Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Oriented Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board backs 8‑story Tri‑Rail Boca Village mixed‑use plan despite parking concerns
Summary
The board recommended approval of an 8‑story mixed‑use CIMD at the Boca Village Tri‑Rail station with 340 units (10% affordable), technical driveway deviations and a reduction of required parking from 793 to 684 spaces; board members pressed the applicant and staff for clarity on reserved Tri‑Rail parking and garage management but voted 5–0 to approve.
The Planning & Zoning Board on Jan. 2 recommended approval of a site‑plan amendment and granted a variance for an eight‑story commercial‑industrial‑multifamily development (CIMD) at 680 West Yamato Road, adjacent to the Tri‑Rail station.
Senior staff presenter Jim Bell described the project as a transit‑oriented development that would add 340 residential units, including 34 affordable (10%) and 17 workforce (5%) units, plus about 30,100 square feet of commercial space. The applicant requested a technical parking reduction from 793 required spaces to 684 — a net reduction of 109 spaces — and four driveway design deviations to support a more pedestrian‑oriented internal circulation.
Board members focused questions on the fate of existing surface parking used by Tri‑Rail riders and how reserved Tri‑Rail spaces would be guaranteed. Applicant representative David Millage said SFRTA (Tri‑Rail) had identified 159 reserved spaces for station patrons and that additional reserved surface and garage spaces would be allocated; he said SFRTA reviewed and approved the layout. Millage described a mix of reserved, transitional and general parking areas in the proposed integrated garage and said the landlord would enforce reserved spaces for Tri‑Rail under the development agreement to avoid breach.
Board members also asked about EV charging spaces (the applicant said about 35 proposed, distributed on each level) and dynamic signage; the applicant said dynamic parking signage was cost‑prohibitive and unnecessary for the mixed user types but offered to work with staff on clarifying conditions.
After public testimony (none was offered), the board voted to approve the site plan and the variance, with staff and the applicant agreeing to refine condition language prior to City Council. The motions passed by roll call, 5–0.
