Council turns its back on voters

The proposed general plan high-rise height range more than doubles Measure Y heights of three to five stories, which are already ample. Many recent housing developments along the Peninsula, and even in San Francisco, have been built within these levels. The council rejected staff’s high-rise height recommendation of six to 10 stories, choosing instead an open-ended 8+ stories to which two to three more stories can be added using state density bonus concessions. It must be made transparently clear to voters that whatever new heights the city defines for low-rise, midrise and now high-rise buildings, they do not include the state-mandated bonuses of additional stories.

Proposed building unit densities double and quadruple the Measure Y high-density zones of 36-50 units/acre. The proposed new medium-density range is 40-99 units/acre and the high-density range is 100-200 units/per acre. This stark contrast to Measure Y densities demands careful attention to parking and traffic impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.

The proposed General Plan also changes many existing residential zones to medium and high mixed-use zoning which allow a choice of office or residential development. Housing is all we hear about from our elected officials but when they vote all we get is more commercial office space. Mixed-use gives flexibility to developers which can be a good thing, but the trending economic cycle should not be the only determinant of what gets built. Mixed-use zoning for San Mateo must specify that a significant percentage of housing with a range of unit sizes be included in any future mixed-use proposal.

This council knows that San Mateo residents have a proud history of supporting social, educational and environmental justice. Yet residents’ legitimate concerns have been hijacked by special interests, both inside and outside of San Mateo, who use the same talking points and name-calling which is intended to create divisiveness and squelch public input. Decision-makers should be seeking balance, not bullying.

San Mateo residents understand the need for the community to grow and change in a sustainable way and are willing to accept increased heights and densities. But by insisting on uncompromising extreme growth, the council has effectively thrown the voters’ vision for a livable city out the window. What happened to the mixing and matching of alternatives A, B and C or promised compromises?

This excessive development over-reach led by the mayor, a former construction union representative, and supported by three other councilmembers was anticipated and the catalyst for Measure Y. Only Councilmember Rodriguez stated that more attention should be paid to Measure Y and residents’ concerns.

Much of what makes San Mateo unique and authentic is threatened by the council’s preferred maximum development scenario, with the likely result being only offices, chain stores and a wall of tall buildings along El Camino Real blocking sunlight and views of the hills. Even when retail is required in new development, the small and independent businesses that residents rely on and value cannot afford the increased rents.

Choosing maximum upzoning in every study area does not create affordable housing and greatly increases the cost of land for development. The council’s draft general plan is a construction blueprint that benefits developers; it discounts neighborhood livability, displaces small businesses and endangers the downtown historic district.

Consider us, the people you represent. Reduce the high-rise heights. Require more housing in mixed-use developments. Protect small businesses that residents rely on. Thanks to Measure Y, the voters have the power to compete with the big money, special interests. They can reject this “all or nothing” plan that has disregarded Measure Y in every single study area.

Michael Weinhauer is a community leader serving on the Steering Committee San Mateans for Responsive Government (smartergrowthsm.com), and serves as president of the Central Neighborhood Association.