CITY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2012 APPROVED The Study Session convened at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room C and was called to order by Chair Whitaker. Those present were Chair Whitaker, Vice-Chair Massey, Commissioner Moran, Commissioner Hugg, Commissioner Bonilla. *** PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Whitaker opened the public comment period. (No persons wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public comment period.) ITEM 1 ** STUDY SESSION PA12-042 Water Efficiency Ordinance Discussion with California Water Service Company regarding the Mid-Peninsula District Urban Water Management Plan and the 20 x 2020 Water Conservation Plan. Stephen Scott, Principal Planner, introduced the topic and first presenter from the California Water Service (Cal Water) team: Tom Salzano gave a presentation on Cal Water s Urban Water Management Plan. Ken Jenkins gave a presentation on Cal Water s 20 x 2020 Water Conservation Plan. Chair Whitaker opened the public comment period for this item. The following person spoke: (street name, city only) Peter Drekmeier, Tuolumne River Trust, Bay Area Program Director His comments included the following: Thanked the Planning Commission and Cal Water for this discussion. Spoke in support of a rebate program for smart irrigation systems (No other persons wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public comment period.) The Planning Commission made the following comments and questions: Region water planning is very important; glad that Cal Water s population growth numbers for San Mateo are closer to reflecting the City s own numbers than contained in the draft Urban Water Management Plan. It is important to have Cal Water s input on the City s draft Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance and urges staff to keep Cal Water involved.
Page 2 Cal Water's presentation clarified that the city's sole current water supply (from the San Francisco PUC) would not be sufficient for the long-term planned growth of the city. Additional water will need to be found. In response to a question from a commissioner, Cal Water expressed interest in exploring the potential for partnering with the city on distribution of recycled water. The Raker Act sets a cap on the total quantity of water from the SF PUC that can be sold by private water supply companies. The current water supply guarantee for our district is less than the Raker Act limit. Our district uses almost this entire amount of water. A recent state regulatory change could reduce the amount of available water under the Raker Act by 7.4 million gallons per day, which might make the amount of available water in the future less than the current water supply guarantee. Cal Water will look into this question. Water conservation is an important water source. Asked Cal Water staff what can the City do to be a better partner with Cal Water? Cal Water staff responded: o City could write a letter to support Cal Water s current rate case with the PUC, o Maintain the regular (quarterly) meetings that have been initiated, o Continue to work with the City on City facilities, o Help promote Cal Water programs through dissemination of materials at the development review counter and advertising workshops, o Help with identifying sites and processing of permits for ground water wells, and o Collaboration on grants. The Study Session was adjourned at 7:15. The Regular meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. in the City of San Mateo Council Chambers and was called to order by Chair Whitaker, who led the Pledge of Allegiance. Those present were Chair Whitaker, Vice-Chair Massey, Commissioner Moran, Commissioner Hugg, Commissioner Bonilla. Chair Whitaker indicated that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting for 10/9/12 would be included in the meeting to be held on October 30, 2012. Vote None ITEM 2 7:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING PA 12-040, Draper University Phase I - Establish Phase I of a new private school in three existing buildings at 36-44 E. Third Ave ( Benjamin Franklin Hotel ), 37 E. Fourth Ave, and 51-65 E. Third Ave ( Collective ) and provide improvements in the Benjamin Franklin Court area including new landscaping, trees, pavement, access stairs, & signage. Project is comprised of three properties zoned CBD (Central Business District) and a public alley.
Page 3 Required Approvals: A. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration B. Site Plan & Architectural Review for exterior changes to historic building C. Site Development Permit for Tree Removal D. Downtown Economic Development Permit for School Use Julia Yeh, Staff Planner, gave the staff presentation: The Planning Commission had the following questions for staff: What are we reviewing tonight, is the penthouse included? Staff: No, the penthouse is not included in the proposal Will the swimming pool will remain? Staff: Yes. Is the exterior elevator proposed at this time? Staff: No the exterior elevator is not included in the proposal Banquet room in Astaria converted to cafeteria for DU students? Yes. Phase 2 briefly touched on in staff report, why? Staff: Phase 2 has not been completely designed yet, there are still some code compliance issues that need to be addressed. Carol Lo, Chief Operations Officer for Draper University (DU), gave the applicant presentation. In additional to Carol, the project architects Tim Murphy and Mark Stevens also answered questions posed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had the following questions for the applicant: How do you see the non-business community involving itself in this venture? Applicant: DU is working with San Mateo Union High School District to develop an approach. What percentage of students will be from California? Applicant: DU doesn t not yet know what the specific applicant pool is; however, we will promote diversity. We re recruiting from international, outside of California, and locally. Stanford is nearby so that may be a tie in as well. Was a survey done to see how many students brought bikes or cars? Applicant: for the pilot program, no students brought a bike, four brought a car. For field trips, Bauer s Limousine Service was hired to take the students to locations. Draper University proposes an immersion-type program designed to keep students busy all day, 7 days a week so there are not really opportunities to use a car. The chrome finish on the front of the building is highly reflective and could possibly be a problem for traffic. Please change to a different finish. Applicant: Will agree to do that. The windows at the west end of the building have curtains on them, would you remove the curtains? This would make what DU is doing more transparent to outsiders. Applicant: At the present time, there is technical equipment stored in that room and to remove the curtains would invite theft, etc. Will the 4 th Avenue entries will remain as is? Applicant: Yes.
Page 4 What is going to happen in Phase 2? Applicant: May include office space(s) to rent out to future entrepreneurs, however, DU is not ready to fully commit to a Phase 2 program. Please explain the Collective Building and ADA compliance, and how the walled-off area at the grand staircase, and ingress/egress areas work. Applicant: Additional staircase at the front of the building to the second level. There is a hallway from the entrance to the back of the building for ADA compliance to the restrooms. Is the placement of the bathrooms for the theater on a level higher so that individuals would either have to go through the hallway area from the front to the back of the building or take the elevator at the back of the building (front of the theatre) up one floor to the restrooms? Applicant: Yes. The bike storage area appears to be tucked into an odd area on the ground floor. Why? How is someone going to get their bike to the storage area? Applicant: The elevator at the back of the building will accommodate a bicycle. The Benjamin Franklin has a bike rack in the basement. The Benjamin Franklin plans shows some rooms labeled offices, others are labeled suites. Unless they are going to serve a different function, a consistent label should be used for these rooms. Applicant: That s a typo. They are not offices. Chair Whitaker opened the public comment period for this item. The following people spoke: (street name, city only). Maxine Terner, San Mateo; Brian Berberet Their comments included the following: Originally excited about Draper University and it s possibilities but has now changed viewpoints. Has conflict with what was spoken earlier in this meeting. Feels it conflicts with the community s goals. We have a great downtown, no need to lose the downtown retail display area. Why lose Judd Green space by turning it in a theatre when a theatre is down the street that could be rented. Need to maintain a vibrant, pedestrian friendly downtown. The proposed treatment of the Collective Building does not do that. The signs have been changed to indicate that the public alley is Draper Way. That is not the case, we should not allow private street signage. (No other persons wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public comment period.) The Planning Commission made the following comments: There seems to be a lot of unused space in the Collective. Parking is still a concern. Would like the window coverings on the street-level Benjamin Franklin windows removed.
Page 5 Signage in the Benjamin Franklin courtyard should not be made to appear as though it is owned by Draper University. The theatre in the Collective. A lot of work if it fails why not rent the theatre space nearby? With the city so close to San Francisco, the ocean, etc., students are going to want to rent cars to go somewhere. Need to keep the Benjamin Franklin sign on top of the hotel. It serves as a reminder as to the history of the building. How do we make this work for San Mateo? Some things need to be addressed and need to be done right. Excited about the project but think about the bigger picture and how it fits in. Make Phase 2 more tangible, provide more information. Project is a little larger than it should be. Leave the Collective building as is. Problems from other uses, but for the people of San Mateo make it something that serves the public more. Color is okay but the yellow on the south wall should be changed. Paint colors should reflect what the building has meant to San Mateo. Respectful. Since the conditions of approval were drafted, the retention of the white loading space in front is okay. Any loading is enforceable, same as metered parking. A yellow zone would add the benefit of 20 minutes for loading/unloading instead of the 3 minutes that is allowed in a white zone. Could be more beneficial to surrounding businesses. Astaria has a valid valet parking permit. Surprised that no bikes were at the summer program. Lots of storage rooms in the plans that could be used for bike storage. Generally enough at the Collective but not at the Benjamin Franklin or the bank building. Add condition for installation of required amount of bike parking at the bank and the hotel. Condition to modify the Transportation Demand Management plan to join the city in bike share program at the hotel. The Collective has the bike racks too crowded. Push them away from the double-entry doors. Theatre in the Collective would only be used for students and not for the public. Concern over vacant buildings. The thought process for the Collective Building is incomplete. The materials for the canopy are too modern, high maintenance, use a different material perhaps? Signage in the alley: alley is a public space, don t change it. Allow signage directing people to Draper University but don t rename the alley. A condition that prohibits the word Draper on signs; words to keep it from appearing as though owned by Draper. Alley in front of the small businesses is private. Don t remove large Benjamin Franklin signs on top of the building; intrinsic to history of the building. Examine improvements along the east side of the Ben Franklin building, that portion of the alleyway is not very attractive.
Page 6 Am concerned that without a plan in place for the Collective Building, we are piecemealing our approach; need to have the full development plan in front of us to make an informed decision. Motion by Commissioner Moran, 2 nd by Commissioner Massey to continue this item to a date uncertain. Vote: 5-0. Motion passes. COMMUNICATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Communications from Staff a. 10/30/12 Public hearing on 501 No. San Mateo Drive. Will be a full public hearing. b. 11/13/12 Carey school tentative for this date c. 11/27/12 Cal-Water Offices ADJOURNMENT There being no further items before the Planning Commission, Chair Whitaker adjourned at 11:25 p.m. on.