The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. in the City of San Mateo Council Chambers and was called to order by Chair Moran, who led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Transcription

1 CITY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2011 The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. in the City of San Mateo Council Chambers and was called to order by Chair Moran, who led the Pledge of Allegiance. Those present were Chair Moran, Vice-Chair Freschet, Commissioners Feinman, Massey and Whitaker. A motion was made by Commissioner Massey, seconded by Commissioner Feinman to approve the minutes of the Study Session meeting of January 11, 2011 as revised. Vote Passed Abstention *** PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Moran opened the public comment period. The following people spoke: (street name, city only) Alan Talansky, West Poplar, San Mateo Their comments included the following: Wanted to thank the Planning Commission for their service and all their hard work on our project. Appreciate the work that you and the staff have done and the conclusion of the process. (No other persons wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public comment period.) ITEM 1 + STUDY SESSION PA , MI RANCHO MARKET PRE-APPLICATION. Preliminary review for the development of a new market; 80 North B Street, (APN # , 150, 160, 310). The project site is located in the northern portion of downtown San Mateo, north of the downtown Caltrain Station, and is bounded by North B Street to the west, a public alley to the north, the railroad to the east, and San Mateo Creek to the south. The project site is zoned C1-2/R5 (Neighborhood Commercial/High Density Residential Overlay).

2 Page 2 PROJECT PLANNER: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Julia Yeh, Associate Planner City of San Mateo, Planning Division 330 W. 20 th Avenue San Mateo, CA Ph: (650) jyeh@cityofsanmateo.org Galen Grant, AIA Flynn Craig + Grant Architects 301 Hartz Ave, Suite 213 Danville, CA North B Street, LLC C/O Laura Watanuki 1007 East Fifth Ave San Mateo, CA Julia Yeh gave the staff presentation, which included a power point presentation. The Planning Commission had the following questions for staff: Walk us through the access from the parking lot to the pedestrian bridge. What parts of the lot will be fenced off and what parts will be open to the public? Is it the applicant s desire to open up the access to the pedestrian bridge or is this the city s requirement? Staff: The applicant will incorporate a response into their presentation. There is reference to the parking deficit and payment into the CPID. Where the closest city parking facility? Staff: The downtown Caltrain station and parking facility is located south of the project site. The site is located within the downtown parking district, the CPID. Parking in the CPID facilities is shared, there are no physical spaces assigned to the project. Payment of the parking in-lieu fee allows the applicant to meet parking requirement without providing physical spaces on-site. Commissioner: Where would employees park? Staff: There is a standard condition of approval for downtown projects that require employees to park in the long-term parking areas. These parking facilities are the furthest away from the retail core. The alley to the north is that city property? I saw 9 cars parked there. Staff: The alley is part of Railroad Ave and there is no official parking on the street. The main issue with parking there is whether the fire trucks can get through. If this project proceeds, the street would need to be signed for no parking. What is the area to the rear of the project site? Is it the pavement drive-able? Staff: It is a City owned parcel and the Joint Powers Board owns the transit center land adjacent to that parcel. There is no information on the pavement. It would need to be up to the same standard as Railroad Avenue.

3 Page 3 Minerva Guido gave the applicant presentation along with Galen Grant, project architect. The Planning Commission had the following questions for the applicant: I know that the Peninsula Italian Social Club uses the alley (segment of Railroad Ave) to access the back parking lot. Can you confirm where the back loading zone is? Architect: We are not impacting that in any way. There is a possibility that the city may terminate the alley for parking. If that is the case, we have been advised that our informal loading overhead door could not be used. Our trucks will load in the parking lot on site and product will be brought in through the other overhead door. Is there going to be enough room for pedestrian safety once cars start coming through the site? Staff: That is something that needs to be looked at further during the formal Planning Application review. Could CPID funds be used to help fix up the parcel of land to the rear of the project site? Staff: No. Funds collected for the CPID are used for public parking facilities, and cannot be used for other properties. Commissioner: That area does not look really safe as it is. I see this project as an opportunity to do something really nice and make this area more pedestrian friendly. Architect: Yes, it is good opportunity. Would the parking be available to everyone or only for Mi Rancho? Architect: The applicant wants to keep the spaces designated for Mi Rancho s use. The driveway that goes through the parking lot and around the back of the building is being open to general auto traffic? It is not just pedestrian access? Understands need for EVA. Staff: Large trucks would have a hard time backing up onto B Street. Architect: We tried to avoid dead-end parking lots. In our experience, they do not function well. You get cars jammed up. Commissioner: You are asking the city to open the City owned parcel to vehicular traffic? Architect: Yes. Commissioner: This is a concern given pedestrian activity in the area. Staff: There will be discussions internally about use of the City s parcel for vehicular exiting for a business and relationship with pedestrian access. Further review is necessary. I commend the art-deco design. It is kind of bold. It would enhance the neighborhood. Are there two loading docks? Applicant: Yes. Commissioner: In the staff presentation I heard one. Architect: If you were talking about loading areas and this lane (segment of Railroad Ave to the north of the site) were allowed for our use, the trucks could load and unload off of this alley using an overhead door that we are proposing. The larger trucks would park on-site in the parking lot and use the other loading door. What I see is a massive wall along the north side of the building. Is there any way to get windows to get light into the building? Architect: We could add color to this elevation. Functionally we don t need windows on that side of the building but esthetically we could. Are there any thoughts to underground the 2 utility poles? Architect: No. How wide is the sidewalk to the curb of the building face? Staff: 11 feet. There is a lot of parking proposed on-site. Architect: Architect: Thirty spaces are required and we are providing 3 less spaces. It is demand driven. Right now there is no

4 Page 4 parking for existing customers to the store. Some customers get dropped off & get picked up 15 minutes later. Commissioner: Most projects come forward with less parking. Architect: The design is based on 1.9 spaces per 1,000 sq ft. Typical is 4 spaces per 1,000 sq ft. Commissioner: Typical is not TOD? Architect: No. Why orient the building away from N. B St? Architect: We want to encourage business by turning the entry diagonally to the street approach, engage viewers. The entry faces the street and parking lot. You also elected to not have a driveway to parking in the back. Seems a lot of effort to create separate driveway instead of utilizing alley (Railroad Ave) as driveway to a stet parking lot or a parking lot on the alley side, then there would be no need for a new driveway. Architect: It s a good idea. It is another solution but they do not own the rear parcel. Staff: With an abandonment of the alley north of site, half of the alley would go to the two adjacent property owners, the Peninsula Social Club and this site. How would you manage the Storm Water runoff? None of the water should go into the creek. Engineer: We will be working closely with Public Works. The intention is to do filtration. No water will drain to the creek. All the storm water would be captured into a storm drain system. We would be doing some type of filter system. Are filters legal under our current permit? Staff: Mechanical filters are no longer acceptable for our current permit. A bio-treatment system can be engineered to meet our current permit. Commissioner: Still looking at 4% of land as necessary for filtration. Most of the projects we have seen use mostly planter boxes. Staff: Yes. I can t remember seeing a public parking meter in a parking lot that belonged to a private entity before. Is there any? Staff: Yes, there are a couple of spaces in Walgreen s parking lot. There are some public parking meters at Draeger s. Staff: Yes, they are on Ellsworth. What is the impact of the trash location near creek? Engineer: The trash enclosure would be enclosed with four walls, there is a drain box and then drains to the sanitary sewer and not to the storm drain system. There is a screen wall. Cardboards are bundled and shipped off. Commissioner: Is roofing required for these kinds of facilities? Staff: Yes, to keep additional water from getting in. Chair Moran opened the public comment period for this item. The following people spoke: (street name, city only) Steve Tragousis, Warwick Street, Redwood City Their comments included the following: I m concerned about the driveway to Tilton Ave. I don t know if fire trucks can make it thru there. The project is going to have semi trucks going through the lot to Railroad Ave and exiting onto Tilton. Not sure if that s possible. Need to at the end of the road. (No other persons wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public comment period.)

5 Page 5 The Planning Commission made the following comments: If we are looking for more parking spaces there, is there thought about boxing up that heritage oak tree and moving it. You would get four or five more spaces out of that lot. I want to know what is going to happen to the existing market across the street. Applicant: I am the owner of that property. I am planning to lease it out but not for a market. There is a lot of interest for insurance to go there that can speak Spanish. I like the design, agree with architect that there is no theme on N. B Street. I think the overall design approach is fine to pick up on design on other streets in downtown. No issues with trash/recycling near creek but need to address impact issues. I don t have a problem with orientation of the building or parking lot. I do have to question the loading and unloading plans, needs work. The intersection with Tilton Ave is very tight. Overall, I like the project. Architectural style is something to encourage. The existing blue & white laundry building has remnants of an art-deco style; this is not introducing something new. I am concerned with the elevation on the north side, visible from public view, needs more detail. Need to look at rear sign, illumination effect on residential uses east of the railroad tracks. Have concerns but applicant can provide details during formal application. I do have concerns with the trash by the creek. The parking layout and circulation, the one area that does concern me is the pinch point on the south east corner of the building where the driveway is making a curve. Existing is asphalt; I would like to see a sidewalk there for pedestrians. Design brings energy, colors. I like the more sophisticated approach of the building design. I want to make sure there is pedestrian safety in the rear of the building. I am concerned with trash/recycling next to creek. Have you looked at alternatives for trash enclosures? Architect: We have limited options. In more traditional setting, trash/recycling would be near the building but they are trying to encourage pedestrian use next to the building with the walkway. Redevelopment of this site is a priority. I think the City s overall interest is well-served. I am supportive of the design style. Also, support comments about articulation on the northern side. The General Plan Conservation Element has policies regarding the creek/channels, look at 2.1 through 2.5. Staff: The formal planning application will include an environmental review and we will look at conformance to General Plan, Downtown Area Plan, and other applicable codes and policies. Creek setbacks have conservation value. Does not consider parking lot as a setback. I m not convinced that 27 parking spaces are necessary here; maybe look at paying the inlieu fee instead. Look at one-way driveway, reduce parking, provide setback. Do not think it s possible to make findings to support the project. Look at parking. Look at trash, could be a compliance problem for the city. I m worried about the trash so close to the creek. Consult an arborist regarding what can be done within the drip line of the oak tree, trimming of trees. Moving large oak tree is not possible. Regarding bicycle parking, am asking applicants to provide the upside down U rack in the sidewalk on N.

6 Page 6 B Street and for employees, to provide simple metal frame inside, the dimensions are similar to a closet. I think we are unanimous on the design approach. It would be in the interest of the applicant team to see an arborist soon. Like outdoor dining, like keeping all heritage trees. This area of South B Street suffers from a lack of trees. Want to compliment the design team for incorporating the outdoor dining design around the oak tree. Staff report mentions one of the parcels is in the flood zone AE. Staff: The southeast corner is within the 100 yr flood are. The proposed building location appears to be outside the flood area. I m looking at the commercial data form for proposed verses allowed, the building height and the floor ratio is considerably lower than what is allowed. Staff: If the applicant had their choice they would rather maximize. A lot of this had to do with the requirements of the fire department. Due to site constraints and need for fire access, may not be possible to maximize development of site. The previous project by Sares Regis, given the small size of parcel, cost of underground parking garage, the developer found out that it was not supportable even from a larger building. Would envision that the city would have to be involved in designing the layout for access to and egress from the site. Current proposal requires partnership with city to create a driveway on city-owned land behind the parcel. Recommend examination of an alternative layout using the alley to the north to create access and a parking lot on that side instead of on creek side. This could entail a land swap or partnership on a parking lot that could be mutually beneficial to the city and the project sponsor. This being a study session no motion was made. ITEM 2 + STUDY SESSION PA , 2090 S. DELAWARE STREET PRE-APPLICATION. Preliminary review of a proposal to demolish the existing commercial buildings and to construct a three-story residential development consisting of 83 residential units. A mixture of townhomes (53 units) and flats (30 units) are proposed. At grade parking is provided for the units in private individual garages S. Delaware Street (APN ). The project site is approximately 2.37 acres. It is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of South Delaware Street and Pacific Boulevard. The project site is zoned Transit Oriented Development (TOD). PROJECT PLANNER: Christy Usher, AICP Associate Planner City of San Mateo, Planning Division 330 W. 20 th Avenue

7 Page 7 San Mateo, CA Ph: (650) cusher@cityofsanmateo.org PROPERTY OWNER: John Reischl Olson Company 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100 Seal Beach, CA, Ph: (562) jreischl@theolsonco.com Christy Usher gave the staff presentation, which included a power point presentation. The Planning Commission had the following questions for staff: Requested background information about of the prior development that had been approved on this site and subsequent litigation. Staff: The previously approved project, also known as Delaware Place, proposed 111 units. Planning Commission approved 104 units. Project was appealed to City Council who approved the original 111 units. The settlement agreement required the 111 units be built within the footprint of 104 units. Is there a parking restriction on the majority of Pacific? Staff: Confirmed parking is restricted on Pacific Boulevard, several spaces in from Delaware Street. What are the long-term plans for the Corporation Yard? Staff: To relocate the Yard, potentially to the site of the Waste Water Treatment Plant. How many people attended the neighborhood meeting? Staff: Approximately 12 persons mostly from the Ironwood Development. John Reischl gave the applicant presentation along with the project architect. The Planning Commission had the following questions for the applicant: I was surprised how close the buildings are to Ironwood. Applicant: It s due to the constraints of this site. It was really important to us to have 2 car units for 2 bedrooms and above. It surprised me that it was a townhouse development. Could you explain why you chose townhouses in a place with this density? Applicant: The reason we proposed a townhouse development is the lack of viability of a podium type of development of a condo over subterranean parking in today s market. We feel it will be several years, probably five years or closer to ten years before that type of development is going to be viable again. It is not financially feasible in today s market. We are experiencing that the townhome market is used more extensively in this area. We are also providing the units that we feel will be in high demand.

8 Page 8 I was wondering where the children will play since there are some 3 bedroom townhomes? How large is the open space? Applicant: The townhomes do not have backyards. The townhouses will have front stoops. How much Transit Oriented Development has been built to date? Staff: Peninsula Station is near the TOD, although technically it is not zoned TOD. Why does the Corridor Plan allow a minimum density of 35 units per acre? Staff: The Plan took into account multiple factors in considering the density ranges of dwelling units per acre. These factors included accommodating future projected growth promoting pedestrian, bicycle and transit use, and encouraging development of support services. Chair Moran opened the public comment period for this item. The following people spoke: (street name, city only) Ryan Vanderbroeck, S. Delaware St., San Mateo Pernille Gutschick, S. Delaware St., San Mateo Their comments included the following: The back of our unit faces directly into the proposed units. The bottom floor of our unit gets one source of natural light which will be blocked by the proposed units. The front of the house doesn t have any windows that open up to get natural light. We have a major concern that there is going to be a three story building right behind us. We bought our home primarily because of the quality of life here in San Mateo. We would like to see our quality of life and property values maintained. We support development on the site that will enhance our community. Moved to Ironwood in San Mateo for the weather including sunshine. Presented a letter of consent signed by the members of the Ironwood community asking the Planning Commission and the city to re-evaluate the 2005 Rail Corridor Plan to allow for lower building density to address the serious impact of Shade and Shadow effect, privacy and quality of life. The proposed project would reduce the property values in the Ironwood community which has been part of the San Mateo community since Submitted a couple of pictures which were taken last week from my balcony. The Shade and Shadow Study for the proposed project indicates that Ironwood will be severely impacted. The elements of the Transit Oriented Development are Density, Directness and Design. The Ironwood community is a 28 unit complex and you have 20+ people here today. Ironwood has held its value higher that the general market in all of San Mateo for the kind of building structure it is. Resale values have remained high in Ironwood. The proposed project, with three buildings with the stack flats, will reduce the property value permanently of Ironwood. We do not want to be legal adversaries. We want to keep the shade and the smell away from our property. We want to share the great quality of San Mateo with our neighbors. (No other persons wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public comment period.)

9 Page 9 The Planning Commission requested clarification on the following issues: The Corridor Plan provides a height accommodation along Delaware Street. I was surprised that there wasn t a reduction in height in the Plan for Ironwood. Could staff comment on why that is? Staff: Those setbacks or reduced heights are along public right-of-way. They are also right across the street from single-family neighborhoods. Is the only residential neighborhood within the TOD zones Ironwood? Staff: Ironwood was developed in the early 1990s when the live-work loft concept was first introduced so at the time Ironwood was a unique development in its own right. The Planning Commission made the following comments: I have a concern with the building scale and shade impacts on the adjacent Ironwood community. Nine visitor parking spaces for 83 units are somewhat limited. Are paid parking meters an option at this site? Staff: We would not look at this issue in isolation. Instead, with the next stage of this project, we would look at comprehensive on-site parking, street parking and residential parking. I am glad you will be addressing the walkways because I know that was one of the concerns was how wide the pedestrian walkways were. Daylight Plane does not apply to this parcel? Staff: That is correct. Generally I like how the townhouse buildings are presented. I don t like how the stacked flats are expressed on the elevations. I am wondering if we could step back these three buildings. The project is in a perfect location for a Transit Oriented District development. I think underground parking would solve a number of issues with respect to building scale, shade and shadow impacts, and compatibility with adjacent Ironwood. I think the shades and shadows impacts to Ironwood are significant and need to be addressed. Rear elevations, with rows of garage doors, need work. Not sure why all the townhouses are 3 bedrooms. Has a traffic impact study been done on this property? Staff: When they submit their formal application. We would be doing an analysis based on the specifics of this project. I would like to understand, if I were a resident of this development, what my path of travel to the train station would be. I think it is well designed with the Spanish influence and the red tile roofs. The stacked buildings as they sit are unacceptable. I think the scale of the flat buildings is too massive. I also find the townhouse buildings flat. I think if you could reduce the size of those buildings fronting the Ironwood Development maybe this could be made to work. That s the direction you need to go in. The trash 5 feet from the property line is unacceptable. Density of 35 units per acre is right. You will have to come up with a development that does not have tall walls adjacent to Ironwood.

10 Page 10 I don t see that we are making a decision between density and quality of life. I think we can have it all. I hear you say we can finance a townhouse development but you don t know if you can finance the townhouses that achieve that density and give that kind of design. The townhouses look better than the stacked flats. I agree with what I have heard about the interior elevations of the project needing more work to break up the rows of garage doors. Give some thought to the pedestrian circulation in this area. People will be walking to the train station and to the store. The sewer pump station is going to be an issue. It smells in the summer. I agree with the comment that the amount of proposed visitor parking does not seem adequate. The project also includes too much pavement and not enough open-space. It sounds like we will need another study session before a decision can be made. This being a study session no motion was made. COMMUNICATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Communications from Staff a. February 7 is a City Council Study Session on SB375. The City Council will also hear the Yang-Hung Appeal that was not approved by the Planning Commission. b. February 8 is the Planning Commission Meeting for Nazareth Terrace Public Hearing, will also review Planning Commission bylaws. c. February 12 the Planning Commission Field Trip is planned 2. Communications from the Commissioners a. February 23 there is a workshop at 6 pm at the library for Poplar/101 (note: in subsequent discussions with Public Works, this workshop will not take place on February 23 and will instead be rescheduled.) ADJOURNMENT There being no further items before the Planning Commission, Chair Moran adjourned at 10:40 p.m. on Tuesday, January 25, 2011.