San Mateo starts General Plan feasibility talks

Alternative A would comply with Measure Y, the building and height limits measure passed in November, but would require General Plan updates after five years because of the seventh RHNA cycle. Alternative B and Alternative C would require voter-approved changes to Measure Y height and density limits in some study areas but could accommodate both the sixth and seventh RHNA cycle numbers, which the city wants.

City staff asked the council to provide direction on three questions. Question one and two asked if the General Plan update effort should proceed with the current range of alternatives and project schedule or adjust the range of both. Question three asked if the council had any additional direction or other concerns.

The City Council discussion then focused on two topics. One was if the city should expand or identify new study areas to include San Mateo neighborhoods currently excluded to increase the amount of land designated for residential development. Study areas have the potential to experience land-use changes over the next 20 years. Potential study areas include places near transit sites or areas with aging or vacant buildings. The other topic was about the three land range alternatives and if the city should adjust them. Land range alternatives look at what type of land development will happen over the next 20 years in each study area that will change housing.

Councilwoman Amourence Lee was in favor of moving forward with the current range of scenarios of alternatives, with the possibility of drawing upon some components of all three alternatives.

“I think that it is prudent to think about what meeting RHNA cycle seven could be under the constraints of Measure Y. I think that is worth studying, and I think that could require an expansion of the study area map,” Lee said.

Councilman Joe Goethals originally wanted to put housing close to train stations and transit corridors near El Camino Real rather than spreading it all over the city. He recommended the city should proceed with the range of three alternatives and did not think the city should open up the whole city for study areas. He did not have any additional direction for city staff.

“I would stick with what we have. I think we have to and see what we can get,” Goethals said.

Councilwoman Diane Papan recommended proceeding with the current range of alternatives and examining them closely for potential solutions.

“I concur with Councilmember Goethals; let’s take up the current ranges,” Papan said.

To help address the divide between those for and against Measure Y, Mayor Eric Rodriguez asked for compromise during the General Plan housing process between various groups. He believes proceeding with the current range of alternatives is the best scenario.

“I’m really hoping we can strike the right compromise because I think these are the three alternatives that we are going with, and I’m nervous about scenario A. I think that’s going to be very difficult to achieve,” Rodriguez said.

Deputy Mayor Rick Bonilla was the only councilmember who said the city should not proceed with the current range of alternatives because he is not in favor of Alternative A. He did want more studies on Alternative B and C and felt it was too early to adjust or decide the project schedule. Bonilla said he favors a General Plan process that includes all voices at the table. He also wanted to open up the entire city to additional study areas.

“Like I have said from the beginning of this process, I really believe that we need to look at and study the entire city. There are many changes that could be made that aren’t going to be huge changes in everybody’s face, but they can be made collectively, and they’ll make a difference,” Bonilla said.

Several residents asked for more study areas to be included in the General Plan and more housing units to help solve the shortage.

Michael Weinhauer, a spokesman for San Mateans for Responsive Government, said via email the RHNA housing targets are no longer realistic in a post-pandemic world, and the city should push back on its numbers. He believes the General Plan offers an opportunity to improve the city’s overall quality, provide more affordable housing and prevent large luxury housing.

“In the end, the goal of the General Plan update process should be founded on quality of design, how traffic and infrastructure impacts are addressed, amount of affordable housing provided, the contribution to a lively, pedestrian-oriented streetscape and not just on the quantity of new units built, or panic stemming from fear of what Sacramento tries to impose upon us. Council/staff should not just accept the inevitability of their authoritarian quotas,” Weinhauer said.

Evelyn Stivers, executive director for the Housing Leadership Council, an organization that campaigned against Measure Y, said San Mateo needs a Measure Y compliant General Plan to avoid reworking the plan in five years because it didn’t find enough housing sites or housing study areas due to Measure Y restrictions.

“One thing that we heard from everyone, even people who voted for Y is that they really care about affordable housing. So we need a land use alternative that looks at other areas in the city,” Stivers said.

curtis@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102