San Mateo seeks clarity on housing discussions

The San Mateo City Council, at its Nov. 1 special meeting, directed city staff to provide further clarification to code and by-laws regarding the Planning Commission’s role, hold more joint meetings, and start looking at the office-to-housing unit imbalance downtown and density bonus uses to incentivize housing production.

The council Sept. 20 suggested clarifying the commission’s role for policymaking following the commission’s Sept. 14 meeting reviewing development proposals. The commission discussed improving the housing-to-jobs balance created through building more office space to avoid exacerbating the housing shortage. It also encouraged applicants to exceed current height limits to include more residential units and recommended the use of density bonuses, a city staff report said. A density bonus is a state law allowing concessions and waivers to developments to make it easier for housing developers to apply for affordable housing units.

Community Development Director Christina Horrisberger noted general housing policy discussions might be better suited as a discussion item instead of during a study session about a specific site plan, something with which most of the council agreed.

“We were getting into the territory of having a more in-depth discussion about the housing jobs policy issue and less of a discussion about the site plan and architecture review,” Horrisberger said.

Housing remains a critical need in San Mateo, with long conversations upcoming at a city level. The city has started discussions on its housing update and general plan to provide blueprints on the topic. The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update will provide direction on housing and addressing needs, like the density bonus and the housing-to-jobs imbalance. The city’s general plan is the blueprint for the city’s development and planning.

Mayor Eric Rodriguez thanked the Planning Commission for raising the questions on housing and suggested a more focused setting for discussion. He acknowledged the city and council needed to provide more opportunities for long-form discussions and favored the council and commission meeting at least once a year for collaborative goal sessions. He wanted to clarify guidelines and expectations to make it more fair for applicants and more understandable for the public.

“I think these are absolutely the right topics, but from a project to project, spending 45 minutes discussing a policy, I personally believe that is not the right time. It’s the right discussion, wrong time,” Rodriguez said.

Bonilla, however, thought the Sept. 14 discussion was appropriate and supported addressing policy issues around housing sooner instead of waiting for updates to the Housing Element and General Plan.

“We don’t need to have any planning commissioners or councilmembers feeling like they have to curtail the way they vote because there is a chance we might get sued, and we know this is a reality,” Bonilla said.

The Planning Commission consists of five members selected by the council to make specific planning and land-use decisions. The council has final policy authority to accept, modify or decline the Planning Commission’s recommendations.

Councilmember Diane Papan supported clarification to the Planning Commission’s role to help commissioners, the public and developers understand how to address the housing shortage. She supported progress reports and joint meetings to increase understanding.

“The best way we can do that is having a concise road map for developers as they come along, a road map that reflects this community and the things that this community wants,” Papan said.

Councilmember Joe Goethals acknowledged questions and issues discussed can be messy but favored clarification when possible.

“I don’t think we should fool ourselves into thinking we are going to curtail conversations significantly by reforming policy,” Goethals said.

curtis@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102