A proposal to transform an 11-acre San Mateo office campus into 190 units of for-sale housing near one of the Peninsula’s most major highway intersections was met with concerns about its impact on neighborhood traffic as well as praise for its potential to boost the city’s housing stock at the Planning Commission’s Tuesday meeting.
Initially proposed late last year, plans to replace the Waters Technology Office Park with a mix of two-story single-family homes as well as three- and four-story attached townhomes and flats have been taking shape since the commission first discussed the project in December.
Because the site is currently zoned for an office park, it must be rezoned before the medium-density housing proposal would be allowed, which would require a General Plan amendment. Among the other entitlements the developer, the Strada Investment Group, is requesting are an increase in the maximum allowable building height from 35 feet to 45 feet and reductions in the minimum lot size and setbacks for the 28 single-family residences lining the south and east perimeter of the project, which abuts the Lakeshore neighborhood, said Brittni Barron, an associate planner with the city.
Acknowledging the concerns neighbors of the project voiced about its effect on traffic near the site — which is off Norfolk Street and just south of the juncture of State Route 92 and Highway 101 — Chair John Ebneter was encouraged by the prospect of providing a variety of home types on the site in light of the region’s housing shortage.
“I continue to like the overall layout,” he said. “Yes, it is tight, there is no doubt about it, but this is what we need.”
But for resident David Chiechi, whose house will be adjacent to the project, the developer’s predictions replacing the office park with residential units would decrease the number of trips coming in and out of the site were hard to believe. Pegging South Norfolk Street, State Route 92 and East Hillsdale Boulevard among the neighborhood’s few entrances and exits, Chiechi estimated traffic would worsen at the site with the addition of hundreds of new residents.
“It’s going to be a crunch, there’s definitely going to be a crunch,” he said. “I don’t see anything good coming out of this project at all.”
Recommended for you
In response to neighbors’ concerns about the project’s impact on traffic, Commissioner Mike Etheridge advocated for a thorough traffic analysis when the plans return to commissioners alongside an environmental analysis later this year. Though he commended the developer for responding to the city’s design consultant’s suggestions to enhance the front entry of the homes and reduce the prominence of garages on the single-family home designs, he wondered whether the placement of a dog park at the end of a trail along Borel Creek on the northern edge of the property would encourage people to use it.
Despite concerns about the large number of units planned for the relatively small site, Commissioner Dianne Whitaker said she felt the building designs were moving in the right direction and asked the developer to indicate the location of the site’s loading zone next time the plans are reviewed by the commission. Michael Cohen, a principal with the Strada Investment Group, said the developer is hoping to do extensive community outreach with the project’s neighbors during the summer and receive project approvals by the end of the year.
Whitaker cautioned the developer and officials to review the plans and study materials thoroughly when they come back before the commission to review the exceptions the developer is requesting.
“I think we have to be really, really careful with this project and really get things right because the list of entitlements that you’re going for is quite extensive,” she said.
190 housing units on 11 acres doesn't seem like very many. Station Park Green is adding more than 600 units of housing on 12 acres. There is a severe shortage of housing in our area that needs to be addressed. Of course, we will hear the usual whining about traffic from the local NIMBYs. The reality is that residential produces less traffic than commercial or retail.
California LAO analysis.......If California had added 210,000 new housing units each year over the past three decades (as opposed to 120,000), California’s population would be much greater than it is today. We estimate that around 7 million additional people would be living in California. In some areas, particularly the Bay Area, population increases would be dramatic. For example, San Francisco’s population would be more than twice as large (1.7 million people versus around 800,000).
If the state had done all that, California's housing prices still would have continued to grow and would still be higher than the rest of the country's now, but the disparity between them would have been less gaping. If California had done all that, the report says, the 2010 state median housing price would have been a solid 80 percent higher than the US median.
Sorry John...I thought the consequences of the study were clear and that adding more building to magically lower housing costs may not have the anticipated results ....the local population would be double from what it is now and the median price would still be 80% above the national average....it was posted for all the Yimby's in the neighborhood who think we can build our way out of this mess and still have not have the negative social aspects of over crowded housing or lower housing prices.
I grew up in Hillsborough years 1-16, moved to Sonoma 16-18, UC Davis / Davis / Sacramento / Davis 18-35, Foster City 35 - 38. It took a lot of hard work to earn our way back here. We rent in Foster City.
But it is wrong to object or classify as a subclass people who haven't been 'here' for long.
I'd love to move into this development if we can afford it. We need more housing at all costs.
I believe in an economic theory called "supply and demand". As more supply comes online demand can be filled and prices stabilize or drop. That is needed here.
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.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(9) comments
190 housing units on 11 acres doesn't seem like very many. Station Park Green is adding more than 600 units of housing on 12 acres. There is a severe shortage of housing in our area that needs to be addressed. Of course, we will hear the usual whining about traffic from the local NIMBYs. The reality is that residential produces less traffic than commercial or retail.
The reality is that residential produces less traffic than commercial or retail.
Do you have statics to back that claim up?
California LAO analysis.......If California had added 210,000 new housing units each year over the past three decades (as opposed to 120,000), California’s population would be much greater than it is today. We estimate that around 7 million additional people would be living in California. In some areas, particularly the Bay Area, population increases would be dramatic. For example, San Francisco’s population would be more than twice as large (1.7 million people versus around 800,000).
If the state had done all that, California's housing prices still would have continued to grow and would still be higher than the rest of the country's now, but the disparity between them would have been less gaping. If California had done all that, the report says, the 2010 state median housing price would have been a solid 80 percent higher than the US median.
For the NIMBY's out there this means you would make more money on your Prop-13 bank investment with more housing.
You post this repeatedly, Vincent, and I have never been sure what your point is. This is proof positive that we need to build more housing.
Sorry John...I thought the consequences of the study were clear and that adding more building to magically lower housing costs may not have the anticipated results ....the local population would be double from what it is now and the median price would still be 80% above the national average....it was posted for all the Yimby's in the neighborhood who think we can build our way out of this mess and still have not have the negative social aspects of over crowded housing or lower housing prices.
I'm curious of all the pro development posters here, how many are local residents and for how long?
I grew up in Hillsborough years 1-16, moved to Sonoma 16-18, UC Davis / Davis / Sacramento / Davis 18-35, Foster City 35 - 38. It took a lot of hard work to earn our way back here. We rent in Foster City.
But it is wrong to object or classify as a subclass people who haven't been 'here' for long.
I'd love to move into this development if we can afford it. We need more housing at all costs.
I believe in an economic theory called "supply and demand". As more supply comes online demand can be filled and prices stabilize or drop. That is needed here.
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.