San Mateo’s General Plan process resumes

The three plans, called Alternative A, B and C, explore possible futures for the conversation and development of housing in the city. Alternative A would create 10,910 new homes, Alternative B would create 15,820 new homes, and Alternative C would create 20,830 new homes. Alternative A would meet Measure Y requirements, which limits building height and density of new developments, while Alternative B would require some voter approval of increased height limits downtown, along El Camino Real and near Hillsdale Station. Alternative C would require significant voter elimination of Measure Y limits to work.

Potential changes to the three alternatives are possible based on Measure Y’s passage, or the recent release of the sixth cycle of San Mateo’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA, that is provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Measure Y could lead to new study areas needing to be developed or identified to meet housing requirements or changing some commercial or mixed-use sites to residential. If Alternative A is found to be insufficient to meet state housing requirements, the city could consider placing a measure on the ballot revising Measure Y or looking outside the 10 study areas. The city could also incorporate parts of all three alternatives and new ideas from the community engagement process. It hopes to have the preferred scenario picked in the first half of 2022.

Michael Weinhauer, spokesman for San Mateans for Responsive Government, believes Measure Y will force the City Council to have a meaningful General Plan process instead of choosing between big or bigger housing buildings. His group has viewed Measure Y as a placeholder until San Mateo goes through the General Plan. He wants the process to involve the entire community and not be rushed or assume people’s wants.

“Just because you didn’t get the result you wanted at the polls doesn’t mean you should ram through a plan that doesn’t fit for all San Mateans,” Weinhauer said.

His group will fight for a plan to preserve the downtown neighborhoods and recognize and protect neighborhoods. Two important issues for the group are addressing the imbalance of homes versus jobs and ensuring there is enough affordable housing instead of a glut of luxury housing from big developers. He believes any questions should ask if the plan improves or worsens the job versus housing imbalance and does it improve or worsen affordability. If it worsens either, he doesn’t think San Mateo should consider it.

“We can’t just build build build,” Weinhauer said.

Evelyn Stivers, Housing Leadership Council executive director, said her organization would be active in the General Plan process. She thinks Measure Y’s passing will give the city no choice but to expand the study areas beyond the previously 10 planned to now include all of San Mateo.

“We are going to support the option of having the entire city as part of the study,” Stivers said.

According to Stivers, the city should provide help beyond zoning to ensure low-income housing is available through tax credits, more funding and allowing land to be obtained at a reasonable price for housing.

“I am hopeful the city of San Mateo will be a leader in the region,” she said.

General Plan updates began in 2018 and were delayed in 2020 due to COVID-19 and measures Y and R being on the November ballot. Since the pause, Measure Y passed, and the San Mateo RHNA numbers have been released. Each city in California must have policies and programs in place to meet its state-required RHNA numbers. The California Department of Housing and Community Development assigns those housing numbers in eight-year cycles. San Mateo is getting ready to determine its sixth cycle covering January 2023 to January 2031. It is responsible for 7,081 housing units this cycle, including more units to buffer for emergencies, more than the 3,100 in its fifth cycle because of a greater allocation assigned to the Bay Area region.

According to the city’s current timeframe, January to June will be dedicated to finalizing land use alternatives for public meetings, and July to December will be for community meetings to evaluate alternatives. January 2022 to June 2022 will be to select preferred land use and circulation scenarios, while the second half of 2022 will be to revise the preferred scenario and publish a General Plan draft. However, changes to the timeline could occur based on City Council direction, something on which city staff is asking for guidance.

curtis@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102