bring forward the new General Plan update. They could have made it efficient and voted on it in 2022, but they took two extra years after Measure Y passed to do so.”
That said, he added the city ended up committing to “meaningful policy changes.”
Recommended for you
Councilmember Amourence Lee has frequently vocalized her desire to see more substantial height and density changes to increase the amount of much-needed housing and said it would be “very concerning” if voters don’t pass the amendment, as it would necessitate robust revisions to the housing element.
“It would be a major undertaking for the city, and I would anticipate a pretty significant drain on staff capacity,” she said. “Setting the policy is the first step, and the next and most important is implementation. And the state is going to be holding us accountable for following through on those commitments.”
Nash acknowledged this housing element cycle has been particularly strict compared to previous rounds, but said the process allowed the council, including herself, to more deeply understand what different communities care about most.
“Talking to the community is critical, because when you’re talking about the future, people have different needs,” Nash said. “We heard a lot about what we were doing right and what we could do better, [such as] focusing on streamlining our processes internally so it can nudge us to build in the future but also do it in an efficient and effective way.”
Over a year into the 2023-31 housing cycle, several other cities throughout the county have either just received certification or are still waiting on final state approval as well.
According to its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, San Mateo must plan for 7,015 new units between 2023 and 2031, with 40% of those dedicated to those making 80% or less of the area median income.
It’s important to report accurately - the areas designated for the housing element were along transit lines and within specific areas - Baywood was not included in that at all. So inferring that the effort around the Baywood Historic District was to circumvent housing is in error. And hundreds of Baywood residents have been supportive of a historic district since the initial talks began. It’s important to look at the veracity of sources as the opposition, Less Red Tape, has lied, distorted facts, and used fear tactics on residents. If you need any more backup of this, I suggest you watch the recent meeting (starting at hour 4) of the State Historic Resources Commission on August 2, 2024, discussing a proposed historic district in San Diego. Less Red Tape spoke in concert with the Housing Leadership Council and displayed their ignorance, accused the Commission of corruption, and challenged their competence. The Commission’s response showed that sometimes shining a light on a toxic group outside their locality helps put into perspective the damage they are doing right at home. The SMDJ would benefit from more accurate investigation and reporting.
Here we go again… According to Ms. Weiss, she believes hundreds of Baywood residents are supportive of a historic district yet to my knowledge a survey of all Baywood residents was not performed. She alleges Less Red Tape has lied, distorted facts, and used fear tactics while willingly ignoring the fact that the San Mateo Historic Alliance is guilty of lies, distorted facts, and used fear tactics on residents. The bottom line is that the San Mateo Historic Alliance is happy to trounce on hundreds of homeowner rights, whether they like it or not, in their zeal to create a historic district, which unsurprisingly, would stifle development in a neighborhood. Perhaps that is the goal, even though Ms. Weiss doesn’t want to admit it?
Thanks for the troll, Terence. I have my (long) list of LRT lies, distortions, and fear tactics ready to post - let me see your list against Heritage Alliance first though.
Thanks for the troll, Connie, and for yet another attempt at distraction. You seem to continue to miss, likely on purpose, the bottom line fact that the SMHA is trampling on homeowner rights, whether they like it or not. Meanwhile, since you appear to have plenty of time on your hands to compile a supposed (long) list of alleged misdeeds from LRT, perhaps you can answer a few simple questions.
When you last left me, you admitted the Heritage Alliance moved forward with the historic designation, knowing full well it would trample on homeowner rights. So here we are, with you and the Heritage Alliance getting what you’ve hoped for - divisiveness rather than unity. I hope it doesn’t, but I get the feeling this issue will end up with plenty of sullied SMHA reputations and credibility, if not ultimately in courts. And for what? Misplaced pride? Or is it because the not-so-hidden goal is to stifle neighborhood development?
The best course of action is to follow Karyl Eldridge’s and Jon Mays’ proposals to withdraw the application and start again, educating Baywood homeowners on the pros and cons associated with historic designation and allowing them to vote on it. Why continue to feed neighborhood division and continue to hurt/destroy the reputation of the Heritage Alliance and their members?
BTW, where’s our friend Taso? He created an account to become an SMHA cheerleader but when he failed to make a positive contribution, he disappeared. Is it because his tactics to repeat SMHA misinformation, distraction and deflection, and attacking the opposition failed to impress? I’d say, and perhaps you realize that Taso’s arguments were too emotional and that carried through to his presentation, resulting in him doing more harm to the Heritage Alliance’s efforts than good. Has he been benched or had a “talking to”? If you see him, tell him I said hello.
Terence, thanks for confirming you aren’t able to put together the list. But you give a great example here of completely twisting the truth, which is directly from the LRT playbook, so I guess I should thank you for proving my point twice in one post.
I think increased density also has its set of constraints, below are just a few:
1. Make land more expensive.
2. Higher density requires higher skilled workers
3. Townhomes could be completed in a few months per building, a high-density development takes 2-3 years, and none of the units are occupied until the entire building is complete.
4. The introduction of the ballot measure itself put the entire development process on hold. Since it will entice developers to wait. After the ballot measure there will be 2 years of entitlement and 3 years of construction. So the first unit is not online until 2030. In effect Yimby’s did something Nimby’s can only be accused of, stopping development.
5. Multifamily housing have gyms and club houses costing millions of dollars to build that are often underutilized, while we are told we can’t have affordable housing because the project does not pencil. I am almost certain affordable units would add more to the bottom line than the amenities built in their place but let’s eliminate parking.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(7) comments
HCD should be abolished and RHNA should be rescinded. The City of San Mateo should declare itself a sanctuary city from RHNA.
It’s important to report accurately - the areas designated for the housing element were along transit lines and within specific areas - Baywood was not included in that at all. So inferring that the effort around the Baywood Historic District was to circumvent housing is in error. And hundreds of Baywood residents have been supportive of a historic district since the initial talks began. It’s important to look at the veracity of sources as the opposition, Less Red Tape, has lied, distorted facts, and used fear tactics on residents. If you need any more backup of this, I suggest you watch the recent meeting (starting at hour 4) of the State Historic Resources Commission on August 2, 2024, discussing a proposed historic district in San Diego. Less Red Tape spoke in concert with the Housing Leadership Council and displayed their ignorance, accused the Commission of corruption, and challenged their competence. The Commission’s response showed that sometimes shining a light on a toxic group outside their locality helps put into perspective the damage they are doing right at home. The SMDJ would benefit from more accurate investigation and reporting.
Here we go again… According to Ms. Weiss, she believes hundreds of Baywood residents are supportive of a historic district yet to my knowledge a survey of all Baywood residents was not performed. She alleges Less Red Tape has lied, distorted facts, and used fear tactics while willingly ignoring the fact that the San Mateo Historic Alliance is guilty of lies, distorted facts, and used fear tactics on residents. The bottom line is that the San Mateo Historic Alliance is happy to trounce on hundreds of homeowner rights, whether they like it or not, in their zeal to create a historic district, which unsurprisingly, would stifle development in a neighborhood. Perhaps that is the goal, even though Ms. Weiss doesn’t want to admit it?
Thanks for the troll, Terence. I have my (long) list of LRT lies, distortions, and fear tactics ready to post - let me see your list against Heritage Alliance first though.
Thanks for the troll, Connie, and for yet another attempt at distraction. You seem to continue to miss, likely on purpose, the bottom line fact that the SMHA is trampling on homeowner rights, whether they like it or not. Meanwhile, since you appear to have plenty of time on your hands to compile a supposed (long) list of alleged misdeeds from LRT, perhaps you can answer a few simple questions.
When you last left me, you admitted the Heritage Alliance moved forward with the historic designation, knowing full well it would trample on homeowner rights. So here we are, with you and the Heritage Alliance getting what you’ve hoped for - divisiveness rather than unity. I hope it doesn’t, but I get the feeling this issue will end up with plenty of sullied SMHA reputations and credibility, if not ultimately in courts. And for what? Misplaced pride? Or is it because the not-so-hidden goal is to stifle neighborhood development?
The best course of action is to follow Karyl Eldridge’s and Jon Mays’ proposals to withdraw the application and start again, educating Baywood homeowners on the pros and cons associated with historic designation and allowing them to vote on it. Why continue to feed neighborhood division and continue to hurt/destroy the reputation of the Heritage Alliance and their members?
BTW, where’s our friend Taso? He created an account to become an SMHA cheerleader but when he failed to make a positive contribution, he disappeared. Is it because his tactics to repeat SMHA misinformation, distraction and deflection, and attacking the opposition failed to impress? I’d say, and perhaps you realize that Taso’s arguments were too emotional and that carried through to his presentation, resulting in him doing more harm to the Heritage Alliance’s efforts than good. Has he been benched or had a “talking to”? If you see him, tell him I said hello.
Terence, thanks for confirming you aren’t able to put together the list. But you give a great example here of completely twisting the truth, which is directly from the LRT playbook, so I guess I should thank you for proving my point twice in one post.
I think increased density also has its set of constraints, below are just a few:
1. Make land more expensive.
2. Higher density requires higher skilled workers
3. Townhomes could be completed in a few months per building, a high-density development takes 2-3 years, and none of the units are occupied until the entire building is complete.
4. The introduction of the ballot measure itself put the entire development process on hold. Since it will entice developers to wait. After the ballot measure there will be 2 years of entitlement and 3 years of construction. So the first unit is not online until 2030. In effect Yimby’s did something Nimby’s can only be accused of, stopping development.
5. Multifamily housing have gyms and club houses costing millions of dollars to build that are often underutilized, while we are told we can’t have affordable housing because the project does not pencil. I am almost certain affordable units would add more to the bottom line than the amenities built in their place but let’s eliminate parking.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.