San Mateo County flunks growth management in new report

In a newly released report called the Bay Area Smart Growth Scorecard put out by Greenbelt Alliance, a Bay Area non-profit that focuses on land conservation and urban planning, San Mateo County was the only one of eight counties in the Bay Area to score 0% in the category of Growth Management�primarily because of its lack of "any effective growth management policy." From page 22 of the 44 page report (emphasis added):

Seven of eight counties have policies intended to prevent urban development on greenbelt lands outside their cities. However, their effectiveness varies greatly, splitting the counties into two distinct tiers. The four higher-scoring counties�Napa (90%), Alameda (75%), Contra Costa (75%), and Solano (65%)�have growth management policies established through voter-approved ordinances. Lower-scoring counties, including Marin (40%), Sonoma (30%), and Santa Clara (30%), have only general plan policies or map designations to manage growth. San Mateo scores 0% as the only Bay Area county without any effective growth management policy. While the San Mateo County General Plan does establish an �urban-rural boundary� around existing cities, it permits development at urban densities on rural lands.

The study was an effort to assess how the Bay Area will handle the expected growth of one million people over the next 15 years. The report concludes that the region is ill-prepared for that growth. A press release put out by the organization states that "the Bay Area Smart Growth Scorecard is the first attempt to evaluate the policies of every city and county to see how well the region will accommodate growth." "If it's done right, new growth can make the Bay Area a better place to live," said Tom Steinbach, Greenbelt Alliance's Executive Director, in its press release. "But right now, the region doesn't have the policies in place to make sure that happens."

As Steinbach related to the San Mateo County Times thru reporter Douglas Fischer, "We know we're going to grow. We know we've got major areas of land � about 400,000 acres � that are facing significant (risk of) sprawl development. The idea that we're only doing a third to half of what we should be doing is alarming to us."

In general, the counties scored better than the cities. Averaged over all categories, San Mateo County scored just above average among the counties (not including San Francisco, which was treated as a city). However, it's the management of growth that's been at the heart of many Coastside political conflicts and where San Mateo County scored so low.

The table of policy scores is reproduced below.

San Mateo County gets it best mark, and outranks the other counties, for its protection of farmland. The report states:

In San Mateo County, only one residential unit can be built for every 160 acres of prime farmland, the lowest allowable development density of any agricultural zone in the Bay Area. With its unique farmland protection ordinance, San Mateo scored 85% to lead all counties in this policy area. In San Mateo�s rigorous but flexible density-credit system, authorities designate agricultural parcel sizes and allocate density credits after a detailed on-site evaluation. Each density credit permits one house or, since water is a limiting factor, a commercial or institutional land use that requires the same amount of water. The density credit gives flexibility and certainty to property owners, and the site analysis protects valuable farmland.

Unfortunately � though the county also scored above average in open space protection and transportation (the latter of which does not well reflect the situation on the Coastside) � the good news pretty much ends there. The report states:

Both the county and cities of San Mateo [County] have the region�s weakest growth management policies. San Mateo [County] is the only county to allow urban development on the rural side of the rural-urban boundary, and only one of 15 eligible cities�Half Moon Bay�has an urban growth boundary.

San Mateo County is doing well at acquiring open space for permanent protection, and it has a model ordinance to protect prime agriculture lands. But the county�s weak growth management and conservation policies leave other greenbelt areas, especially creeks and hillsides throughout the county, poorly protected from inappropriate development.

San Mateo [County]�s cities, on average, had the lowest scores in the region, with an overall score of 25%. The county�s top-scoring city was the City of San Mateo, which ranked 18th regionwide. Smart growth should begin with cities, which should encourage good infill development with guidelines for pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development. San Mateo [County]�s cities are also in serious need of stronger policies to create homes that are affordable to local residents and workers.

Despite Half Moon Bay's honorable mention as the only city in the county with an urban growth boundary, they ranked only just above the median at 45th of the 101 cities studied.

While the city of San Mateo was our county's best representative (ranked at 18), Millbrae was a distant second at 28, and South San Francisco an even more distant third at 36. The city of Hillsborough tied for last place with Marin County's Belvedere, both scoring 0%.

Wednesday night, KPFA Evening News ran a 4-minute segment (starting at the 52 minute mark) highlighting the alarming results of this report. The segment included separate interviews with both Greenbelt Alliance Director Steinbach and a representative of San Mateo County who was reported to be County Counsel Gordon Parks. However, no such name exists in County Counsel's telephone directory.

The county representative defended the low ranking of the cities within the county, noting that "Our rural areas are areas that we are protecting with park land and open space land, while we sort of urbanize the cities along our transportation corridor, like Redwood City and San Mateo and San Bruno and South San Francisco."

The Greenbelt Alliance report concludes with this assessment and call for action:

Cities and counties throughout the region face choices about how to encourage growth while protecting open space and ensuring that the region�s quality of life stays high. The Smart Growth Scorecard assesses how well each jurisdiction is doing now, and offers examples of cities and counties to learn from.

Today, the Bay Area�s overall smart growth scores are low. But in each policy area, there is at least one city or county that can guide others toward smarter growth.

Strong smart growth policies exist in cities and counties large and small, distant and central, and with ample or minimal resources. Ultimately, local elected leaders and city and county planners determine how well a city is doing at putting policies in place to achieve smart growth. Local residents can also influence how well their city or county is doing by letting elected leaders know they want better-protected open space and more livable communities.

The Smart Growth Scorecard�s goal is to help cities and counties adopt a comprehensive set of policies that will create compact, vibrant communities surrounded by a protected greenbelt. Success will mean a great place to live for current and future generations.