A developer with a history of large-scale buildings at the eastern edge of downtown San Mateo may be interested in using the builder’s remedy to bypass city density and height restrictions and raising a current proposal from 75 feet to 85 feet and adding housing.
In March, project developer Windy Hill Property Ventures filed a preliminary application using elements of Senate Bill 330 that would build 353 residential units at 500 E. Fourth Ave. SB 330 went into effect in 2020 and restricts new regulations that would impede new housing development. The builder’s remedy refers to a chapter of SB 330 that says if the city doesn’t have a compliant housing element, it can be used to avoid local zoning requirements.
Mike Field of Windy Hill said some negative connotations are attached to a builder’s remedy, assuming a developer is pushing through something using state law without public support. Field said he is gathering informal community input to determine what the community wants to do before making any final decision.
“If the community doesn’t want it, we won’t do it,” Field said.
The builder’s remedy comes from the Housing Accountability Act and requires cities without certified housing elements to approve any project, regardless of base zoning, as long as that project has 20% low-income units. Housing elements are required to comply with current state housing element law on the established due date of Jan. 31. The state review of San Mateo’s housing element plan has found the city still needs additional revisions to comply with state law, according to a March 27 letter to the city from the Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD. The need for additional revisions has allowed Windy Hill to file the application using the builder’s remedy.
The development, called Block 20, would have 353 units, 161 studios, 141 one-bedrooms and 51 two-bedrooms. There would be 71 affordable units distributed through all three unit types. The building would be eight stories tall, at around 85 feet, one story taller than Kiku Crossing being constructed nearby. It includes plans for a 1,000-square-foot corner retail space on Fifth Avenue but no offices. All existing onsite structures on the block of East Fourth Avenue, South Claremont Street, East Fifth Avenue and South Delaware Street would be torn down to make room for the construction. Businesses on the block include the San Mateo Japanese American Community Center, Safari Kid-San Mateo and Taco Bell. A demolished 76 gas station is also at the site.
The new pre-application differs from the other Block 20 application first submitted Jan. 31, which calls for a 216,000-square-foot building with 143,000 square feet of office space and 86 residential units, a large mixed-use site similar to other developments downtown. The earlier application only had nine affordable units. The new pre-application provides 70 units because of a builder’s remedy requirement that developments using it must provide 20% affordable housing.
Field said he is fine with the current mixed-use application but also wanted to provide another option for the community to consider. Field believes downtown is a logical area for a lot of housing but recognizes some people might be against it. Field said the developer has also met with councilmembers and city staff about the project to get an opinion. Field said the application is a placeholder so Windy Hill can receive informal feedback from the community, which drives a decision on moving forward. Field said the opinion so far has been mixed.
“We really like that project, but if you want to pivot and go 100% residential, this is what it looks like,” Field said.
Michael Weinhauer, who serves as president of the Central Neighborhood Association, said the idea of all housing is appealing but wants to see more specific details and renderings, citing concern about the size. He believes the density is too much for the area because of the proximity of single-family homes across the street, arguing that 250 units per acre are too much for San Mateo.
Recommended for you
“That’s Manhattan-level density,” Weinhauer said.
Weinhauer said he wants to hear from more residents before deciding on the site, suggesting a compromise is needed.
Jeremy Levine, the policy manager for the Housing Leadership Council, an organization that advocates for policies to address the housing shortage, said the new proposal could allow the city to get more affordable housing units at no public taxpayer costs. He believes the increase in affordable housing is critical to helping address housing shortages.
“The proportion going from 9 to 70 [in affordable units] is a big raw increase,” Levine said.
Field said because the state has not approved the city’s housing element, there are options and tools not previously available, with community input now needed. Field said the site is the only area where he wants to use the builder’s remedy.
Field noted that Measure Y restricts building more housing downtown, noting the development could only have around 85 units on the site with Measure Y. He said that because costs are so expensive, it didn’t make financial sense to build housing. The commercial offsets some of the costs.
The project is near Windy Hill’s Block 21 development, a six-story mixed-use residential building of 111 housing units on the block of East Third Avenue, South Delaware Street, East Fourth Avenue and South Claremont Street. The initial application called for office use on the first three floors.
The new pre-application is being reviewed by city staff. Should Windy Hill do the alternative project, a new formal pre-application, neighborhood meeting and Planning Commission study session would be required.
Calling 85 feet "Manhattan density" should disqualify one from being quoted. Has the speaker even visited Manhattan? Did the author stop to use some common sense, let alone actually fact-check the statement?
Assume one story is around 10', to make the math easier. Then you reach 100' at 10 stories. How many buildings in Manhattan are less than that? 20, 30, 40 stories is exceedingly common.
Off-hand, I think it's plausible that it may be about right that 250 units per acre is correct for _the entire island_ of Manhattan. It's at least the right order of magnitude. But that would be including areas with offices, commercial services, parks, and so on. The high-rise residential areas will be much more than this.
I certainly agree that it would be inappropriate to build a 400' residential tower in downtown San Mateo. Fortunately, nobody's proposing that!
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
Hi Mr. Driscoll,
If you are going to continue to quote someone in a way that implies they are a representative of a neighborhood, could you please report:
* How many members their organization has
* The last time they held a meeting of members
* The last time they held elections to select representatives
Thanks!
Seema
Calling 85 feet "Manhattan density" should disqualify one from being quoted. Has the speaker even visited Manhattan? Did the author stop to use some common sense, let alone actually fact-check the statement?
Assume one story is around 10', to make the math easier. Then you reach 100' at 10 stories. How many buildings in Manhattan are less than that? 20, 30, 40 stories is exceedingly common.
Off-hand, I think it's plausible that it may be about right that 250 units per acre is correct for _the entire island_ of Manhattan. It's at least the right order of magnitude. But that would be including areas with offices, commercial services, parks, and so on. The high-rise residential areas will be much more than this.
I certainly agree that it would be inappropriate to build a 400' residential tower in downtown San Mateo. Fortunately, nobody's proposing that!
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.