Letter to the Planning Commission, Central Park South

May 12, 2015

Dear Planning Commission,

Please reject the current proposal for Central Park South, PA14-044. The primary reasons I object to this project are:

1)     Detrimental Impact on Public Safety

2)      Real and Potential Damage to Existing Trees

3)      Negative Impact on Quality of Life in San Mateo

There are several components of these complaints.

PUBLIC SAFETY

·         Traffic - on 9^th Ave. is already very dense during commute hours. Cars heading east on 9^th toward 101 back up from the stop sign at Delaware, across the tracks and into the intersection at 9^th and B. Adding hundreds of new drivers here is a public safety hazard because it increases the potential for cars being hit by Caltrain while crossing in the chaotic condition which exist. The developer’s traffic analysis ignores this potential. After Caltrain electrification, the number of trains passing during peak hours is expected to increase. This will mean more stops for railroad crossing (each train presently stops here twice going south and once going north) and subsequently even more backup from the intersection at 9^th and Delware into the train tracks. Without a grade separation, this intersection is already over capacity.

·         Despite the claims of the developer’s traffic reports, it simply does not make sense that by increasing the number of parking spaces in the area existing cyclists and pedestrians will not be impacted. More cars inevitably translates into more traffic, which negatively impacts pedestrians and cyclists unless provisions such as bike lanes and protected intersections are implemented. Unless the developer can assure us its end users will utilize alternative transit, we cannot call this development Transit Oriented Development (TOD) regardless of where it is located.

TREES

·         The south side of Central Park is lined with very large trees which form an essential border between the park and the site in question. I AM EXTREMELY CONCERNED THE EXCAVATION FOR THE UNDERGROUND PARKING AND FOUNDATION WILL DESTROY THE ROOT SYSTEMS OF THESE TREES. These trees are City property and must be protected. We should not merely cross our fingers and hope they are preserved fully intact during such an invasive process.

·         There are 16 existing heritage trees on the site in question which give wonderful bucolic feel to the neighborhood. Heritage trees are more than plants – they are complex ecosystems which develop over the course of decades. Replacing them is not as easy a matter as planting a new tree, especially if it is a fraction of the size. In addition, there are two small groves of redwood trees at the entrance to the parking lot of the existing bank. I believe they should all be preserved. Redwood trees do not have the deepest root system, but rely on one another for support via other redwood trees, forming an essential network. Removing any one of these trees could negatively impact all other redwoods in the area.

QUALITY OF LIFE

·         Please do not add more density around Central Park! It is a rare and irreplaceable garden respite from urban life in San Mateo. Large, high buildings looming above it diminish the beauty of this unique natural setting.

Kind regards,

Kara Cox, San Mateo Resident

Cool Cities Letter to the City Council & Park and Recreation Commission, Central Park Master Plan

                                                          

                                                                                  

May 5, 2015

This letter is submitted on behalf of the members of the San Mateo Chapter of the Sierra Club Cool Cities, an initiative to address local issues impacting climate change, as well as connect grassroots environmental champions. The matter of the proposed changes to the Central Park Master Plan were discussed at an open meeting on April 22, 2015.

Dear San Mateo City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission,

Thank you for taking public comment on the proposed update for the Central Park Master Plan.

Overall, the sentiment of the group supported improvements to the existing facilities and grounds as opposed to any major changes to the park’s current plan and diverse functionalities.

Below we offer a more detailed vision, but to summarize, the interventions we support are:

1)    Water reductions measures

2)    Building a greener, and more aesthetic and accessible parking            structure and recreation center

Those interventions which we strongly oppose are:

1)    Removal of any trees, especially heritage

2)    Converting the southwestern corner from a group picnic area to a         parking lot

We thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

San Mateo Cool Cities

We Support

1)    Water Improvement

As is becoming increasingly apparent, water is a precious resource in California. We believe the city of San Mateo should demonstrate a commitment to reducing water use in Central Park. This can be done by:

·         Replanting certain beds with native plants which do not require regular watering

·         Use sensors to indicate when sprinklers should be used

·         Decrease, or do not increase, the square footage of lawn

2)    Building and Structural Improvements

While generally resistant to major changes to Central Park we acknowledge the parking structure and community center could use some significant capital improvements, such as:

·         Seismic upgrades to the parking structure and tennis courts

·         Better accessibility parking for the recreation center

·         A new recreation building after an evaluation of community demand

·         Green building and sustainability principles guiding all new park construction

We Do Not Support

3)    Tree Removal of Any Kind

The Central Park Master Plan should provide more explicit verbiage protecting the parks many mature trees. On hot days, the mature trees are critical for keeping the park cool enough for use. Please improve protection to the park’s tree by:

·         Explicitly prohibiting the removal of heritage trees except in cases of disease

·         Improve park signage to draw attention to our most significant trees

4)    Paving Over the Southwestern Picnic Area

We strongly disagree with the proposals which locate a parking lot in the existing picnic area at the southwestern corner of the park. We contend:

·         The large, centralized picnic area allows for multiple groups to use the area simultaneously and it should not be broken up

·         Paving over any area of the park should be strongly discouraged

·     The few additional parking spots provided do little to meet overall demand, while doing a great deal of damage to the parks footprint and amenities