Public input gathered on San Mateo’s 2040 General Plan regarding transportation and land use policy shows broad interest in significant changes to transportation and land use to accommodate affordable housing and car alternatives.
A Jan. 22 workshop on land use and transportation policy options for San Mateo’s General Plan found the public favored significantly increased housing and alternative transit options. Residents overwhelmingly asked for policies that emphasize affordable housing, increased pedestrian and bike safety, better traffic flow near the Hillsdale Shopping Center and alternatives to cars that prioritize biking and pedestrians. Many said figuring out how to have fewer cars in San Mateo was the biggest transit issue. Most preferred significant change even if it meant tradeoffs for vehicles. San Mateo is currently facing a housing shortage and traffic issues the City Council has prioritized improving. Attendees made it clear denser housing and car alternatives were the best options moving forward.
San Mateo is picking a preferred scenario for its transportation and land use map as part of its 2040 General Plan, which details the city’s vision for the next 20 years. The General Plan provides a blueprint for policies around development and infrastructure. Different topics include housing, transportation, businesses, industry, open space, schools and the environment. After a broad public process, the city will approve its final General Plan in 2023. The land use map determines what can be built, where, and at what density. The transportation circulation map analyzes traffic conditions and needed road improvements. Currently, the city has three map alternatives for land use and transportation and is narrowing down options.
“This phase of the general plan is focused on establishing our preferred land use and circulation alternatives, but by no means are they the only two themes that will be addressed in the General Plan. We need to set this up first, and then our next phase will be opening it up to discuss the full range of issues,” Deputy Community Development Director Zach Dahl said.
Land use 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. Most meeting participants preferred Alternative C to ensure enough affordable housing.
Recommended for you
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. However, it would require significant tradeoffs like removing parking spaces or turning lanes.
The alternatives are based on 10 study areas with the potential to experience land-use changes over the next 20 years, usually near transit, aging or vacant buildings, or areas with potential redevelopment property. Some study areas include downtown, shopping centers and sections along El Camino Real.
Yep. It sounds counterintuitive, but it works worldwide. Increased density generally means people are closer to jobs and can find alternatives to commutes. At the very least, if they do have cars, people can have shorter drives, meaning they're off the road quicker and thus congestion doesn't become as much of a problem (not even mentioning the lessened emissions).
John, in theory you are correct if most people can easily and affordably relocate. In theory the more housing, the lower the rents and more should be available. In a desirable area such as San Mateo, with minimum available land, the reality is you will never be able to out build the demand, unless the area becomes undesirable.
My takeaways from attending the Saturday GP workshop are quite different from this article. Let's first understand that there were less than 40 attendees (not counting the 10+ staff)...hardly representative of the headline "Residents want..." given our city population of over 100,000 people.
IMHO, the most important data shared at this meeting noted that Alternative A (the lowest amount of new development) had the largest annual net fiscal benefit for the city and required the fewest changes to the downtown and neighborhood historic resources. Increased revenues have always been a priority for allowing new development. Alternative A also meets the state mandated housing requirements.
Many attendees also emphasized the importance of sustainability, the need for new parks and tree planting to maintain community livability with the significant population increases in each proposed Alternative. Choosing Alternative A provides the best direction for land use changes that will support the other quality of life themes that have yet to be addressed in the General Plan meetings.
Sadly, in spite of the significant staff efforts to get community input, there has been small attendance at most meetings, allowing a very few outspoken people to control the messaging of future development.
John, in theory you are correct if most people can easily and affordably relocate. In theory the more housing, the lower the rents and more should be available. In a desirable area such as San Mateo, with minimum available land, the reality is you will never be able to out build the demand, unless the area becomes undesirable.
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!
(5) comments
Reduce cars by increasing density?
Yep. It sounds counterintuitive, but it works worldwide. Increased density generally means people are closer to jobs and can find alternatives to commutes. At the very least, if they do have cars, people can have shorter drives, meaning they're off the road quicker and thus congestion doesn't become as much of a problem (not even mentioning the lessened emissions).
John, in theory you are correct if most people can easily and affordably relocate. In theory the more housing, the lower the rents and more should be available. In a desirable area such as San Mateo, with minimum available land, the reality is you will never be able to out build the demand, unless the area becomes undesirable.
My takeaways from attending the Saturday GP workshop are quite different from this article. Let's first understand that there were less than 40 attendees (not counting the 10+ staff)...hardly representative of the headline "Residents want..." given our city population of over 100,000 people.
IMHO, the most important data shared at this meeting noted that Alternative A (the lowest amount of new development) had the largest annual net fiscal benefit for the city and required the fewest changes to the downtown and neighborhood historic resources. Increased revenues have always been a priority for allowing new development. Alternative A also meets the state mandated housing requirements.
Many attendees also emphasized the importance of sustainability, the need for new parks and tree planting to maintain community livability with the significant population increases in each proposed Alternative. Choosing Alternative A provides the best direction for land use changes that will support the other quality of life themes that have yet to be addressed in the General Plan meetings.
Sadly, in spite of the significant staff efforts to get community input, there has been small attendance at most meetings, allowing a very few outspoken people to control the messaging of future development.
John, in theory you are correct if most people can easily and affordably relocate. In theory the more housing, the lower the rents and more should be available. In a desirable area such as San Mateo, with minimum available land, the reality is you will never be able to out build the demand, unless the area becomes undesirable.
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.