San Mateo’s General Plan discussions for future housing and transportation continue, with elected officials balancing housing and transit infrastructure needs with concerns of residents who voted for limited growth through Measure Y.
“I think we need to keep those sentiments of that part of the community in the back of our mind while we’re coming up with this General Plan because they are going to have to sign off on it,” Councilmember Eric Rodriguez said during a General Plan subcommittee meeting.
The Feb. 17 General Plan subcommittee meeting discussed transportation and land use options as part of its 2040 General Plan, which details the city’s vision for the next 20 years. The General Plan will provide a baseline for the city’s decision-making around development, infrastructure, housing, transportation, businesses, open space, schools and the environment. The city then uses its zoning code to implement the plan’s vision. The subcommittee has members of the City Council and Planning Commission on it yet it also provides input and feedback to the full council and commission.
Several committee members expressed concern about building height limits in San Mateo through Measure Y and how it might affect housing in the General Plan and state housing requirements. Measure Y is a 2020 voter ballot initiative limiting building height and residential density. While many residents are against significant housing development, the city must meet state-mandated housing creating zoning conditions for its state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA. San Mateo has been allocated 7,015 housing units in its 2023-2031 RHNA allocation. San Mateo does not have to build the housing units but must create appropriate zoning conditions.
“We’ve got Measure Y, and we’ve got RHNA, and we are trying to drive a semi-truck between them, and it’s not going to fit,” Planning Commissioner Adam Nugent said.
The chosen land use map alternative will determine the density policy around building and development. The transportation circulation map analyzes traffic, new means of transportation and roads.
The city is currently considering three land use alternatives that vary in proposed growth. Alternative A proposes small change and low residential growth. Alternative B has the second-highest residential growth and spreads it across potential redevelopment areas. Alternative C had the most change to accommodate housing and affordable housing, with density near transit along the rail corridor and downtown.
Circulation alternatives, which focus on transportation improvements, are also being finalized. Circulation Alternative A prioritizes pedestrian corridors and improvements and envisions a two-block pedestrian-only street downtown. Alternative B would increase and improve transit access to and from major connections in San Mateo by adding new east-west transit connections to the Hillsdale Caltrain station. It prioritizes dedicated HOV and bus lanes and improvements on El Camino Real. Alternative C combines parts of A and B and would create a pedestrian-focused downtown and include an autonomous vehicle shuttle.
Those against Alternative C and expansive growth noted there would be issues with water supply, increased traffic and a current lack of reliable transit infrastructure. Several public commenters favored zoning and planning that manages development at lower intensity levels.
“I recommend that the subcommittee endorse land use Alternative A, which despite having the lowest growth of the three scenarios, still expands housing by nearly 30%, far more than we have ever digested as a city,” resident Lisa Diaz Nash said, who also serves as a trustee on the Library Board.
Recommended for you
Others called for the most growth possible through Alternative C to increase affordable housing, car alternatives and opportunities for future generations. Mike Dunham, with Peninsula For Everyone, an advocacy group for sustainable transportation and housing policy, suggested Alternative C to provide as much housing as possible and improve the jobs to housing ratio imbalance.
“I strongly encourage you all to build as much housing as you can downtown. When it comes to price, the jobs to housing imbalance is rightly the focus,” Dunham said. “The fact that land use Alternative A makes the jobs-housing imbalance worse is basically disqualifying.”
Mayor Rick Bonilla supported land-use Alternative C and transportation circulation Alternative C. He noted that the housing shortage and incoming potential jobs necessitate increased city action.
“Regarding the circulation, it’s because it will provide the most carbon-free modes of transportation and the smartest and best technology for how we get around,” Bonilla said.
Rodriguez asked for more information from Cal Water about the potential water supply issues and plans for schools to deal with increased populations. Deputy Community Development Director Zachary Dahl noted Cal Water must update its urban water management plan in 2025 to outline how it would meet increased demand.
“There’s a conservation element that needs to be considered, and I know there are limited sources they can go to. There’s a number of different areas that will need to be studied to figure out how growth can be aligned with water supply,” Dahl said.
Public priorities mentioned in previous meetings include traffic congestion and safety, transit and sidewalk improvements, and interest in significant changes to transportation and land use to accommodate affordable housing and car alternatives. Potential redevelopment study areas include El Camino Real near downtown, the Bel Mateo and Mollie Stone’s area, the rail corridor, downtown, Peninsula Avenue, Campus Drive area, North Shoreview and Shoreview, Parkside Plaza, Bridgepointe and the area near the Highway 101 and Hillsdale Boulevard interchange.
The next General Plan Subcommittee will be March 3 for public input. People can go to https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/be6915723f404562ba093221c81021fd to take a General Plan survey.
(650) 344-5200 ext. 102
(3) comments
Human society(s) are most all based on growth.
Look at any of the measures of human societies. Metrics like GDP, inflation, stagnation...that list continues and are of three...growth, lack of growth or no grow (stagnation).
Or take a look at the history of any city USA...World, but take the topic at hand : San Mateo
Here is a reference page, Wikipedia the history of San Mateo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Mateo,_California
Note the historical population numbers and list a few data points : 1880= 932; 1900=1,832; 1950=41,782; 1990=85,486; 2010=97,207; 2020=105,660. With only one negative growth 1980=77,640, which was -1.7%
Have had many, many arguments with folks who do not get it, nor willing to accept growth as a human society metric. Many were founding members of Y. A discussion with a council member years ago on this topic and they said and coined (of which I use all the time) "they are stuck in the Nixon era". Or stuck in the 20th Century, while living in the 21st Century
These folks say the Y limits are just fine and must say agree with them...FOR THE CURRENT situation...but in a few years, those limits will be limiting in what the city can do to accommodate growth.
For to not be able to accommodate growth, San Mateo will lose its ability to keep up with raising costs (inflation) for services, salaries, materials, etc.
What then ? As, the income of San Mateo is mainly taxes and no rental income of significance that I know of.
The General Plan must address that growth and is no matter what citizens say/want...it will happen and history is proof thereof.
If the General Plan does not address this, then casting in concrete the inability to address all of the growth metrics. Mainly housing & city revenues. That then will push the city to raise taxes and the very ones who pushed Y will be the loudest complainers of any tax increases...
Managed growth is not No-Growth, Mr. Toy. General Plan Alternative A meets the next RHNA cycle housing requirements and also provides the most revenue to the city. Right now the large corporate & construction special interests promote greedy growth that benefits themselves, not the residents, voters, taxpayers or the planet.
Interesting how the person against Measure Y is from a group and not a resident of San Mateo. Very easy to tell others how they should live.
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.