A state review of San Mateo’s housing element plan has found the city still needs additional revisions to comply with state law.
In a March 27 letter to the city, the Department of Housing and Community Development found that while the city addressed many requirements described in its first letter to the city on Sept. 28, the state still wants the city to address policy issues around furthering fair housing, realistic zoning capacity, site suitability and other areas. The two sides are working to achieve compliance with state housing element law around its housing element, a state-mandated plan for how the city will accommodate 7,015 new housing units over the next eight years. A housing element must get certification from HCD, as it certifies all city housing elements in California. Failure to meet state housing law can result in several consequences, including loss of local control over policy.
A city statement said it continues to meet with HCD leadership to understand direction, with the goal of mutually agreed compliance with state law. The city said HCD told city staff it was typical for cities to be at this stage in the process, especially with the many new requirements in the cycle.
“Like most other cities in the Bay Area, the city of San Mateo is continuing to make progress on its housing element, and we are going through an iterative process with HCD. It is common for cities to receive several rounds of comment letters from HCD, and the majority in the Bay Area are still working toward HCD certification, which provides a range of benefits such as eligibility for important state funding,” the city statement said.
Jeremy Levine, the policy manager for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, an organization that advocates for policies to address the housing shortage, argued the city needed to do more to ensure compliance given the letter from the state.
“San Mateo cannot analyze its way into compliance,” Levine said. “It needs to commit to more policy changes.”
Levine suggested the city develop contingency plan options if the housing element does not succeed as currently constructed. The city is currently looking into a ballot measure about the level of support for Measure Y and its willingness to have a ballot measure in 2024 that could repeal it. Measure Y is a voter-approved height and density restriction ordinance. Levine said HLC thinks the city risks getting decertified if the ballot measure fails. He suggested looking at rezoning in some single-family neighborhoods or allowing up to 12 stories to ensure enough proposed units. HLC also wants to see the city expand the proposed building areas from a half mile around transit to 3/4 of a mile, allowing for more places to be eligible for rezoning.
Levine noted even if HCD declines to certify, the city is not automatically out of compliance. Some cities not certified by HCD adopt the housing element and release their own compliance findings. However, Levine said a judge could find it out of compliance. Levine said a lawsuit could settle the issue, something he believes the city could find itself in.
Recommended for you
“The city is on a path to be sued,” Levine said.
Levine said the city could also put itself in danger of a builder’s remedy, which applies to cities that do not have a compliant housing element. A builder’s remedy allows a developer to avoid local zoning requirements during a project. However, a developer would have to sue and make findings in court, according to Levine.
The city said it has already addressed two-thirds of HCD’s comments and will continue making progress by returning to the City Council to review this second letter from HCD, with a council meeting on the subject scheduled for April 17. The city submitted a draft housing element to the state on July 1 and received comments on the first draft Sept. 28. The council adopted its housing element Jan. 24.
The city maintained it is taking proactive measures to create more housing opportunities in San Mateo through its inclusionary housing policies, direct partnerships with nonprofit housing developers and support agencies, and is currently updating the General Plan to address future housing needs for the next 20 years. It cited the Kiku Crossing affordable housing development on city-owned land downtown. The city is also providing public land and funding for an affordable housing redevelopment project near the former Talbot’s site in the planning stages. It also said cities with a housing element that complies with state law are not subject to the builder’s remedy.
The HCD letter to the city called for further details of how the city will further fair housing, including where it zones housing, realistic zoning capacity, further feasibility information on the Hillsdale and Bridgepointe shopping center sites, and further clarity on the ability to exceed Measure Y.
Good reporting again from Mr. Driscoll. One important note to make, however, is that the Housing Leadership Council (HLC) was active in the campaign against Measure Y and had a meeting immediately after the 2020 election, where their preferred Measure R to counteract Y failed, and where then Councilmember Amourence Lee stated her commitment to continue to fight against Measure Y. So the quotes from Mr. Levine aren’t surprising at all. And residents are being ignored by Mayor Lee when asking her to respect the law.
Cities such as San Mateo and others in California need to push back against the State mandates to make all suburban areas mini-cities with high density housing, no parking and no jobs. As more and more technology companies lay off 10,000+ employees on a nearly weekly basis-who are we building all these housing units for? Reports of our failing public transportation and reduction of ridership somehow makes the state want to build high density apartments next to Caltrain that has lost 50% of its ridership? If anyone living in San Mateo County has to get to work in San Francisco, the least cost effective and slowest option is to take public transportation. Why take 90 minutes on public transportation at a cost of $15-$20 a day when if you own a car it takes 20-30 minutes and will never cost you even $10.00 round-trip? Many residents in San Mateo County left the urban city with its high-rises, traffic, pollution, and no place to park, only to have state politicians beholden to their developer donors force them to accept that their suburbs are now going to become urban with all the issues that go along with over-development in a confined area. Transit oriented development is a good idea in cities with plentiful jobs and a thriving walkable downtown with public transportation that is efficient and affordable for its citizens. I would say for a lot of the planned TOD's, e) None of the above requirements are met. City Council's are mostly run by group-think Progressives in California that don't question what comes down from Sacramento but many regular citizens who live near these mega-developments are not happy with their small towns becoming overcrowded near every train station along El Camino Real. Busses are cheaper to run and less likely to break down and have issues. This means that not ALL the housing needs to be on El Camino Real. Also, "Affordable Housing" is something that should always be in quotes as only 10-15% of the units being built are "Affordable" so who are we kidding? Look online at most of the units being built and ask yourself if someone making minimum wage could afford the rents? The answer is clearly no.
I'm glad the state is finally pushing back against the decades-long policy of many communities to take advantage of the people who work in them -- bolstering the local tax base, to pay for local community services -- by forcing them to commute long distances. Which also, BTW, causes major greenhouse gas emissions, helping cook the planet, and places an excessive burden on the state highway network.
Sadly, there are many in our communities who are just fine with all that. This terribly aggravated pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others is a common feature of many on the conservative side of the aisle.
Fortunately, there's a small but growing group of people who are pushing their communities to be more decent by recognizing the interdependency that underlies the wealth and income being generated in our area.
“This terribly aggravated pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others is a common feature of many on the conservative side of the aisle.” Actually, Mr. Olbert, it sounds like Dems are pushing their terribly aggravated pursuit of self-interest at the expense of all Californians who don’t buy into the state-mandated housing policy. I doubt many folks are interested in their communities becoming a San Francisco or an Oakland. I’m sure many folks would like to be able to go out for walks without worrying about being knifed or being accosted by assailants or homeless folks. BTW, your major greenhouse gas emissions won’t go away because of electric cars or all-electric households. Most of the electricity is still being generated from natural gas plants that according to you, will “cook the planet.”
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!
(4) comments
Good reporting again from Mr. Driscoll. One important note to make, however, is that the Housing Leadership Council (HLC) was active in the campaign against Measure Y and had a meeting immediately after the 2020 election, where their preferred Measure R to counteract Y failed, and where then Councilmember Amourence Lee stated her commitment to continue to fight against Measure Y. So the quotes from Mr. Levine aren’t surprising at all. And residents are being ignored by Mayor Lee when asking her to respect the law.
Cities such as San Mateo and others in California need to push back against the State mandates to make all suburban areas mini-cities with high density housing, no parking and no jobs. As more and more technology companies lay off 10,000+ employees on a nearly weekly basis-who are we building all these housing units for? Reports of our failing public transportation and reduction of ridership somehow makes the state want to build high density apartments next to Caltrain that has lost 50% of its ridership? If anyone living in San Mateo County has to get to work in San Francisco, the least cost effective and slowest option is to take public transportation. Why take 90 minutes on public transportation at a cost of $15-$20 a day when if you own a car it takes 20-30 minutes and will never cost you even $10.00 round-trip? Many residents in San Mateo County left the urban city with its high-rises, traffic, pollution, and no place to park, only to have state politicians beholden to their developer donors force them to accept that their suburbs are now going to become urban with all the issues that go along with over-development in a confined area. Transit oriented development is a good idea in cities with plentiful jobs and a thriving walkable downtown with public transportation that is efficient and affordable for its citizens. I would say for a lot of the planned TOD's, e) None of the above requirements are met. City Council's are mostly run by group-think Progressives in California that don't question what comes down from Sacramento but many regular citizens who live near these mega-developments are not happy with their small towns becoming overcrowded near every train station along El Camino Real. Busses are cheaper to run and less likely to break down and have issues. This means that not ALL the housing needs to be on El Camino Real. Also, "Affordable Housing" is something that should always be in quotes as only 10-15% of the units being built are "Affordable" so who are we kidding? Look online at most of the units being built and ask yourself if someone making minimum wage could afford the rents? The answer is clearly no.
I'm glad the state is finally pushing back against the decades-long policy of many communities to take advantage of the people who work in them -- bolstering the local tax base, to pay for local community services -- by forcing them to commute long distances. Which also, BTW, causes major greenhouse gas emissions, helping cook the planet, and places an excessive burden on the state highway network.
Sadly, there are many in our communities who are just fine with all that. This terribly aggravated pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others is a common feature of many on the conservative side of the aisle.
Fortunately, there's a small but growing group of people who are pushing their communities to be more decent by recognizing the interdependency that underlies the wealth and income being generated in our area.
“This terribly aggravated pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others is a common feature of many on the conservative side of the aisle.” Actually, Mr. Olbert, it sounds like Dems are pushing their terribly aggravated pursuit of self-interest at the expense of all Californians who don’t buy into the state-mandated housing policy. I doubt many folks are interested in their communities becoming a San Francisco or an Oakland. I’m sure many folks would like to be able to go out for walks without worrying about being knifed or being accosted by assailants or homeless folks. BTW, your major greenhouse gas emissions won’t go away because of electric cars or all-electric households. Most of the electricity is still being generated from natural gas plants that according to you, will “cook the planet.”
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.