•
CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. 47 {2020)
CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2020
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY OF SAN MATEO GENERAL
PLAN TO EXTEND FOR TEN YEARS THE EXPIRATION DATE FOR VOTER-ENACTED POLICIES LIMITING BUILDING
HEIGHTS, RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, AND NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING INTENSITIES, AND TO MODIFY POLICIES
ESTABLISHING AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECTS WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by statute a petition has been filed with the legislative body of the City of San Mateo, California, signed by more than 10 per cent of the number of registered voters of the city to submit a proposed ordinance relating to extending the general plan policies enacted by Measure P in 2004, which amended and extended the 1991 citizen's initiative Measure H; and WHEREAS, Measure P extended the expiration provision until December 31, 2020; and WHEREAS, the County Elections Department at the request of the City Clerk examined the records of registration and ascertained that the petition is signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed ordinance to the voters;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to charter cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of San Mateo, California, on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting the following proposed ordinance:
votes cast.
Shall the proposed ordinance to amend the City of San YES Mateo General Plan to maintain for ten years voter-
enacted policies limiting building heights, residential densities, and nonresidential building intensities, and to modify and maintain for 10 years an inclusionary housing requirement for residential projects, be adopted? NO
SECTION 2.
SECTION 3.
That the text of the ordinance submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A.
SECTION 4.
SECTION 5.
That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50%+1) of the That the full text of the measure be printed in the voter information pamphlet.
The City Clerk is directed to forward the proposed measure to the City Attorney for Resolution No. 47 {2020) Page2 of23
Calling 11/3/2020 Election for Measure
preparation of an impartial analysis in accordance with Section 9280 of the Elections Code.
SECTION 6. Arguments for and against the proposition may be submitted to the qualified voters of the City in accordance with sections 9282 through 9287 of the California Elections Code. The deadline date for submitting ballot arguments for or against the proposition shall be Friday, August 14, 2020. Proposed arguments shall not exceed 300 words and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Clerk. The deadline for submitting rebuttal arguments shall be Monday, August 24, 2020. Proposed rebuttal arguments shall not exceed 250 words and shall be submitted to the office of the City Clerk. The provisions of Section 9285(a) of the California Elections Code shall apply to the submittal of rebuttal arguments.
SECTION 7. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required bylaw.
SECTION 8. The polls for said election shall be opened at seven o'clock a.m. of the day of said election and shall remain open continuously from said time until eight o'clock p.m. of the same day, when said polls shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California.
SECTION 9. The municipal election hereby called for November 3, 2020 shall be, and is hereby, ordered consolidated with the county election to be held within the City on said date, and within the territory affected by the consolidation, the election shall be held and conducted, election officers appointed, voting precincts designated, ballots printed, polls opened and closed, ballots counted and returned, returns canvassed, results declared, and all other proceedings incidental to and connected with the election shall be regulated and done in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the countywide election and as specified herein.
SECTION 10. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo is hereby requested to permit the County Elections Official to render specified services to the city relating to the conduct of the election; and is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said municipal election; and said election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election and only one form of ballot. The County shall certify the results of the canvass of the returns of said election to the City Council of this City which shall thereafter declare the results thereof.
SECTION 11. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 12. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 13. The City Council authorizes the City Clerk to administer said election and all reasonable and actual election expenses shall be paid by the City upon presentation of a properly submitted bill and the City Clerk is authorized to execute a service agreement for the provision of election services with the County of San Mateo with terms approved by the city attorney and provided the costs of such services have been appropriated by the City Council.
Resolution No. 47 (2020} Page 3 of 23
Calling 11/3/2020 Election for Measure
SECTION 14. The City Clerk and other City officers are directed to do all things necessary to meet the requirements of law for the November 3, 2020, municipal election .
SECTION 15. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
RESOLUTION NO. 47 {2020) adopted by the City Council of the City of San Mateo, California, at a regular meeting held on May 18, 2020, by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Council Members Goethals, Rodriguez, Bonilla, Lee and Papan None
None
To the City Council of the City of San Mateo:
We, the undersigned, registered and qualified voters of the City of San l'vfateo ("City"), present to the City Council this petition and request that the following proposed Ordinance ("Measure") be adopted without alteration or submitted to the registered and qualified voters of the City for their adoption or rejection at the earliest tegular election for which it qualifies pursuant to Section 1405 of the California Elections Code.
The foll text of the Measure is as follows:
The People of the City of San Mateo do hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Pmpose
The purpose of this Measure is to maintain the San Mateo General Plan so as to preserve the livability and suburban character of the City of San Mateo by essentially maintaining, through the year 2030, the height limits and densities first established by San Mateo voters in 1991, tl1en amended and extended by the vote.rs in 2004, but that would otherwise expire in 2020, while providing for the level of economic growtl1 projected in the San Mateo General Plan and, in a manne.r consistent witl1 requirements of law, increasing tl1e City's commitment to providing its fair share of affordable housing.
Section 2. Findings
The people of San Mateo find and declare:
A. The City of San Mateo is a mature community whose est-iblished and stable suburban character provides an economic asset for its homeowners and residents, and whose diversity is a source of pride.
B. The City of San Mateo is already a well-balanced community with a strong mix of residential, commercial and retail development. The City provides a wide range of housing opportunities for its residents. Currently, more than 44% of San Mateo's housing mlits are multi-family.
C. In 1990 the City Council adopted a General Plan for tl1e City of San Mateo. TI1e General Plan assumed that it was desirable for the City to meet a projected level of growth wllich was "estimated" or "anticipated" by the year 2005.
D. However, in 1991, tl1e voters of the City of San l\fateo dete.rmined tl1at tl1e 1990 General Plan designated land uses, building inte11sities and population densities whicl1 would allow far more growth than was projected, and more growth than was desirable. 2 E. In 1991, the voters found that while the excess densities and intensities pe1missible under the 1990 Genernl Plan were intended to allow for flexibility, and were to be resetved for projects which provided substantial public benefits, including affordable housing; the City Council at that time had approved projects in the higher tange of building intensity and population density which had not provided sufficient public benefits or affordable housing.
F. In 1991, the voters determined that high-rise and high-density developments threatened the viability of the valued suburba11 character of the community and did not have the suppoti: of San Mateo residents. The voters found that continued approval of such projects would ittevocably change the character of San Mateo for the worse, and cause serious adverse impacts to its citizens, in the f01m of increased traffic congestion, air pollution and noise levels, loss of views and other adverse visual impacts, reduced emergency set-vices and othet public facilities, increased costs of government, and reduced quality oflife.
G. In 1991, the voters determined that it was necessa1y to limit the maximum density and intensity of development in San Mateo to levels which will eliminate or mitigate the impacts set foti:h above. At the same time, the voters determined that such restrictions should not unduly impair the City's ability to achieve its economic development goals; and that it was of utmost importance that such limitations not reduce the amount of affordable housing production.
I-I. In 1991, the voters determined that the City Council had not included any mandatory iuclusionaty housing or other programs in the 1990 Genetal Plan to ensure the production of affordable housing, and that it was necessary to increase the City's commitment to production of affordable housing.
I. In 1991, the voters found that the initiative Measure I-I and the General Plan amendments adopted by it: encouraged the production of San Mateo's fair share of housing affordable to persons defined in Health and Safety Code section 50093; did not and would not impose any numerical or percentage limit on the development of housing units in the City of San Mateo; encouraged the developme11t of affordable housing units within City limits; and was intended to be and was consistent with Chapter 4.2 of Title 7 of tl1e Governme11t Code, including Gove11.1ment Code section 65913.1.
J. In 1991, tl1e voters found that the initiative Measure Hand tl1e General Plan ame11chnents adopted by it were intended to and did retain the General Plan, as amended, as an internally consistent and legally adequate Geneml Pla11.
K. In 2004, the voters approved Measure P, to amend and extend until 2020 tl1e General Plan aine11dme11ts adopted by .Measure I-I, finding that the findings and determinations made -----·. ···--·------- ----- -·-- -----------------·- --- -~-------------·------ -·------~- -···--· ----. by the voters in adopting Measure I-I in 1991 continued to reflect tl1e views and desires of 3 the people of Sru.1 Mateo and should continue to serve to guide the development of the community through the year 2020.
L. In 2018, the findings ru.1d determinations made by San Mateo voters in 1991 in adopting initiative Measure H, and in 2004 in adopting initiative Measure P, and the General Plan amendments approved by those measures, continue to 1:eflect the views and desires of the people of San Mateo and should continue to serve to guide the development of the community through the year 2030.
M. In 2018, the further updates, clarifications and chru.1ges to Measure P contained ill this Measure mail1tau1 all significant, substantive portions of the voter-adopted illitiative Measure P, while clarifyu1g references to buildil1g height linlits for certau1 residential lru.1d use categories, ru.1d updating inclusionary housing reqtlirements consistent with law.
Section 3. Ge11eral Plan Amendments
A. Backgrnund: General Plan Amendments
1) Section 3 of il1itiative Measure H set forth specific amendments to the Sru.1 Mateo General Plru.1 as adopted by the Sau Mateo City Council ill July 1990 Q1ereafter referred to as "General Plan"). The General Plan was then amended to il1cmporate the ru.11endments set forth in Measure H.
2) Section 3 of initiative _Measure P set forth specific additional amendments to the General Plan, which was amended to incmporate the amendments set forth ill Measure P. 3) 111is section of this initiative sets forth ru.nendments to the General Plru.1 that were originally adopted by San Mateo voters in 1991, ru.nended ru.1d re-adopted and extended through the year 2020, and that will contume to be included withil1 the General Plru.1 through the year 2030.
B. Amendments to General Plan, Chapter I, Introduction
1) The following paragraphs added by Measure P to the end of part B ("How the Sru.1 Mateo General Plan was Developed") are amended and maintai11ed to read:
In November 1991, the voters adopted aJ.1 initiative which amended the General Plan.
The initiative made several chru.1ges to the General Plan, primarily directed at reducing maxunum heights ru.1d densities for residemial ru.1d most non-residential uses, while increasing the City's commitment to providing affordable housil1g. _________ A _comprd1e11siveupdate of the General Plan, consistent with the_provisions of ____ _ Measure H, was approved by the City Council in1996.
4 In November 2004, the voters adopted Measure P, extending l\1easure H. This extension included the following types of items: updates, clat-ifications and changes.
In addition, there were significant provisions of .Measure H which were maint'lined.
In November 2018_, the voters adopted a new l'v[easure futther extending Measures H and P, and including additional updates, clarifications and changes, but maintaining all significant, substantive portions of Measure H and Measure P. 2) The following text is maintained as part C ("Major Proposals of the General Plan"):
a. The first paragraph in part 2 ("Maintain the Commitment to Strengthening the Downtown as a Major Commercial, Residential and Cultural Centet'') is maintained to read:
The General Plan supports new cotmnercial and residential growth in the Dm.vntown, as well as maintaining retail shopping on the ground floors along Third and Fourth avenues and B Street. Development of substantial amounts of housing to suppott Downtown retail and office growth is fostered in the Gateway area, betweet1 Downtown and US 101.
b. The first paragraph in patt 3 ("Concent111.te Major New Development Near Transportation and Transit Corridors") is maintained to read; As the pre-emine11t city in Sru1 Mateo County, San Mateo will continue to attract relatively inte11se office ru1d residential developme11t. Conce11trating these higher intensity projects in areas having good access to freeways and the rail stations will reduce congestion on City streets and create higher value developments surrounded by supporting runenities. The creation of higher density "nodes" will also establish a more recognizable urban form. These nodes are located in areas which will minimize the impacts of dense developme11t on surrounding neighborhoods.
c. The second parn1:,>raph :iJ.1 part 5 ("Improve Design Quality and Establish Height Limits") is maintained to read:
TI1e Plrui establishes height limits which take into account the r.xisting pattem of development and surrounding land uses, and preserve the predominant character of the City.
5 C. Amendments to General Plan, Chaptel' II, Land Use Element 1) The paragraph designated "b. Development Buildout", which is part 2.b. it1 the discussion of "Land Use", is maintained to read:
b. Development Buildout. Development Buildout -- the theoretical maximum development allowed the General Pbn prior to its amendment by foitiative it1 November 1991 -- would have allowed for the addition of up to 16.9 million square feet of commercial development, or a 100% it1crease over the existing floor space, for an overall FAR of .77. The largest concentrations of commercial space would have been in the Downtown, Hillsdale Shopping Center, and at Mat-iner's Isla11d. The neighborhood shoppit1g centers would have been able to almost double their existing floor space, Office space would have been able to more than ti-iple, making it the brgest concenttation of commercial space. The SR 92 co1-ri.dor would have contained the largest single concentration of office space.
Maximum theoretical residerrtiaJ. buildout would have resulted in a total of 48,700 dwellings, with multi-family accounting for over 59% of all units. The number of dwellings could have been significantly higher depending on the number of commercial/ residential mixed-use developments. Residential densities would have increased to a city avet:age of 17 units/net acre, the equivalent of an R-2 (two-family dwellings) District.
The November 1991 initiative Genet-al Plan amendments reduced the maxitnum theoretical buildout to bring it more into conformity with estimated (anticipated) development during the General Plan timeframe. The distt:ibution of land uses remained sitnilar to maxitnum theoretical buildout under the General Pbn prior to the inil-iative, but the amount of development was reduced. Maxitnum theoretical residential development under the initiative is 1,815 units on vacant land, and 16,4-65 . units in areas that are cU11:ently zoned to pe1mit-residential. uses, for a total of 56,880 potential units. Maximum redevelopment for this amount of housing reduced the amount of commercial developme11t.
2) The text following Policy LU 1.4 ("Development Intensity /Density") is maintained to read:
The pla11 pe11nits new multi-family residential development at a t:ange of densities from 9 to 50 units net per a.ere, with the higher end of the density 1-ange to be used only for projects which provide substantial public benefits or ameJ1ities. Residential . ____ develCJptnent is also allowed in_ commercial distt-icts. If exp~cted development talces ____ _ 6 place, the city-wide avemge density is expected to increase from 10 to at least 12 units per net acre.
Building intensity is a measurement of the amount of physical development allowed on a parcel. The Land Use Element utilizes a combination of building height and floor area mtio (FAR) (the gross floor area of a building divided by the net lot area) to measure building intensity.
The plan anticipates a range of new non-residential development by providing an FAR range of0.5 up to a theoretical maximum of3 .0, and by establishing a l'llllge of pe1mitted building heights from 25 feet to 90 feet. Higher height limits and the higher end of the FAR range are available qnly for projects which provide public benefits or amenities substantially greater than code requirements.
The city-wide average FAR is expected to increase from .59, but to stay below . 70, while average height will rema:in less than 45 feet.
3) The following text in Policy 1.5 ("Building Height") is maintained to read:
Requests for height changes consistent with the height ranges for specific land uses as designated in Appendix C, entitled "Building Height", may be considered by the City Council only when accompanied by a request for change in land use designation.
Such requests may be approved only if tl1e following findings are made:
1. The build:ing has high design quality, which is enhanced by additional building height.
2. Increased build:ing heights are visually related to surrounding building heights and promote the creation of a coherent City image.
3. Increased build:ing heights will still provide for a variety of building heights in the vicinity of the project and the sutrounding areas;
4. Increased. building heights are compatible witl1 surround:ing land uses, a11d will not create adverse shadow or visual impacts on surrounding residential uses; a11d
5. The City's infrastructure is adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3a) 'Die text following Policy LU 1.5 ("Building Height") is amended and maintained to read:
Maximum height limits are intended to pe1mit development which will not overburden the City's infrastmcture or circulation system, which is consistent with ·- -the· plan' s~Jr1terrstty1tletrstty-standarcls, airdiscompa.tiole witlr su11:ormdt11g ·limd·uses,--· 7 and which will preserve, to the extent feasible, the City's existing character. Height limits range from 24 feet to 90 feet, m1d are contained in Appendices B and C of the General Plan.
Generally the residential areas are restricted to low maximum heights (24 feet) to protect established neighborhoods, although medium- and high-density multi-family areas have he.ight limits up to 55 feet, to accommodate increased density.
Non-residential maximum heights range from 25 feet (nearest low density residential areas) to 90 feet (manufacturing, public facilities, and major institutions). Generally, the ma.,;itnum height is 55 feet.
4) The text following Policy LU 1.9 ("Single-Family and Duplex Preservation") is mait1tait1ed to read:
Maxitnum pe1mitted density ranges for development are established to promote the iticrease of housing stock consistent with the desired character of development.
Residential density ranges are:
DENSITY UNITS/NET ACRE POPULATION/NET
ACRE
Smgle-Family 0-9 0-20
Low-Density Multi-Family 9-17 21-39
Medium-Density Nlulti-Family 18-35 40-80
High-Density Multi-Family 36-50 81-115
The low-density category is intended for duplex and townhouse development which is generally in close proxm1ity to single-family areas, and often provides a buffer from higher density residential or non-residential uses.
The medium-density ca:tego1y generally consists of apartment and condominium buildings developed at two to four stories in height. The high-density categoi-y includes multi-u11it buildings of up to 55 feet and three to five stories it1 height, generally located 011 or near major streets, it1 non-residential areas, surrounding the Downtown, mid near train stations.
8 5) The text following Policy LU 1.10 ("Commercial Development") is maintained to read:
All categories of residential development are allowed in all non-residenti,-il land use categodes other than the service and industrial categories and those listed as categories 7-11 in part B of Appendix B of the General Plan; except that the maximum density residential categoty allowed in areas designated as neighborhood commercial is medium-density multi-family.
Residential development in these commercial zones would be consistent with the descriptions in the discussion of Policy LU-1.9.
6) Policy LU 1.11 ("Commerci,'tl Focal Areas") and the following text is maint-iinecl to read:
LU 1.11: Commercial Focal Areas. Concentrate the most intense office and retail uses at locations delineated 011 the Land Use Plan. Discourage such uses outside the commercial nodes delineated on the Land Use Plan.
By concentrating major commercial development in nodal areas such as the Downtown, Mariner's Island, and along SR 92, the City achieves comparatively efficient design of its infrastructure and greater opportunities for transit usage. The vi.-ibility and value of commercial areas are also enhanced by concentrating high quality development in compatible areas. Additionally, a more distinctive city image is established, and neighborhood impacts caused by regional traffic are minimized. 7) Policy LU 6.1 ("Periodic General Plan Review") is .maintained to read:
LU 6.1: Periodic General Plan Review. Report to the City Council yearly on the status of the implementation of the General Plan and on the need to update the plan.
Review antm,'tlly projections made ill the General Plan for housil1g, population, commercial growth, economic growth, public service ru1d safety levels that are not considered as part of the budget review; review projections on the fair share housil1g allocation and update the General Plan at least every five years, consistent with the ma..'limum buildil1g heights ru1d densities as Ol'iginally adopted by the voters ill November 1991 ru1d again adopted in November 2004 and November 2018. 8) Goal 6A and Policies 6A.l and 6A.2 are mail1tained as follows:
6. GENERAL PLAN HvfPLEMENTAT10N
GOAL 6A: Ensure that all development in the City is consistent with ru1d implements the General Plru1.
9 POLICIES:
LU 6A.1: Specific Plan, Zoning, Pennit and Subdivision Review. The City shall not approve any specific plan, rezoning, permit, subdivision, vat-iai:1ce, or other land use permit which is not consistent with ai:1d does not implement the General Pbn.
Specific Plan and zoning ordinances were amended so as to conform to the General Plan by the end of 1992.
LU 6A.2: Building Height and Building Intensity Maps/Plans. Maintain Building Height ai:1d Building Intensity maps/plai:1s which delineate development intensity in the fo11n of building heights and FA.Rs in a manner which implements the height, intensity, density and design sta11dards in the Genernl Pbn, consistent with the Building Heights and Intensities maps/plans as amended by initiative in November 1991, November 2004, and November 2018. General Plan sta11dards for building heights and intensities are specifically set forth in the Building Height Plan ai:1d the Building Intensity Plan included in the General Plan, ai:1d designated respectively as figure LU-4 ai:1d LU-5.
9) Policy PA 1.1 ("North El Ca!llino Real (SR 82)") shall be maintained by replacing the te.rm "medium-high density" if ai:1d wherever it occ11rs with the term "high density". 10) The Area Specific Policy for the Downtown, which malces up subpart 3 of the part entitled "Area Specific Policies" is maintained as Policy PA 3, and is maintained to read:
a. A Specific Plan for the Downtown was adopted by the City Council in July 1985 ai:1d amended in 1993, consistent with the provisions of Measure H as adopted by the voters in November 1991. This Specific Plan also constituted an amendment to the previous General Plan.
b. Densities up to 75 units per acre, heights up to 75 feet and appropriate FARs may be allowed in the following areas of the Downtown, for projects which provide public benefits or ainenities substantially greater tlrnn code requirements:
1. the area designated on the Land Use Plan (LU-3) as Downtown which is bounded by El Camino Real (SR 82), East Fourth and East Fifth Avenues and tl1e SPRR railroad traclcs;
2. the area designated on the Land Use Plan (LU-3) as Downtown which is bounded by El Camino Real (SR 82) ai:1d Ellsworth, Baldwin ai:1d Second Avenues;
10 3. the area designated on the Land Use Plan (LU-3) as Nlixed-Use (Executive Office) which is bounded by El Camino Real (SR 82), San Mateo Drive, St.
Matthews Avejme, and Baldwin Avenue; and
4. those properties in the area designated on the Land Use Plan (LU-3) as Nlixed-Use (Neighborhood Commercial) which are between San Mateo Drive and Ellsworth Avenue, and which have frontage on the north side of Baldwin Avenue as of 1 January 1992.
c. Densities up to 7 5 units per acre, heights up to 7 5 feet, and appropriate F ARs may be allowed u1 the followu1g areas of the Downtown for projects which to the greatest extent feasible protect and preserve key historic resources u1 accordance with the followu1g conditions:
1. the area designated on the Land Use Plan (LU-3) as Downtown which is bounded by B Street, Ellsworth Avenue, First A venue and Second Avenue;
2. all buildings on the site with frontage along Second Avenue or B Street which are identified as Individually Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or co11tributo1y to a National Register Eligible Historic District as per the City of Sm1 Mateo Historic Buildu1g Survey dated September 1989 (u1 this area changes m the facade or significmit exterior or interior features shall be reviewed for their consistency ,vith the architectutal character of the buildu1g by applying critet-ia outlu1ed in the Secreta1y of the Interior's Stmidards for Rehabilitation);
3. FARs and residential densities may be calculated based on the total site square footage; however the F ARs and densities for buildu1g protected m accordance with paragraph (c)(2) unmediately precedu1g may be excluded from the allowable F ARs and densities for new construction pennitted on the site.
11) Numbered paragraph 2 of Policy PA 4.5 ("Norfolk/SR 92 Vicu1ity") is mau1tamed to read:
2. Retau1 the Parkside Shopping Center, allowu1g limited expansion of low-scale commercial uses. Any redevelopment shall be contingent on retau1ing neighborhood retail uses mid on finding no appreciable u1crease u1 through traffic u1 residential neighborhoods or significmit impacts on Norfoll, Street service levels. Provide development incentives to encourage mixed retail and high density housu1g, should -redevelopment occur. Penmt heights greater than 35 feet, but to a maximum of 55 - ------ 11 feet, for projects which meet the following criteria and are approved by the City Council.
[Subparagraphs (a) - (e) remain unchanged.]
12) Policy PA 5.1 ('cMid-El Camino Real (SR 82)") and the text following it are maintained as follows:
a. Paragraph 1 of Policy PA 5.1 is maintained to replace the te11n "medium-high density" if and wherever it occurs with the term "high-density''. b. Parngraph 2 of Policy PA 5.1 and the following text is amended to read:
2. For lots 100 feet deep and less, maximum building height is 40 feet. For lots more than 100 feet deep, permit heights up to 55 feet for projects which meet the following criteria and are approved by the City Council:
[Subparagraphs (a) - ( e) remain unchanged.]
Prepare design criteria to implement this policy prior to approval of any building over 40 feet high.
In this area, El Camino Real (SR 82) is characterized by a mixture of commercial uses ranging from single-story to high rise. It is expected that most new development will be medium scale comme1·cial or high-density residential or mixed-use due to the limited depth lots and potential impact on adjacent residential sites.
13) Numbered paragraph 3 of Policy PA 5.2 ("SR 92/Grant Street/Concar Drive/Delaware Street Vicinity") is maintained to read:
3. Permit densities up to 7 5 units per acre, and heights greater than 40 feet but up to a maximum of 75 feet for projects in the area designated in the Land llse Plan (LU-3) as Regional/Community Commercial which is bounded by South Grant Street, llS 101, SR 92, and the north property line of the Dunfey Hotel for projects which meet the following: criteria and are approved by the City Council:
[Subparagraphs (a) - (e) remain unchanged.]
14) Policy PA 6.3 ("Mai-i11er's Island Specific Plan") is maintained, as follows:
3. H.eight Limits. Maximum densities of up to 75 units pet acre and maximum . - -heights .ofup to.75_feet.and.appropriate FARs ma.yebe.allow:ed.:in .tl1e following areas_ ___ ..... 12 of Mariner's Island, for projects which provide public benefits or amenities substantially greater than code requirements:
a) the area designated on the Land Use Plan (LU-3) as Mi."Ced-Use Inceittive (Regional/ Community Commercial) which is commonly described as Fashion Island Shopping Center and is circtunscribed by Artlnu· Hanse11 Drive; and b) the area designated Executive Office on the Land Use Plan (LU-3) which is north of SR 92 and bounded by Fashion Island Boulevard, Mariner's Island Boulevard, and Fashion Island Shopping Center.
15) Policy PA 7.6 ("South El Camino Real (SR 82)") and the following text is maintait1ed as follows:
a. Numbered paragraph 1 is mailltained to replace the term "medimn-high density" if and wherever it occurs with the te11n "high density''. b. Numbered paragraph 2 and the followit1g text is maintained to read:
2. For lots 100 feet deep and less, maximum building height is 40 feet. For lots more than 100 feet deep, permit heights up to 55 feet for projects which meet the followit1g criteria and are approved by the City Council. [Subpaeigraphs (a) - (e) remain unchanged.]
Prepare design criteria to itnpletnent tl1is policy prior to approval of any building over 40 feet high.
In this area, El Camino Real (SR 82) is characterized by a mixture of low-scale commercial uses. It is expected that most new development will be medimn scale commercial or high-density residential or mixed-use, due to urban design concerns and traffic congestion.
16) Policy PA 8.1 ("South El Camino Real (SR 82)") and tl1e following text is mait1tained as follows:
a. Numbered paragraph 1 is mait1tained to replace the te1111 "medium-high density" if and wherever it occurs with the term "high de11sity". b. Numbered paragraph 2 and tl1e following text is mait1tained to re.ad:
13 2. For lots 100 feet deep and less, maximum building height is 40 feet.
For lots more than 100 feet deep, permit heights up to 55 feet for projects which meet the following criteria and are approved by the City C01u1cil. [Subparagraphs (a) - (e) remain unchanged.)
Prepare design cdteria to implement this policy pd.or to approval of any building over 40 feet high.
111e intent of this policy is the same as for other provisions of El Camino Real (SR 82) as described in Policies PA7.6.
17) Numbered paragraph l of Policy PA 8.2 ("Twentieth Avenue Vicinity") is maintained to replace the te11n "medium-high density" if and wherever it occurs and replacing it with the term "high-density".
18) Beginning with munbered paragraph 2, Policy PA 9 .2 ("South El Camino Real (SR 82)") a11d the follo,ving text is maintained to read:
2. For lots 100 feet deep and less, maximum building height is 40 feet. For lots more than 100 feet deep, permit heights up to 55 feet which meet the following criteria and are approved by the City Council.
[Subparagi-aphs (a) - (e) remain unchanged.]
Prepare design criteria to implement this policy prior to approval of any building over 40 feet high.
D. Amendments to General Plan, Chapter IV, Housing Element 1) In section Hof the Housing Element, enti~ed "Constraints on Housing Deve~opment, Governtm.'lltal Constraints, Zoning," the following language is maintained to read as follows:
Multi-family densities permitted under the General Plan reach 50 units per acre, and the zoniJ.1g code has been amended to conform to this maximum, although it will contiJ.me to be subject to state statutes mandating density bonuses under ce1iaiJ.1 conditions.
2) a. Policy H 2.4 and Program H 2.4 are amended and maiJ.1tai11ed to read:
H 2.4: Private Development of Affordable Housing. Encourage the provision of affordable housiJ.1g by the private sector through:
14 1. Requit'ing, to the extent allowed by law, that a percentage of the units, excluding bonus m1its, in specified residential projects be affordable.
2. Requiring constmction or subsidy of new affordable housing as a condition for appi:oval of any commercial development which affects the demand for housing in the City.
3. Providing density bonuses and priority processing for projects which qualify for density bonuses under State law.
Program H 2.4: Private Development of Affordable Housing.
1. Maintain an inclusionary housing ordinance to implement Policy H 2.4 The ordinance shall include:
a) At a minimmn require, to the extent allowed by Jaw, that all projects which include more than 10 residential units, including mixed-use projects, to include 10% of the residential units for exclusive use as housing units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households specified in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. b) The project proponent shall build the unit( s) on site, either in partnership with a public or nonprofit housing agency, or on its own. Consistent with Government Code section 65850, off-site building, or other alternative means of compliance shall be allowed; and in any event, any off-site units must be built within the City of San Mateo.
No in-lieu fees shall be allowed except for:
i. Projects which include 10 units or less; or
ii. Fractional affordable housing unit requirements of less than .5. c) The affordable units shall be as similar in exterior design and appearance as possible to the remaining units in the project.
d) Affordable rental units shall carry deed restrictions which guarantee their affordability.
e) Affordable for sale units shall have deed restrictions which allow for first right of refusal to the local govenunent, upon the sale of the unit. The City local government -- should-onlyrefuse-the-option-ofpurchase if-it-has already expended-all of its financial 15 resources available for housing, including Community Development Block Grant funds, local housing trust fund monies, and any other federal, state or local funds typically available for affordable housing purposes.
Lead: Neighborhood Improvement and Housing Division (Ongoing) If changes in State or Federal law render any provisions of the ordinance adopted by this Measure invalid or unenforceable, such that modifications are necessaty to allow continued operation of the ordinance, the City Council. may modify the ordinance without voter approval, but only to the limited extent necessaty to cure the inconsistency with State or Federal law.
2. Evaluate and study the impacts on development costs to housing by increasing the inclusionary housing production requirements. Areas for consideration include increasing the percentage of units required, lowering the affordability pricing, lowering the project size that triggers the requirement, a11d including a11 in lieu payment for small projects.
Lead: Neighborhood Improvement and Housing Division
Implementation Goal: Ongoing for existing program; bring proposal on new requirements to Council by 2002.
3. Develop, hold public hearings on, and if possible, adopt a commercial/housing li11kage program, based on empirical data applicable to the City of San Mateo. 111e program should match the housing constructed and/ or subsidized to the demand created by commercial development, in tenns of affordability levels, type of tenancy, number of bedrooms, and other relevant factors.
Lead: Neighborhood Impi;ovet_nent and Housing Division
Implementation Goal: Bring to the Council by 2002
4. Develop a density bonus program Consistent with State law.
Lead: Planning Division (Ongoing)
5. Provide info1mation to developers 011 density bonus provisions for affordable housing. Give processing priority to applications which include substanti.u proportions of affordable housing.
Lead: Planning Division (Ongoing)
16 b. The text following Program H 2.10 ("Housing Densities"), are maintained. to read:
One means of increasing housing potential is through redesignation of commercially zoned and lower density residential properties to multi-family lru1d use. The redesignations approved in Policy H 2.10 will increase the potential for construction of new units.
San Mateo's multi-family zoning distdcts allow relatively high densities in an effort to encourage the production of housing. In 1989, the R-3 District (the lowest density multi-family zoning district) allowed up to 43 units per acre. Prior to the runendments necessary to make them conform to the initiative adopted by the voters in November 1991, the R-4 Dist11ct allowed up to 58 units per act-e and the R-5 District allowed up to 124- units per acre. However, very few projects were built up to the maximum allowable densities. On avemge, most developments achieved between one-third and one-half the allowable densities in these zoning districts, due to other constraints such as parking, open space requirements and the costs of high-rise building construction or multiple .floors of underground padcing.
The high range of allowable densities permitted by the zoning distdcts can result in property owners over-valui11g their properties based on unrealistic development expectations. This iJ.1 turn results iJ.1 properties remai11ing undeveloped or reduces the affordability of units constructed with i11flated land prices. It can also render density bonuses for affordable housing production useless.
c. Program H 2.12 ("Mixed-Use") is maintained to read:
Publicize the advru1tages of constructing housing or mixed-use projects iJ.1 commercial areas. Publicize the ability to locate reside11ces iJ.1 commercial areas. · - Lead:·Plruming Division.- (0ngoing)- ~ -· -- -- - - - - ------· -· ------ ·---·- - --·- d. The second full paragraph in the discussion of Program H 2.11 ("Mixed-Use") is maintained to read:
The City cU11:e11tly allows tl1e mixing of housing and commercial uses, iJ.1 various locations, i11cluding properties along El Camino Real (SR 82) soutl1 of tl1e Downtown, office sites along 20th Avenue, the KMART site at Delaware and Concar, the Parkside Shoppi11g Center at Norfollc, and the Fashion Island Shopping Center. In addition, once adopted, the programs called for iJ.1 Program H 2A should encourage the consttuction of affordable housi11g iJ.1 the redevelopment of 17 E. Amendments to General Plan, Chapter V, Urban Design Element The last full paragraph of Focal Points is maintained to read:
Many things can be clone to strengthen major focal points. The Downtown Specific Plan includes requirements for ground floor retail, and the General Plan pe11nits mLxed uses and building heights of up to 7 5 feet in the Downtown. Hillsdale Mall could be strengthened by higher floor area ratios (the ratio of building floor area to lot area), visible retail uses (outward focusing), and a more consistent architectural or landscape treatment. The office development along SR 92 could be enhanced by permitting buildings up to 7 5 feet in height, altering higher floor area tatios and architectural and landscape treatme11ts. Focal points can be discouraged in the middle sections of El Camino Real (SR 82) and many other commercial zones by changing the zoning to permit 110 high-rises or buildings with excessive bulk.
F. Amendments to General Plan Appendices
1) Appendix B, entitled "Land Use Categories", is maintained as follows:
a. The land use category "Medium High Density 1\!Iulti-Family Residential, if and wherever it occurs, is deleted.
b. Section A.2.c., '1-Iigh-DensityMulti-Family Residential" is maintained to read:
High-Density Multi-Family Residential.
(36-50 units per acre -- 81-115 persons pet acre)
Higher density multi-family areas, typically three to five stories, usually located neat transportation corridors, major streets, commerchl areas, the Downtown -· ... ___ and.train.stations. _____ _
c. The text at the begi:1rning of section B ("Non-Residential Land Use Categories") is maintained to read:
Non-residential land use categories include a wide range of commercial and industrial uses and public facilities. The intensity or scale of development is limited by a combination of building height and floor area 1-atio. Residential uses rangi:11g from low to high densities are allowed in all non-residential land use categoties except setvice commercial, manufacturing/industrial and parks/ open space, and where othetwise excluded by specific area policies.
18 d. The fourth sentence of Section B.2., entitled "Regional/Community Commercial", is amended and maintained to read:
Characterized by medium to high FARs of 1.0 to 2.5 and heights of 35 feet to 55 feet*, with the exception of the Hillsdale Mall which has a maximum height of 60 feet as shown on the Site Plan entitled ''Hillsdale Shopping Center", dated Aptil 19, 2004 and which has been incorporated mto the Building Height Plan, Figure LU-4. e. The last sentence of section B.3., entitled "Downtown Commercial", is maintained to read:
Characterized by medium to high F ARs of 1.0 to 3.0 and heights of 35 to 55 feet.* f. The last sentence of section B.6., entitled "Executive Office", is maintained to read:
Characterized by low to medium FARs of .62 to 1.0 and heights of 35 to 55 feet.* g. The last sentence of section B.12., entitled "Mixed-Use Incentive", is maintained to read:
Characterized by a wide range of medium to high F ARs of 1.0 to 3.0 and heights of 25 to 55 feet.*
h. A note is maintained at the end of Appendix B, which reads as follows:
* Densities up to 7 5 units per acre, and height limits up to a maximum of 7 5 feet tn.-iy be allowed in some areas within these land use categories, as specified in the atea specific policy for Downtown (PA 3), and Policies PA 5.2 and PA 6.3 of the Land Use Eleme.nt.
2) Appendix C, entitled "Building Height", is amended and maintained to contain the follo~~g land uses and building heights. No new land use categories shall be authorized with building heights greater than 55 feet:
LAND USE CATEGORY
Residential:
Single-Family
Low-De11si1y Multi-Family
Medium-Density Multi-Family
______ Higl1~I)ensity ~ul,i:i~-~~~Y _
19 Maximum Height
24'
24'
35' to 55'
35' to 55'
Non-Residential:
Neighborhood Commercial
Regional/Community Commercial
Downtown
Service Commercial
Manufacturing
Executive Office
Public Facility
Parks/Open Space
Utilities
Transportation Corridors
Major Institution/Special Facility
Mixed Use:
Executive Office/Low-Density Multi-Family
Executive Office/Medium-Density Multi-Family
Executive Office/High-Density Multi-Family
Neighborhood Commercial/Medium-Density Multi-Family
Neighborhood Commercial/High-Density Multi-Family
Regional/Community Commercial/High-Density Multi
Family
25' to 55'
35' to 55'* **
55'*
30'
35' to 90'
25' to 55'*
25' to 75'
32'
32'
32'
35' to 90'
25' to ,;5•
25' to 45'
25' to 55'*
35'
25' to 55'
25' to 55'*
* Height limits up to a maximum of 75 feet may be allowed in some areas within these land use categories, as specified the area specific policy for Downtown (PA 3), and Policies PA
5.2 and PA 6.3 of the Land Use Element.
** Height limits up to a maximum of 60 feet are also established for the Hillsdale Shopping Center as shown on the Site Plan entitled ''I-Iillsdale Shopping Center", dated April19, 2004.
Section 4. Subsequent General Plan Amendments
A. The General Plan and all of its elements and parts may be reviewed and amended pursuant to Policy LU 6-2 and as may be required to conform to state law, without · - li:mitation;-except·that·the-City Council-may-not-amend the·General-Plan-itr·a-manner- ·· 20 inconsistent with the pu1poses, intent, or operative provisions of this i11itiative, including, but not necessat'ily limited to, provisions reducing maximum height limits and densities for specified uses.
B. Should the City Council determine that it is impossible to comply with the requirements of state law without amending the General Plan in a ma1111er inconsistent with the purposes, intent, or operative provisions of this initiative, it shall first seek voter approval of any proposed inconsistent amendments. Failing this_, it shall then seek appropriate judicial relief.
Section 5. Impleme11tatio11/No Unconstitutional Taking
This initiative is not intended, and shall not be applied or consttued, to authorize the City to exercise its powers in a manner which will take private property for public use without the payment of just compensation, but shall be interpreted, applied and implemented so as to accomplish its putposes to the maximum constitutionally permissible extent. If application of this initiative to a specific property of record as of its effective date would create a t'lking, then the City Council may allow additional density or uses on said property, upon findings that the level of additional development pennitted is the minimum necessary to avoid a talcing, and no lesser level of development would be sufficient to avoid a talcing.
Such findings shall be based 011 foll envitonmental review and economic feasibility studies which are circulated in the same manner as Draft Envitonmental Impact Repo1ts, and must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Section 6. Severability
If any p!)Ttion _of this initiative is hereafter determined to be invalid by a court of competent __ _ jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this initiative shall remain in foll force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase, part, or portion of this initiative would have been adopted and passed irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, phrases, parts of pottions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 7. Effective Date and Durntion
A. The provisions of this initiative shall remain :in effect through the year 2030.
B. This initiative shall take effect 10 days after the city council dechres the results of the election approving this measure.
Section 8. Conflicting Ballot Measures
21 In the event that this Measure and another measure or measures relating to the same or similar subject matter shall appear on the same election ballot, the provisions of the other measures shall be deemed in conflict with this measure. In the event that this Measure shall receive a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void. 22