San Mateo officials responded to a controversial state bill aimed at boosting construction of homes near jobs and transit hubs by narrowly voting Monday to submit a letter opposing state Sen. Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill 50.
Though several residents stepped forward in support of the bill allowing greater housing density and building heights within quarter-mile and half-mile distances of transit stops and job centers, the bill’s one-size-fits-all approach was disheartening for Mayor Diane Papan, who drafted the letter in opposition of the bill.
Outlining San Mateo’s progress with building affordable housing and residential units near major transit hubs, the letter up for review by councilmembers at their Monday meeting emphasized the importance of the local decision-making as the city strives to boost its housing stock.
Because locally-elected officials have to weigh land use constraints such as bodies of water and topographical elements, Papan wondered how state officials could best assess where job centers are located and the fiscal constraints associated with developing in specific parts of the city, among other factors that are balanced at the local level. Papan noted her letter does not come in opposition to the production of housing, but instead took issue with the bill’s proposal to take away local officials’ authority to have discussions about where and how housing is built in the city.
“I want to see it done right for the residents of this community,” she said. “I think this body … is in the best position to assess and to balance out the competing interests.”
Though Councilman Rick Bonilla agreed San Mateo has made strides in building housing, he also acknowledged the severity of the regional jobs/housing imbalance and wondered whether city officials should wait until the bill is amended and heard in upcoming state Senate committee meetings before they take a position on it. Concerned the city could lose an opportunity to suggest amendments to the bill, Bonilla, who voted against submitting the letter, advocated for officials to offer to work with Wiener, D-San Francisco, and other state officials instead of opposing SB 50.
“This is something that will continue to be worked on,” he said. “It’s not finished, it’s not ready for an oppose or support.”
Councilman Eric Rodriguez — who with Papan and Deputy Mayor Maureen Freschet voted to submit the letter of opposition — said he agreed with the goals of SB 50 and acknowledged the region needs to do all it can to build more housing.
But Rodriguez noted many residents are already feeling the pressure of increased traffic congestion and a lack of parking throughout the city, and noted SB 50 would take away tools city officials currently have to manage those types of issues. He also acknowledged the city is in the midst of updating its General Plan, a yearslong process initiated in 2017 and aimed at setting land use policies that will shape the city’s future housing, traffic congestion, open space, noise, safety and conservation.
Recommended for you
Worried SB 50’s one-size-fits-all approach could prevent San Mateo residents from having the wide-ranging discussions and community input included in the General Plan update process, Rodriguez wasn’t in favor of waiting to weigh in on the proposed bill.
“To just take that away right now … that’s going to completely alter the community discussion,” he said. “It’s really hard for me to say ‘let’s wait’ when at the core of it, it’s bad for San Mateo.”
Councilman Joe Goethals, who abstained from voting on the letter, said he agreed with the principles of SB 50 but also took issue with the loss of local control proposed in the bill. Goethals supported amending the letter to limit councilmembers’ opposition to the current version of the bill in case it is amended in a way that addresses their concerns.
“Our job is land use, our job is to make our community what our residents want it to be,” he said. “That’s something that SB 50 violates and we want to make sure we maintain that local control.”
Though Papan expressed her appreciation to state legislators for focusing on the state’s housing shortage, she wasn’t convinced she could ever support the bill based on its premise of reducing local control over land use decisions.
“The underlying premise, for me, cannot be cured by amendment,” she said. “I think land use has been under local control for a reason.”
In other business, the council approved modifications to the design and landscaping of a project to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant bordered by Detroit Drive, Joinville Road and Leslie Creeks. Due to the increasing cost of construction, officials proposed reductions in the size of an administrative building and the treatment structure that do not reduce the treatment capacity of the new facility. The administration building was moved to north of Detroit Drive in the plans so an existing compressed natural gas fueling facility would not have to be moved on the site, and the proposed pedestrian route around the facility is expected to remain the same.
They also approved a $108,124 agreement with Neology, Inc. to purchase six automated license plate readers for the San Mateo Police Department. Nearly $73,000 of the funds for the six devices expected to assist in solving crimes and providing evidence to prosecutors came from funds derived from Measure S, the city’s quarter-cent sales tax.
SB50 is a disaster written all over, the bill is terrible and won't solve the affordable housing crisis, it would rather make it worse, so glad that lots of people are against it.
I take issue with the reporters description that the San Mateo Council acted by "narrowly voting Monday to submit a letter opposing state Sen. Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill 50." The 3 to 1 vote with one abstention was made with all Councilors criticizing the Bill. Bonilla and Goethals want to amend it as it is not acceptable in its current form. I would characterize this as a strong message that SB50 has a big problem.
I have been advised that the California Senate is not capable of understanding nuance, so the type of reporter comment that suggests this was a close vote obscures the points of all Councillors.
Finally I wonder why there is not more discussion on the blatant change to government that SB50 calls for by taking local authority away on matters of development? Would we be better off if we had to go to Sacramento for judgment on controversies? Why should the people of California diminish the part of government that is closest and most repsonsive to them?
It is also worthy of note that it is the regional agencies that the State designs that created this problem, not the local governments. Where are the transportation systems needed to support people who don't want a car? Where is the regional process for calculating the impact of a project in one city on other cities? For example, Menlo Park is criticized for developing office space for Facebook workers with no housing for same. Yet there is no regional agency, that I am aware of, that is responsible for raising issues with the developer on the projects impact on the Peninsula.
Get ready to circulate a statewide REFERENDUM to suspend and later vote down SB 50. Wiener does not give a hotdog bun what city councilmembers think or want. It is all about WINNING for the giant corporations financing the bill's advance. That is why big city mayors signed up early for SB 50. There is plenty of MONEY at stake. Money honey: the "mother's milk" of corrupt politics.
I applaud you, San Mateo City Council for doing the right thing. Belmont City Council apparently doesn’t have the balls to officially oppose this nightmare.
Many kudos to Papan, Freschet, and Rodriguez for voting in favor of this letter. As a Redwood City resident who has worked on tenants’ rights, anti-gentrification, and anti-eviction campaigns in my hometown and elsewhere, and as someone with friends and family who have been displaced by rising rents and a lack of tenants’ protections on the Peninsula, I would love to see real statewide change that brings us truly affordable housing and protects low-income and middle-class families in San Mateo County while also preventing the displacement of mostly poor and black/brown renters.
However, SB50 does not provide that needed change. That’s why I stand with a diverse array of tenants unions and housing advocates in opposing SB50.
Wiener and supporters of SB50 have cloaked this bill in the language of social justice. They have argued that anyone who opposes it is a right-wing, white, wealthy “NIMBY.” In doing so, they have erased the voices of people like myself, a person who is not white, not well off, and who has actual experience seeing friends and relatives displaced as well as actual experience fighting to keep people housed in San Mateo County. Not all of us who believe in housing justice believe that SB50 is the right answer to the housing crisis, and we are rightly furious that Wiener and SB50 supporters are co-opting a real crisis to push through legislation that could actually further harm and displace at-risk communities instead of helping them.
As far as I know Bonilla, a past field representative for the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, endorsed by the San Mateo Central Labor Council AFL-CIO as well as the San Mateo Building and Construction Trades Council AFL-CIO, has never seen a development he doesn’t like.
And Goethals abstained and said he agreed with the principles of SB 50 and supported amending the letter to limit council members’ opposition to the current version of the bill…… BUT, ever the politician, added “….our job is to make our community what our residents want it to be,” he said. “That’s something that SB 50 violates and we want to make sure we maintain that local control.”
This legislation wouldn't be needed if local governments didn't favor office buildings over housing for the people who work in those buildings. The result of these policies in San Mateo County is extreme traffic congestion caused by long distance commuters. There should be a law that requires that one unit of housing be approved for every job that is added. Cities that don't want additional housing shouldn't allow additional jobs to be created.
Great idea! Wait until Oculus moves into Burlingame. The traffic congestion will choke us all. I doubt that many of the 4000 employees will be able to live in SMC.
Good to see at least three clear-thinking people on the San Mateo City Council: Papan, Freschet, and Rodgriquez. The others? Not so much. SB 50 is an awful piece of legislation and should be relegated to the dumpster of bad ideas.
The city council of San Mateo needs to do a much better job informing the public when the controversial SB50 will be discussed. This power grab is opposed by many of their constituents and we want to be there to share our feelings with the council. I want to thank council members Freshcett, Papan and Rodriguez for the letter sent in opposition and warn Goethels (abstained) and Bonilla that they will face opposition in their next election if they stand with Weiner and Sacramento on SB50. We don’t need a city council if you forfeit your authority and our sovereignty over to the state.
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!
(15) comments
SB50 is a disaster written all over, the bill is terrible and won't solve the affordable housing crisis, it would rather make it worse, so glad that lots of people are against it.
I take issue with the reporters description that the San Mateo Council acted by "narrowly voting Monday to submit a letter opposing state Sen. Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill 50." The 3 to 1 vote with one abstention was made with all Councilors criticizing the Bill. Bonilla and Goethals want to amend it as it is not acceptable in its current form. I would characterize this as a strong message that SB50 has a big problem.
I have been advised that the California Senate is not capable of understanding nuance, so the type of reporter comment that suggests this was a close vote obscures the points of all Councillors.
Finally I wonder why there is not more discussion on the blatant change to government that SB50 calls for by taking local authority away on matters of development? Would we be better off if we had to go to Sacramento for judgment on controversies? Why should the people of California diminish the part of government that is closest and most repsonsive to them?
It is also worthy of note that it is the regional agencies that the State designs that created this problem, not the local governments. Where are the transportation systems needed to support people who don't want a car? Where is the regional process for calculating the impact of a project in one city on other cities? For example, Menlo Park is criticized for developing office space for Facebook workers with no housing for same. Yet there is no regional agency, that I am aware of, that is responsible for raising issues with the developer on the projects impact on the Peninsula.
Get ready to circulate a statewide REFERENDUM to suspend and later vote down SB 50. Wiener does not give a hotdog bun what city councilmembers think or want. It is all about WINNING for the giant corporations financing the bill's advance. That is why big city mayors signed up early for SB 50. There is plenty of MONEY at stake. Money honey: the "mother's milk" of corrupt politics.
SB50 would be a disaster and would not accomplish any of its most important objectives.
Wiener is a dangerous autocrat.
I applaud you, San Mateo City Council for doing the right thing. Belmont City Council apparently doesn’t have the balls to officially oppose this nightmare.
Many kudos to Papan, Freschet, and Rodriguez for voting in favor of this letter. As a Redwood City resident who has worked on tenants’ rights, anti-gentrification, and anti-eviction campaigns in my hometown and elsewhere, and as someone with friends and family who have been displaced by rising rents and a lack of tenants’ protections on the Peninsula, I would love to see real statewide change that brings us truly affordable housing and protects low-income and middle-class families in San Mateo County while also preventing the displacement of mostly poor and black/brown renters.
However, SB50 does not provide that needed change. That’s why I stand with a diverse array of tenants unions and housing advocates in opposing SB50.
Wiener and supporters of SB50 have cloaked this bill in the language of social justice. They have argued that anyone who opposes it is a right-wing, white, wealthy “NIMBY.” In doing so, they have erased the voices of people like myself, a person who is not white, not well off, and who has actual experience seeing friends and relatives displaced as well as actual experience fighting to keep people housed in San Mateo County. Not all of us who believe in housing justice believe that SB50 is the right answer to the housing crisis, and we are rightly furious that Wiener and SB50 supporters are co-opting a real crisis to push through legislation that could actually further harm and displace at-risk communities instead of helping them.
As far as I know Bonilla, a past field representative for the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, endorsed by the San Mateo Central Labor Council AFL-CIO as well as the San Mateo Building and Construction Trades Council AFL-CIO, has never seen a development he doesn’t like.
And Goethals abstained and said he agreed with the principles of SB 50 and supported amending the letter to limit council members’ opposition to the current version of the bill…… BUT, ever the politician, added “….our job is to make our community what our residents want it to be,” he said. “That’s something that SB 50 violates and we want to make sure we maintain that local control.”
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/housing-crisis/article_6f28925e-6081-11e9-97da-f35b43507163.html
"Statewide, the best housing year this decade is worse than the worst year in the 1980s."
1980's 26,800 units
1990's 16,300 units (-40%)
2000's 14,500 units (-11%)
2010's on track for
Oh that it was so simple.
This legislation wouldn't be needed if local governments didn't favor office buildings over housing for the people who work in those buildings. The result of these policies in San Mateo County is extreme traffic congestion caused by long distance commuters. There should be a law that requires that one unit of housing be approved for every job that is added. Cities that don't want additional housing shouldn't allow additional jobs to be created.
Spot on. Too bad Senator Weiner and many of our other elected officials don't get this.
Great idea! Wait until Oculus moves into Burlingame. The traffic congestion will choke us all. I doubt that many of the 4000 employees will be able to live in SMC.
Good to see at least three clear-thinking people on the San Mateo City Council: Papan, Freschet, and Rodgriquez. The others? Not so much. SB 50 is an awful piece of legislation and should be relegated to the dumpster of bad ideas.
The city council of San Mateo needs to do a much better job informing the public when the controversial SB50 will be discussed. This power grab is opposed by many of their constituents and we want to be there to share our feelings with the council. I want to thank council members Freshcett, Papan and Rodriguez for the letter sent in opposition and warn Goethels (abstained) and Bonilla that they will face opposition in their next election if they stand with Weiner and Sacramento on SB50. We don’t need a city council if you forfeit your authority and our sovereignty over to the state.
If you care that much, then read the agenda they put out before their meetings.
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.