Height limits to 2020 ballot

Mayor Rick Bonilla joined his fellow councilmembers in commending members of the citizens group San Mateans for Responsive Government for their efforts to find common ground after a decision on whether the council should place on the November 2018 ballot an extension of Measure P — which established 55-foot height limits in most parts of the city and restricted how densely housing and commercial developers can build — was postponed at the council’s July 16 meeting.

Councilmembers were also in agreement the Measure P extension was better-suited for the 2020 ballot, which Bonilla noted would allow for community input gathered during the city’s General Plan update process to inform the discussions of building height and density sparked by the Measure P extension effort. Initiated last year, the city’s General Plan update process is expected to include discussions on housing, land use policy, circulation, open space, noise, safety and conservation.

“I feel that the opportunity here now is that we have time with the 2020 window out there to try and find something that is going to work for, I think, a broader spectrum of the people,” said Bonilla.

Pressure to come to a decision on whether to ask voters to weigh in on a Measure P extension has been mounting as the Aug. 10 filing deadline for the November 2018 election loomed over discussions at City Council meetings in recent weeks. Because Measure P is slated to expire in December of 2020, a debate on whether to keep it in place as city officials and residents participate in the city’s General Plan update process has been gaining momentum for months.

While some have expressed concerns that keeping the restrictions in place could limit discussions in the city’s General Plan update process, those behind the Measure P extension effort have argued it allows voters to weigh in on a measure that has supported affordable housing in the city and transit-oriented development for more than 25 years.

First approved by voters in 1991 as Measure H, 2004’s Measure P also required residential developments to provide at least 10 percent of below-market-rate units on site, and was seen as establishing the city’s first inclusionary zoning policy.

Spearheaded by San Mateans for Responsive Government, the effort to extend Measure P 10 years past its sunset date in 2020 gained favor with more than 7,000 signatories and surpassed a requirement to obtain valid signatures from at least 10 percent of registered voters in San Mateo to place it on the November 2018 ballot.

Though the number of required valid signatures collected by the citizens group was verified by county elections staff in July, the group’s petition was deemed defective by City Attorney Shawn Mason, who, prior to the City Council’s July 16 meeting, found it violated a section of the state Elections Code requiring voter initiatives to state the substance of the law that would be enacted if the measure is successful.

A June 4 letter submitted to the city by the San Mateo Building and Construction Trades Council, the San Mateo Area Chamber of Commerce and the Bohannon Development Company drew attention to the issue, outlining concerns the group’s petition was drafted without accounting for several changes to the city’s General Plan and Housing Element since it was adopted in 2004 and requesting the council reject the citizens petition.

Now that Patterson and Mason have direction to work with the citizens group to put a measure on the November 2020 ballot, the parties have two years to come to an agreement on how long the measure’s term should be and whether to include in-lieu fees as an option for providing a portion of required below-market-rate units in a given development, among other terms of their petition. If the city and the citizens group are able to agree on specific terms, they could also address potential deficiencies in the group’s petition through a settlement agreement, under which the citizens group would agree to remove their initiative and city officials would agree to put an identical proposition on the ballot, said Patterson.

Though members of the citizens group would have preferred putting a Measure P extension on the 2018 ballot, group spokesman Michael Weinhauer said days before Monday’s meeting they were hoping councilmembers would opt to work on a compromise measure in preparation for the next general election in 2020 after members said they were willing to consider changes to their petition as long as they don’t result in a gap in Measure P application.

“We think that we’ve really kind of come to the table and negotiated and compromised,” he said previously.

Deputy Mayor Diane Papan expressed concerns that should representatives of the citizens group find enough common ground to come to an agreement on a ballot measure with city officials, some of the more than 7,000 residents who signed the petition earlier this year may not buy into some components of the compromise measure. Councilman Eric Rodriguez acknowledged the challenge in front of both councilmembers and representatives of the citizens group will be trying to move forward with a compromise while staying true to their positions.

“We’re trying to balance giving respect to the initiative process and the wishes of those 7,000 signatures that were on it,” said Rodriguez. “But what we’re also trying to do is make … sure that we hear from those San Mateans that aren’t one of those signatories.”

Patterson said in continuing negotiations, officials and members of the citizens group should have a clearer sense of what a compromise measure could look like and whether there is interest from both groups to pursue it. He added the city’s General Plan update process, which he said is likely to extend into and potentially past 2020, will also define what other alternatives the council and residents could consider on the November 2020 ballot.

In light of the extra time afforded by a 2020 ballot measure, Papan urged officials and residents to participate in the city’s General Plan update process in the meantime.

“Our city and its future deserve a very comprehensive discussion and thorough debate,” she said. “I urge everybody to stay involved and I think there’s much to discuss, so let’s get to talking.”

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106