San Mateo officials seek balance on density, heights

Michael Weinhauer, a leader with San Mateans for Responsive Government, a group that campaigned for Measure Y, has been disappointed and frustrated by the process. He said the current plan advocates for egregious growth instead of balanced growth. While the city has to grow, he saw little compromise in the land use plan and 10 zoning study areas. The council’s 10 study rezoning areas include El Camino Real, Bel Mateo and Mollie Stone, downtown, Peninsula Avenue, Campus Drive, North Shoreview, Parkside Plaza, Hillsdale and Bridgepointe.

Weinhauer wanted more oversight and efforts to create housing units in mixed-use developments instead of large commercial offices to address the jobs-housing imbalance. Rather than more corporate development of chains like Starbucks, he called on the council to protect historic homes and past architecture. He was perturbed about zoning changes around the Hillsdale Shopping Center. Ownership group Bohannon Development Companies has partnered with real estate firm Northwood Investors to operate the San Mateo mall as it explores mixed-use redevelopment, with the general plan process key to any final decision. Weinhauer said the actual process had been up and down, with many meetings prescribing vague growth options for the public. He felt many meetings cherry-picked data that showed a need for high growth and didn’t show people all the possibilities.

“We will put our efforts behind getting candidates who will represent residents and fight a campaign to defeat this general plan and land use map,” Weinhauer said.

Housing advocacy groups, however, are more upbeat about the general plan. Jordan Grimes, a representative for One San Mateo, a housing advocacy group, felt the general plan process has turned out relatively well. He and other housing advocates are encouraged to see the council adopt high density and growth options in the land use plan and specific study areas.

“I think the end result is going to be largely what the majority of the city would like to see even if it’s not the result the very vocal minority of the city would want,” Grimes said.

However, Grimes and Housing Leadership Council Executive Director Evelyn Stivers remain disappointed the plan didn’t address equity concerns. Grimes suggested more zoning changes to single-family neighborhoods and believed there are opportunities in residential neighborhoods to build duplexes and triplexes, especially in limited growth areas west of El Camino Real. Grimes encouraged the council to explore using Senate Bill 10, which allows cities to zone neighborhoods of up to 10 units per parcel. Stivers argued for more multifamily housing on religious, public and nonprofit land to increase housing choices. Stivers said the city must still address how the incentives and strategies in proposed zoning will lead to the housing envisioned in the general plan.

“The city needs to take a hard look at what the barriers are to produce housing and come up with very specific strategies on how they are going to overcome those barriers,” Stivers said. “It’s a matter of very specific problem solving to enable the housing they’ve envisioned to become a reality.”

Balancing strong opinions

The strong opinions about how to plan housing and development policy is an ongoing challenge, Councilmember Joe Goethals acknowledged. He noted the council faces a difficult situation of a vocal group of residents who want no growth while the state Legislature puts enormous pressure on the city to address housing scarcity and traffic challenges.

“As councilmembers, we have to plan for the future,” Goethals said. “I personally think it’s my role to get as much public benefit out of future development that is required by state law.”

State requirements

San Mateo has a large state housing zoning requirement as part of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment assigned by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Cities must plan for the development of additional housing units and lessen constraints, increasing opportunities for housing development every eight years and, with this cycle, San Mateo was assigned 7,015 new housing units. The city does not have to build the units, but it must identify sites for development and create conditions for it to happen. The Housing Accountability Act also limits a city’s ability to reject proposals for housing developments that satisfy general plan and zoning requirements.

The state also has laws that create tension with Measure Y, including California’s Density Bonus Law, which requires cities to let developers with affordable housing plans to get additional density units and often bypasses local laws. The state density bonus law allows residential developments with a certain amount of affordable housing units to also get concessions or waivers around floor area ratio limitations, height limits and parking requirements, putting it at odds with Measure Y. Examples of developments that have used state density bonuses include Kiku Crossing, Concar Passage and Bay Meadows’ Montara. The city has determined the state density bonus law for additional height would supersede Measure Y, allowing developers to exceed the city’s height limit through concessions under the law.

The council has emphasized putting as much housing in the transit corridor as possible and restricting the growth to the study areas to try and satisfy all sides. Goethals said the council has been respectful to voters throughout the robust process, with the council making decisions based on data-driven surveys.

“I am happy with the process thus far, but we knew there were going to be people who came in with their minds up already, and there are people who think we need unrestricted growth and people who think we need no growth,” Goethals said.

Measure Y

The city has added complications to meet state requirements because of the limits of Measure Y, with city residents a potential final arbiter. City Attorney Prasanna Rasiah said any general plan that has components that requires amendments to Measure Y, like height limit changes for certain areas, would require a vote from residents. The vote would not be for the whole general plan, just for an amendment to allow components in conflict with Measure Y, Rasiah said. Weinhauer warned the city was putting itself on a collision course with a majority of San Mateo voters who made their intentions clear with Measure Y and wanted to keep large developers at bay. He warned a general plan that violated Measure Y could force the city to revisit limited growth options and have the expensive process begin again.

“We will see who can get the last laugh,” Weinhauer said.

Grimes noted Measure Y passed by a razor-thin margin, and voters would feel differently if there were a cap of 12 stories around transit, an option under council consideration. Grimes pointed to data that shows more San Mateo residents want housing solutions. He cited a survey from True North Research in March that showed around two-thirds of residents think there is not enough affordable housing for middle-income and low-income families. Around 63% of residents support taller and higher density buildings up to 12 stories downtown and near transit centers to increase affordable housing and keep more open spaces.

“I think there is a good chance Measure Y isn’t a factor,” Grimes said. “On the other hand, I wouldn’t have a problem voting for the general plan.”

Stivers believes there is a way around the issue, as the city is obligated to be part of the regional solution through state law, which overrides local ordinances like Measure Y.

“If Measure Y gets in the way of the city meeting its state housing goals, the city is obligated to ignore it,” Stivers said.

The city is currently seeking community input on general plan goals, policies and actions and if there are any new ideas to consider. People can go to https://strivesanmateo.org to learn more about the general plan.

curtis@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102