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.

                

Public Comment to Planning Commission on Station Park Green

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.

Public Comment to the Sustainability Commission on its Inauguration

Good Evening Commission,

A concerned citizen with a keen interest in sustainability, I look forward to working with this commission in the coming years and hope the relationship will be mutually beneficial.

While there are many important issues which need to be addressed in our City, there are 4 which stand out to me at this time.

·         One - During this spate of new development, I encourage you to move quickly to revise the building codes in favor of mandatory green building design and sustainable water management.

·        

      Two – In the future, our supply is not sufficient to ensure our residents have access to all the water currently used. A systematic approach to water reduction across both residential and commercial uses is necessary.

·        

          Three - The City has several well-articulated plans for reducing its own use of water and energy. These plans need to be implemented. Until the City leads by example its plans are merely rhetoric. Building upgrades such as solar panels and low flow fixtures need to be considered as long term capital investments not indulgences.

In addition to my personal proclivities towards strict resource management, I am also the Lead Facilitator of the San Mateo Cool Cities. This Sierra Club affiliated group was formed to advocate for sustainability directly to city officials.  We look forward to getting to know you as we work towards improving San Mateo’s sustainability.

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.