San Mateo’s Planning Commission has reiterated its concern with the city’s draft housing element due to noncompliance on important housing goals and policies, suggesting the City Council make changes before state submittal.
The housing element is a state-mandated plan for how the city will accommodate 7,015 new housing units over the next eight years, a significant increase from previous cycles. The Bay Area has to account for around 441,000 units. The city submitted a draft housing element to the state on July 1 and received comments on the draft on Sept. 28. The council will review the housing element on Jan. 24 for potential adoption.
At its Jan. 12 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that it not submit the current draft housing element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for approval. The city is addressing and making revisions before submitting it on Jan. 31 for certification. The City Council has final city authority over the housing element and state submittal, but the Planning Commission can provide advice and recommendations on changes for council consideration. A Planning Commission majority believed that the document failed to follow the state’s statutory requirements around meeting fair housing policy, housing goals and production.
Planning Commissioner Adam Nugent was concerned that there were a number of sites listed in the housing element that did not have a realistic likelihood of becoming housing during the next eight years, jeopardizing the chance the city meets its housing production requirements. He also noted the goals and policies needed to be more detailed to ensure compliance.
“Overall, I doubt that HCD will find this housing element, as it currently stands, is in substantial compliance with state law,” Nugent said.
Recommended for you
Commissioner Seema Patel acknowledged a significant amount of time and effort went into producing the document but said she still has significant concerns. Her biggest issues are the city needs to provide more evidence of redevelopment as defined by the state and that the city would not meet its housing production goals. She said an out-of-compliance housing element could result in losing control over land use and potential loss of funding or litigation.
“I will continue to hope for the best, but I think we should start thinking about a plan B of what substantial changes we might begin to investigate and think about in the event HCD comes back and says that the housing element is not in compliance,” Patel said.
Vice Chair John Ebneter felt the city should have tried to be a leader in the Bay Area with its housing element and embrace a more proactive plan to build housing.
“We had a once in an eight-year opportunity to make a meaningful change and address our housing crisis,” Ebneter said.
The city’s second draft includes more detail and information about its methodology and data for how it will further fair housing. The city also reduced its site inventory from around 10,800 to 9,934 new housing units over eight years, which still represents a significant buffer to accommodate the 7,015-unit minimum the state requires of the city. Around 2,000 units were initially called for at the Hillsdale Shopping Center, where property owner Bohannon Companies is interested in redeveloping from a commercial into a mixed-use site with more office and housing. The new site inventory now only calls for 1,200 units. The purpose of the site inventory is to ensure enough land is zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate housing.
The vote passed with a 3-0 majority. Chair Margaret Williams and Commissioner Martin Wiggins were absent from the meeting.
This is good and accurate reporting by Mr. Driscoll. However, it’s important to note that the three planning commissioners voicing concerns are all in the pockets of the big developers, including Bohannon. The city has worked hard to represent the voices of San Mateo residents, not big developers, and I really appreciate that. The Housing Element the staff has put together will certainly cover the state requirements, and I hope City Council sees that and approves it as presented by staff at their next meeting.
What does it actually mean to be "in the pockets of big developers"? I hear this phrase all the time. It implies money changing hands, or favors. Is there evidence that big developers ("including Bohannon") are paying off planning commissioners? Is personal financial gain the only conceivable reason why planning commissioners might be expressing concerns about the draft housing element? (A friend recently opined that projection was the signature psychological misfeature of
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!
(2) comments
This is good and accurate reporting by Mr. Driscoll. However, it’s important to note that the three planning commissioners voicing concerns are all in the pockets of the big developers, including Bohannon. The city has worked hard to represent the voices of San Mateo residents, not big developers, and I really appreciate that. The Housing Element the staff has put together will certainly cover the state requirements, and I hope City Council sees that and approves it as presented by staff at their next meeting.
What does it actually mean to be "in the pockets of big developers"? I hear this phrase all the time. It implies money changing hands, or favors. Is there evidence that big developers ("including Bohannon") are paying off planning commissioners? Is personal financial gain the only conceivable reason why planning commissioners might be expressing concerns about the draft housing element? (A friend recently opined that projection was the signature psychological misfeature of
the 21st Century so far.)
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.