Public Comment to the Planning Commission on Essex at Central Park, PA13-066

Dear Planning Commission, Associate Planner Julia Klein and Landscape Architect Dennis Frank,

I am writing because I have a variety of concerns about the proposed development being considered under application PA13-066. Though impressed in part by a vision which seeks to increase the value of a property which is arguably underutilized, overall the current plan for Essex at Central Park is too big to fit the proposed location harmoniously. Further, the applicant has failed to provide evidence the requested zoning increase, from 55 ft. to 75 ft., provides a public benefit and should therefore not be granted.

Below are a few specific issues which I hope the planning commission and staff will consider in conjunction with this application:

Public Benefit for a 75ft. Height Allowance:

It is my preference the building be kept to a maximize of 55 ft. as such a height is more in keeping with the character of downtown San Mateo and will not overshadow Central Park to the same extent. However, I am aware the zoning does allow provision for a building up to 75 ft. provided it delivers a public benefit. Yet the only so called ‘public benefit’ the applicant is proposing is El Paseo, a passageway between the existing Starbucks corridor and the park. This is an easement, which is a right, as opposed to a public benefit, and should in no way be considered a satisfactory concession to the public such as to increase density by an additional 20 ft. In addition, El Paseo fronts the lobby of the Essex Central Park, meaning the corridor will most directly benefit Essex residents as opposed to the general public.

To assess a public benefit befitting of the additional height allowance under consideration one should examine the financial advantage it will bring to the developing company. Using images submitted by the applicant, an additional 20 ft. would allow for the construction of an additional 22 units. While the applicant would have us believe the price they will charge for their units will range from $2,000-$3,000 a month, a basic analysis of the rental market disputes these estimates. Units many years older fall into this range. In terms of the newer, luxury branded units proposed by Essex a better gage would be the recently opened 888 San Mateo complex located on San Mateo Drive. At this development, which is arguably in a less desirable location, one bedroom units are on offer from $2,800 to $3,075. Two bedrooms are on offer from $3,150 to $3,550. Assuming all 22 units were one bedrooms renting for prices comparable to the lowest end of the rent range the benefit to the developer can be calculated at $739,200 for the first year alone. Assuming a 50/50 mix of one bedroom and two bedroom units compose the additional 22 units and they rent for a price midway between the high and low end of the range at 888 San Mateo, Essex property trust would benefit $829,950 for the first year alone. These considerable sums warrant a meaningful public benefit.

The tenants of the proposed building can be expected to add significant daily use to Central Park (also see comments on pets and smokers below). Even a onetime payment comparable to the examples used in the February 5, 2014 administrative packet will never be able to capture the full cost of the impact these new neighbors will have on Central Park, one of our prime civic assets. El Paseo does not begin to justify an exception to 55 ft. zoning. A more equitable public benefit to city residents would be tied to the vast economic benefit the company will receive when adding the additional units, such as a percentage of rents achieved for several decades into the future.

  

Traffic on 5^th Avenue:

Even in the absence of a large residential development at the proposed location, traffic on 5^th Avenue in the downtown area is regularly problematic, especially during peak travel hours. In particular, there are frequent backups for cars heading West on 5^th and wanting to turn left on El Camino. Adding 117 units will no doubt exacerbate the situation.

If a development results from this application, please stipulate no left turn into parking lot for drivers heading East on 5^th Avenue. Otherwise there seems to be a high likelihood of problematic backups. Should the backups extend into the intersection of El Camino and 5^th it will have dire consequences for transportation safety and efficiency.

Pedestrian Crossing on 5^th between El Camino and San Mateo Drive:

Even with the present level of traffic on 5^th Avenue it can be hard to cross the existing crosswalk which is located between El Camino and San Mateo Drive. With a projected increase of several hundred residents, this cannot be expected to improve. In order to ensure safety at this crossing it would be necessary to add either a STOP sign or a cross light. However, this would likely have negative consequences on traffic flow.

Pets:

At the February 5, 2014 community meeting before the Park and Recreation Commission the issue of pets was raised by another attendee. I am in agreement with his observation that were the complex to allow dogs it will have a negative impact on Central Park as not all pet owners are conscientious about both sanitation and leash safety. The need for additional enforcement of pet laws would be the expected result, which would have a cost impact on the City.

Smoking:

Should the Essex apartments disallow smoking it will mean residents will be required to find alternative space to continue their habit. I am concerned that this will result in an unacceptable increase in the level of smokers either on the street surrounding the property, in the proposed El Paseo or at the edge of Central Park, all which will poison the public air. The developer should address where they are expecting their tenants to smoke as well as dispose of their cigarette butts.

Public Parking:

While the exact number of parking spots open to the public is not slated to be impacted, it seems unlikely the sheer volume of additional residential tenants in the immediate area will not reduce their general availability. Adding additional parking spots would help reduce such a deficit.

Essex Property Trust as a Manager:

Echoing the concern of some tenants present at the public meeting held February 5, I have concerns about the ability of the proposed developer, Essex Property Trust, to operate the proposed apartments according to a high standard. Hillsdale Gardens in San Mateo, also managed by Essex, has extremely low reviews on Yelp, Google and Apartment Ratings. Friends of mine who have lived there have voiced serious complaint about mold, maintenance and general satisfaction with the company. There are also significant complaints lodged against Belmont Terrace Apartments, another local Essex property. As Essex is a publicly traded company, it is a real concern that the interest of widely dispersed shareholders would supersedes local residents and citizens when it comes to financial management and property maintenance.

In summary, please take caution when considering approval of PA13-066, particularly when it involves a zoning exception.

Public Comment to the Planning Commission on Hillsdale Terrace, PA13-077

Dear Planning Commission and project manager Schimpp,

I am writing in regard to an upcoming planning application, PA 13-077, which will be discussed at the meeting of the planning commission next Tuesday, February 25, 2014. Based on the information presented by the developer at the January 29, 2014 community meeting, I hope for a positive response from the commission and project manager.

Hillsdale Terrace is the sort of mixed use development envisioned and encouraged under the various Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zoning requirements covering the location in question. There is a need for housing in San Mateo and locating a complex of this size close to Hillsadale Caltrain fulfills the mission of TOD by allowing residents to avoid a vehicle commute if they travel by rail. In addition, concentrating density on a main artery such as El Camino should help mitigate increases of traffic in our suburban neighborhoods, thus helping to preserve the small town feel San Mateans have long enjoyed.

The group assembled in January had a small concentration of people who are concerned about the impact the building may have on parking in the local vicinity. It is not atypical for existing residents to fear encroachment by new developments, and parking concerns should be addressed insomuch as possible without scaling down the proposed density. The developers are not asking for exceptions for what is outlined in the zoning.

Another complaint voiced during the neighborhood session was that residents would have to drive to the grocery store as there is not one a walkable distance away. At 0.7 miles away, Trader Joe’s may be further than most would want to walk to the grocery store, but it is still within reason for others, especially as they may be running errands in the mall on the way. In addition, most people do not drive to the grocery store daily. It is also worth noting, Hillsdale Terrace is less than 0.5 mile from the Hillsdale Food Court, making a variety of food choices available within a very short walk. Finally, as there is retail on the ground floor it is possible some food choices will be available on the immediate premises.

To summarize, the lots in question under PA13-077 are currently unproductive and bring no significant benefit to the city. The proposed alternative, a 55ft. development mixing retail and residential uses, is in keeping with the TOD zoning governing the area and should be supported.

Public Comment to Department of Transportation on 92-82 Interchange 'Improvement' Plan

Dear Ms. Romaya,

I am writing out of concern over the proposed alterations to the State Route 92-82 interchange. As a long term San Mateo resident, I am aware of the importance of the route as well as its current downfalls in terms of crowding and backups for motor vehicles. However, the proposed modifications fail to make any improvement in how bicyclists navigate North/South on 82, a consideration required under state law.

In 2008, our state adopted AB 1358. This legislation necessitates cities and counties plan for multi-modal transportation networks amidst any substantive revision to their circulation elements. The project under consideration at the 92-82 interchange certainly qualifies as substantive, however it fails to comply with the standards AB 1358 sets. Making El Camino bike friendly is the single best way to encourage cycling as viable transportation option on the Peninsula. Designated bike lanes painted in green is the best means of keeping cyclists safe, and should be incorporated into the 92-82 interchange improvement plan.

Until citizens are given a safe option for cycling in key circulation arteries we will not be able to reduce vehicle travel locally. Not only would I enjoy feeling safe riding my bike on El Camino, I would like to feel safe riding with my son. Under the proposed ‘improvement’ plan, this will remain impossible.

City Seeks Applicants for New Commission

After many years of effort on the part of both city residents and elected officials, San Mateo City Council has formed a Sustainability Commission meant to address issues ranging from resource conservation to social equality.

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014-02-06/san-mateo-creates-sustainability-commission/1776425117760.html

For further information about applying, contact the city:

http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/index.aspx?nid=61