San Mateo moving forward with general plan process

At its Aug. 16 meeting, the City Council discussed land use and circulation alternatives, focusing on future growth approaches, land-use changes, and transportation and circulation improvements. It approved the three alternatives offered and directed staff to proceed with a comparative evaluation of the alternatives.

The three options guide changes to the General Plan land use map, a document guiding what can be built, where and at what intensity or density. The draft alternatives are part of the 2040 General Plan process, scheduled for final approval in 2023. The general plan sets standards and objectives for future city changes.

Alternative A proposes the least change and the lowest residential growth. Alternative B has the second-highest residential growth and spreads it more evenly across potential redevelopment areas. Alternative C had the highest residential growth and concentrated change, including near transit areas near the rail corridor and downtown. Alternative A’s traffic circulation options prioritize pedestrian corridors and improvements to challenging intersections, traffic calming and safety improvements near highway on-ramps. It also suggests a potential two-block pedestrian-only street downtown. Alternative B improves transit access by adding an east-west transit connection to the Hillsdale Caltrain Station, prioritizes high-occupancy vehicle lanes and adds bus rapid transit improvements to El Camino Real. Alternative C emphasizes a pedestrian-focused, car-light space downtown. The alternatives are based on 10 study areas expected to see change and picked by the council.

Lee liked the initial range of alternatives but wanted to look at land areas that had potential as economic engines for the city, like the Bridgepointe area and public transit.

“I think there are already a lot of investments that we could leverage in making sure we are building around transit,” Lee said.

Deputy Mayor Rick Bonilla also wanted to encourage people to move near transit corridors to create higher density and use public transportation to help address climate change issues.

“We will not be successful if we don’t deal with getting people to live close to where they work,” he said.

Bonilla supported the alternatives for now. He said the city must address a housing shortage situation that has existed for 40 years, with the environment also a factor. He noted San Mateo is affected by climate factors like flooding, sea-level rise, drought and fire, with building and transportation contributors to climate change. He supported more biking and walking and mixed-use areas for the city.

Lee asked if the city concentrating growth within the boundaries of the study areas and near transit would help reach the city’s Regional Housing Need Allocation numbers and also help protect existing neighborhoods.

“By looking to the study areas first and seeing where we can accommodate that growth and looking at the alternatives that are set out there, it does concentrate, I would say, change, which includes growth in the study areas,” Director of Community Development Christina Horrisberger said.

Councilmember Diane Papan thought the extensive alternative range process had enough options to create a general plan for the community. She was looking forward to bringing the community together, acknowledging it would be tough work.

“I think it has resulted in an outcome that provides a range of land use alternatives and circulation alternatives that will provide us sufficient building blocks to mix and match to create a comprehensive general plan that will meet the community’s needs.

Mayor Eric Rodriguez, part of the General Plan subcommittee, thought it was a representative range of alternatives and did not have any changes or ideas to add. He noted it would be challenging but vital work to bring the different views in the community together.

“We have had a pretty robust feedback process these past several years,” Rodriguez said.

curtis@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102