With land at a premium and housing costs rising, San Mateo planners will consider a mechanized parking system as a way to increase density at a proposed residential development.
It’s the second time in as many months this increasingly popular technology has been suggested as a way to meet parking requirements, which are often a costly barrier to development. But with no such systems currently operating in the Peninsula city, some neighbors question whether using it to increase density is suitable for the traditionally suburban San Mateo.
The Planning Commission meets Tuesday, Aug. 8, to vote on a 10-unit condominium complex at West Santa Inez Avenue and El Camino Real. The project would involve demolishing two single-family homes to allow for a four-story building on a 10,763-square-foot lot, according to a staff report.
It also includes a subterranean mechanized parking garage designed by Oakland-based CityLift, a company working on another San Mateo development. Just last month, the commission voted to approve the city’s first development using this the technology touted as a means to provide on-site parking on smaller lots. That project on the corner of Third Avenue and El Camino Real will create a mixed-use 10-unit residential and commercial building with 28 underground parking spaces.
Lily Lim, an associate planner with San Mateo that’s worked on both projects, said the Santa Inez condominiums would be supported by CityLift’s “puzzle” parking system. Unlike the elevator-style lift proposed for the Third Avenue development that would average a nearly 100-second retrieval time, the Santa Inez project would use two puzzle lifts that shuffle cars with an even faster 33-second average retrieval time, she said.
“I definitely think that it’s a creative solution to accommodate more parking for projects that have a smaller parcel,” Lim said, adding the city is in need of more housing and the mechanized system “takes parking to the next level because you’re able to fit more in less space.”
But some are concerned the proposed development is out of character with the nearby San Mateo Park neighborhood. Meg Diepenbrock, who lives a few doors down from the project on Engle Road, said many residents are concerned about density and potential impacts to already constrained street parking. While noting such a system has yet to be built in the city, she questioned whether this residential stretch of El Camino Real should be the testing grounds.
“They call it the parking solution for high-density areas. This is quintessentially the suburbs,” Diepenbrock said. It just seems like it’s not an appropriate place to have automated parking.”
Similar to concerns raised during the Third Avenue redevelopment, Diepenbrock said she and neighbors fear people would end up parking on the street instead of using the mechanized system.
But proponents suggest it could be a solution to getting more parked cars off the street.
Jack Matthews, the project architect and a former San Mateo mayor, said this technology could help overcome barriers to development. The stacked and shuffled mechanized parking system also reduces the need to excavate as much as you would for a traditional underground garage, he said.
Recommended for you
“It’s a much more efficient system in many ways,” Matthews said, noting it can help as “land gets more and more expensive and the available land gets more scarce.”
One of the biggest challenges is meeting parking requirements, particularly on smaller constrained lots. He also noted the system enabled the project to provide two additional spaces above what’s required by code. Matthews acknowledged the surrounding neighborhood and narrow Engle Road is constrained, but suggested the parking system would address residents’ concerns by getting cars off the road.
Unlike people who often use traditional garages for storage, Matthews believes tenants would be inclined to park in the CityLift system where they have a dedicated and secure space.
But while there may be benefits at least in theory, Diepenbrock said enabling developers to build denser isn’t necessarily a positive for those living nearby. Residents have circulated an online petition opposing the development and planners are expected to be met with a sizable group of nearby residents Tuesday night.
“We’re not opposed to development, but we’re opposed to the 10-unit, 25-bedroom,” she said while describing the proposal with a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom condominiums. “It’s very large and our neighborhood is already very congested with parking.”
Matthews said ultimately city planners and developers should examine ways to increase density for housing but find means to alleviate traffic congestion.
“In these times, when we’re looking at how we can maximize density for housing, which we desperately need, this is a great tool,” Matthews said. “In the long term, we need to really examine and think about how the automobile has really dominated our culture.”
The Planning Commission meets 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 8, at City Hall, 330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo.
(650) 344-5200 ext. 106
Twitter: @samantha_weigel
(4) comments
increased density supports more nearby (walkable, bikeable) goods and services and over time allows for less driving, more and better transit and overall less energy and other resource use per capita.
How soon folks forget the great recession of just a few years ago...that cities all over the country...world were going bankrupt
Growth...controlled growth is the key to survival in our society...most any developed society. Maybe not in a pure subsistence society out in the middle of the jungle...but we are not living in that kind of environment
Even in middle America's heart land. Growth is the key and they are controlling their growth with higher density and get this automated parking structure to limit the land area (we in San Mateo...Peninsula are land locked and dirt is of a premium). Wichita Kansas is the city and my membership in automated parking forums lists them often...they did choose a poor vendor, but never-the-less...they are thinking of preserving their dirt for other, better uses
Another example is Kansas City...dying from lack of growth...while neighboring cities thriving due to growth...until they decided to 'grow' by bringing in new business. The biggie for them was the raceway, but growth never the less...
Am still amazed at the resistance of anything 'new' that saves space, improves the visual by NOT having a traditional parking lot...wasting dirt area for CARS...
If anything...if my neighborhood...request additional parking capacity and allow neighbors to park in there to free up street areas as this lot/plan will have commercial on the ground floor...so they will need customer parking in that automated parking structure....but economically not going to fly...at this time to appease neighbors and lessen the street parking load...
B Toy,
Sure, these mechanized parking systems save valuable space, no question. But aren't you overlooking the fact that the cars will be clogging the streets at a faster rate due to increased housing density?
Ever feel like a guinea pig for the City and these developers?...Like transit oriented development (TOD), no proof of concept and no offer from the city or developer to demonstrate the actual feasibility of the new concept...we're just guinea pigs for their experimentation...I thought that Jack had retired...why does he all of a sudden appear as some kind of authority on the matter?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.