May 13, 2014
Dear Planning Commission,
In preparation of this meeting, I reviewed the original plan for
Station Park Green, which was submitted in February 2011. It fits with the description
of transit oriented development, or TOD, and describes a community which does
not prioritize the car and makes concessions for long term environmental
sustainability.
The main downside to the plan is an almost total lack of
enforcement. While the vision is rosy one, compliance, for the most part, is
not required due to the liberally interspersed usage of words such as
‘encouraged’, ‘should’ and ‘permitted’. To quote the Green Building Design
section of the Sustainability Chapter of the Plan:
Construction waste should be recycled
and reused when possible
Roofs should reduce heat-island effect
through design and materials selection
I resubmit to you the full list, but to summarize, every
sustainability action is entirely voluntary. When it comes to issues of
sustainable land use and water consumption, the word ‘encouraged’ ought to
become shall and ‘should’ must become required.
A few points on the Plan
Comparison:
A 25K minimum of retail is inadequate. Walkable stores and
restaurants keep a community local and vibrant both day and night. The new
design is too heavily weighted towards residential, which will burden the neighborhood
with more citizens but provide no additional services.
And how can TOD be considered the most important guiding principle
if ground level parking figures so foremost in the new plan? People would be
expected to drive into their courtyard, enter their houses and leave the
surrounding streets empty and lifeless.
Also, if cars are allowed to drive around the central park, as they
are permitted in the new plan, it will have a detrimental impact on the safety
and enjoyment of park goers.
Referring to the Street Hierarchy Plan Comparison, in the original
proposal the blue lines designate a woonerf. A woonerf is a street on which
pedestrian and cyclists have priority over motorists and is designed for
maximum livability by residents. This sounds great. However, on the new plan
the blue line designates a woonerf/alley, a curious alternative as I do not
know of any vibrant, livable alleys. An alley all along western facing side of
the property would be a disaster, whereas a woonerf would be a delight.
There is another reason to be
concerned about the design of the western side of the property. On the Bike
Trail System Comparison the Class I Bike Path proposed all along the western
side is marked ‘(contingency location)’, meaning no real certainty of ever
existing.
In terms of station engagement,
the old plan has greater connectivity between the project and the train
station. The new plan only has one passage way, creating distance and
inaccessibility.
What am I asking of the
planning commission?
Do not encourage TOD, demand it. Require at least 45K retail and
eliminate above ground parking.
Please require the developer to use the western facing side of the
property as a woonerf, not an alley.
Uphold the highest standards of sustainability. Decide today that
tomorrow the buildings in our city will be better, cleaner and more efficient than
what has been built before. Do not use the word should to describe the
builders’ obligation in this regard; substitute shall and must instead.
Insist on maximum station engagement. The view of this property from
the train and station represent San Mateo. Ask that the design is aesthetic,
safe, accessible and inviting for Caltrain riders.
My Overall Assessment?
Changes in the new plan inconsistent with TOD, which zoning
requires, need addressing, however they should not distract from the parts of
the plan which have not changed, the pages of visionary planning materials full
of loopholes, should the developers, for example, change their minds about the
importance of investing in resource conservation.
While it is nice to think all developers will commit to sustainable building
principles voluntarily, I feel contractual agreements would be a
more reliable means of ensuring Station Park Green achieves the promise of the initial
planning application.
