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

Letter to the Planning Commission, New Central Park Master Plan

Tuesday, March 25, 2015

Dear Planning Commission,

Yesterday evening I attended your meeting on the proposed new Central Park Master Plan. While I made comments then, I wanted to write a brief letter to follow up, taking in consideration the final comments of the Commission, which I watched from home online.

Baseball Diamond and Tennis Courts

Organized sports are an important way for our citizens to get outside and stay healthy. We need more of these features not less. The substitutions proposed at other parks are further away from many neighborhoods. Given complaints in San Mateo about traffic, the need for more people to drive within town should be discouraged. Also, generic athletic fields are not the same as an actual ballpark. Scale down the bleachers, but please keep the organized sports where they are currently situated.

Train

It is wonderful to have a little train for the younger children, however making it a more dominant feature seems overly ambitious. I am concerned about how this will impact access to the children's playground, as well as safety, particularly in the Community Center Option. Under this scenario a child playing in the 2-5 year zone would be in an entirely different, fenced off area from a second child playing in the 5-12 year zone. As people often have children of varying ages, this distinct a separation between playgrounds is totally impractical and unsafe for many families.

Parking

Please do not decrease the existing parking, but spare our park the impact of any more. The cost for additional parking seems way too expensive and invasive for the return on investment. Despite the gripes we hear regularly about lack of parking, open space is more scarce than spots to put a car.

Plaza

A  large, cement feature does not enhance the character of the park as a retreat from the urban space of downtown. Comparisons to Redwood City do not persuade me. The Plaza in Redwood City is often rented to private events and corporate parties. Should this come to pass in San Mateo, it would be a horrible set back to the general public who would actually lose park space despite a stated objective of gaining more.

Self Help for the Elderly

There is a demonstrated benefit to this organization. Should they be displaced from Central Park, it would be to the benefit of the City to find suitable accommodation for them in the downtown area.

Bathrooms

The one point of the new plans I have only praise for it is improving the existing restroom as well as providing another option or two.

Finally, I very much agree with comments from Commissioner Massey urging we respect the existing uses of the park. Please help it maintain its historic character as well as its current user base. Do not alienate the existing daily users by moving forward with unproven proposals which may not in fact enhance the user experience for our citizens in the long run. As many said last night, let’s not expend a great deal of City revenue ‘fixing’ a park which is beloved as it is now.

Kind regards,

What the Sustainable Land Use Committee Did Not Submit to the City Council

On January 18 of this year the Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Sierra Club asked me to draft a letter for them to submit on the subject of Station Park Green. While very late in the planning process, I agreed.

Even with followup on my part, I never heard back about how it was received by the committee. It was not submitted to the Council. Thanks SLU.


Letter, not submitted:

Sustainable Land Use Committee

Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter

3921 East Bayshore Bvd.

Palo Alto, CA 94303

San Mateo City Council

332 West 20^th Avenue

San Mateo, CA 94403

Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

Tonight you are taking Station Park Green (SPG) under consideration, and we, the Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta (SLU), would like to voice our support for the project.  Specifically, we applaud its Transit Oriented Development (TOD) features. The Bay Area is expected to add tens of thousands of new residents over the coming years. Keeping additional vehicles off our congested freeways will require improving access to mass transit such as Caltrain. SPG increases the potential riders for Hayward Park Station.

The City of San Mateo is lucky to have three stops on the Caltrain line. However, Hayward Park station has untapped potential. SPG can help provide the density TOD requires to blossom. If enough new residents use the train it may warrant more frequent train service.

Finally, please keep under consideration the fact it is possible to go even further than TOD design. In terms of sustainability, the technology exists to build net zero projects which are truly extraordinary as well as cost efficient in the long term. Energy cost volatility leads to economic instability, particularly on the lower side income scale. While the upfront investment may be more, over time the value of energy independence should increase.  Asking developers to invest in the long term health of San Mateo makes sense.

Ultimately, this project fulfills the basic expectations of San Mateo’s Rail Corridor Plan and we hope the City Council will look upon it favorably.

Kind regards,

SLU

Letter to the Public Works Commission, Thank you and Pedestrian Access on 9th Ave.

 Dear Public Works Commission,

I wanted to write and thank you for your support of the Sustainable Streets Plan. San Mateo has an ideal climate for walking and cycling. I look forward to seeing more alternative transit development as befitting of our fair City.

In addition, let me please elaborate on the importance of the 9^th Ave. passage way for pedestrians trying to access downtown from the Sunnybrae neighborhood and S. Claremont area, foot traffic which we can expect to increase given the approval of Station Park Green.

Right now pedestrians crossing the tracks on 9^th Ave. from the east side have the choice between two slightly challenging options. The North side has a better sidewalk overall, but one must pass a squared off curb on the West side of S. Railroad Ave, a difficulty for wheelchairs or strollers. The South side does not have a large curb like the North side, but many smaller bumps and cracks, particularly at the driveway of The Ramen Parlor.

Still, coming from S. Claremont, either of these paths are an improvement over continuing on S. Claremont to the 5^th Ave. crossing. For one, there is not a complete system of sidewalk on either side of the block. Two, there have been complaints regarding the 4^th Ave. Prometheus rebuild, with the charge builders are illegally blocking traffic in order to conduct business. I must lodge the same complaint against the San Mateo Lumber Company. They make considerable use of a forklift, often balancing a stack of studs, back and forth between their East and West properties. While many employees are gracious when crossing, I have observed other employees do so with a sense of entitlement that borders on reckless endangerment. It is a deterrent to vehicles, nevertheless pedestrians, who already must walk in the street to pass.

These areas I identified on 9^th Ave. between the railroad and B. St. are more annoying and deterring than highly dangerous, but correcting them would go a long way towards improving the pedestrian experience.

Finally, Laurie Wananuki put forth the idea of approving loft style office space in this light industrial corridor. It makes sense to me to consider this option.  While originally on the outskirts of town, this area is now downtown itself. It is the nature of industrial to operate on the periphery of the urban core, or at least in conjunction with other uses. Without uprooting any existing businesses, the East side of Caltrain has room for some great, multiuse development including office space of the newer sort.

Kind regards,

Letter to the Planning Commission on Station Park Green, August 26, 2014

Dear Planning Commission,

According to the Rail Corridor Plan, new development adjacent to Hayward Park Station must consist of Transit Oriented Development, or TOD. However, a development does not fulfill TOD standards merely by being located next to a transit station. To achieve TOD, a development requires a design encouraging physical engagement between residents, commuters, retailers and the general public living in and passing through a train/bus station. On this account, the proposed Station Park Green is deficient.

Take, for example, a basic commuter task – purchasing a cup of coffee.  Now consider several TOD commuters accomplishing this activity at the proposed development.

First, take commuters walking to Caltrain or bus from the outside neighborhood. Regardless of the direction they arrive from, they must enter the boundaries of Station Park Green’s complex. Such access is convenient only for commuters walking from the East, or possibly the South, depending on the ultimate location of any potential coffee shops. Those walking from the North and West must backtrack a several minute walk from their destination in order to access the retail block.

Second, take a Caltrain or bus commuting resident of Station Park Green. Only residents living in the northeastern building would find it convenient to purchase coffee before taking the train.

Third, any commuter parking at Hayward Park Station will find it at least a ten minute round trip walk to get coffee. More likely, if they wanted to use the new retail center for this purpose, they would make an additional car stop on the way, increasing local congestion.

Finally, if you consider a bicyclist heading towards the train, the proposed plan presents distinct challenges to procuring a beverage before boarding, particularly from the Northwest, unless traffic laws are broken.

This is only one practical example why the proposed design lacks TOD principles. All the above commuters are better served by locating retail in an open plan along the Southwest corner of the property. Retail at a train station is important because it provides a point for commuters to convene and shop for basics requirements while increasing local surveillance and public engagement in the area. In addition, relocating the open space from the road designated ‘Green Way’ towards Hayward Park Station would increase the station’s civic identity and create a more accessible and useful community amenity.

TOD very simply means this - a development oriented towards transit, with transit defined as a hub for mass transportation. As proposed, Station Park Green does not integrate with Hayward Park Station, the area’s key transit asset.

There is little point criticizing details of a project which fails to conform to the overall TOD vision outlined by the Rail Corridor Plan. San Mateo needs a better plan for Hayward Park Station. While there many ways of improving the proposed development along the lines of TOD, moving retail and open space to the southwest corner in a design promoting engagement between train riders, community members, new residents and retailers is the most important.

Sincerely,

Kara Cox

A Screed for John E., Given at Reach and Teach in San Mateo on the Occasion of His Birthday

                Starting yesterday, I began to make this cake from scratch for you fine people to share. Unfortunately, before we eat it, I am going to first subject you to a screed. I beg forgiveness on the grounds John specifically asked me to write one a few days ago, and this came along in my head. And since a good screed also requires an accompanying performance, and I have a fitting topic, captive audience and it is his birthday, John, this is for you.

                What I want to talk about is cake, and the circumstances by which this cake came to be. Back in the day people baked cakes, from scratch, in their homes, and this was my minimum standard of success for John’s cake. Also, I wanted it to look like planet Earth. However, this made blue and green food coloring important and having recently read an article criticizing synthetic dyes, it gave me pause. Wanting to push myself to my most sustainable limits for a group of environmentalists, I asked myself, could I make an Earth cake for John with only natural coloring?

I started with blue, boiling red cabbage off into a thick liquid. Then to make blue, one must add baking soda, but only a little, and very gradually, otherwise the batch will turn into an unappetizing greenish brown mess. I know this because that is what happened the first time I tried to make natural blue food coloring. So I went back to the market and bought another half cabbage. This time the process worked better. I set aside half the batch as purple dye, with the idea of coloring the cake, and then slowly added baking soda to the other half without going too far. I set this blue aside for frosting.

Again, it was more bad planning. Because of the baking soda element, you can have blue cake with purple frosting made out of red cabbage coloring, but never purple cake and blue frosting; note to self. Finally, a sustainability obstacle for making blue food coloring in this manner is the matter of reusing all that cabbage. While my husband indulges me my eccentricities for the most part, he will not eat 4 pounds of cabbage in support of them. Spicy red cabbage and bean soup at my place all this week!

For natural green food coloring, spinach is an option, and the process seemed pretty straight forward – liquefy the spinach and add to the food you are coloring. Except I don’t have a liquefying blender or cheesecloth, used in the classic boiling method of plant liquefaction. I put a little water combined with spinach in my ordinary, run of a mill blender. I added the resulting mixture to a simple syrup mix on the stove top. With a few hours to go until the cake cutting, I am not certain my green frosting will firm up in time to decorate the cake. Looks like I might have run out of time.

The overall point of this being, it is often not easy to be strictly natural and sustainable. And if we are honest, we cannot expect a sustainable future to perfectly mirror our present reality in terms of convenience and options. We will have to make choices. As John reminded us at our last meeting, regarding the next wave of transportation, there are limits to existing sustainable alternatives. I admire John’s bold choice to buy a 100% electric car knowing full well the difficulties it would involve. In terms of being sustainable, stubbornness is a virtue, if not a necessity. It is easier to buy a small bottle of food coloring, not ask any questions and assume you need bright-blue frosting in order to enjoy an otherwise delicious dessert. This cake, absent of artificial dyes, is for John, and stands for the harder choice, freely made out of honor, guts, plain hard work, and/or stubbornness.

                Inside the cake there are peaches, a product which is currently having a tough time in terms of local PR. And rightly they should. The knowledge you can go into an ordinary store and buy supposedly fresh fruit and catch a deadly disease merits negative commentary. I just don’t know why people are not more alarmed.

The sliced peaches inside this cake are not peaches bought from who knows what farm and handled by we have no idea who. The peaches at the center of this cake were picked from my backyard within the last 48 hours, and if they were problematic the five to six a day I have been eating for the last few weeks should have wiped me out by now. The trees on which these peaches grow have not been treated with pesticides for at least the 20 odd years. Except for the one mile drive from my house, these peaches from farm to table are zero emission.

This is radical: no gas for the car for the worker who goes to the field to pick fruit; no gas for the truck which hauls the fruit from sorting, to distribution, to store; and none for me to drive to the store to get the fruit to make the cake. It is of course not feasible to grow all things in all places, but I honestly believe the local food movement is a powerful tool to combat global warming. There are obstacles for sustainability, but ultimately it is the choices we make daily in terms of what we eat and the basic standards we set for our lifestyle which will determine the end game for our Earth.

Thank you for fighting the good fight John, and Happy Birthday.