Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2007.09.25 OBI�LkAM911ME m �FwTm JUNE b. CITY OF BURLINGAME 7:00 p.m. —Main Library, Lane Room 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame Tuesday September 25, 2007 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. STUDY SESSION: DISCUSSIONS WITH SAFEWAY a. Introduction—7:00— 7:05 b. The Burlingame Process—7:05—7:45 (Approximate time) • Review Best Possible Outcome • Objectives of Phase I • Design Criteria/Challenge c. City Council/Planning Commission questions for clarification - 7:45 - 8:00 (Approximate time) 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS—8:00—8:30 (Approximate time) As this a special meeting,persons in the audience may speak only on the agenda item at this time. 5. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION— 8:30—9:00 (Approximate time) 6. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall,501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burl in game.or . Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2007 1 4a CITY aQ STAFF REPORT BURLlI�GAME AGENDA ITEM# Sole Item *� M �" TG. aA,� •' DATE 9/25/07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL& PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTED ` BY /'GS DATE: September 21, 2007 APPRO D FROM: Jim Nantell, City Manager 558-7205 BY SUBJECT: Safeway Working Group RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council and Planning Commission receive the Burlingame Process Phase I report on stakeholder interests and project design criteria articulated by the Safeway Working Group and concur with their recommendation to proceed with Phase 11 (Design Options) of the Burlingame Safeway Process. BACKGROUND: For many years there has been widespread agreement on the need for a new Safeway. However,there have been different views of how to do so in a way that both enhance our downtown and is financially feasible for Safeway. In February of this year, after consultation with Safeway and the Planning Commission,the City Council decided that the best way to achieve that goal was to involve community stakeholders and Safeway in collaborative approach to jointly develop a project design. Safeway agreed to fund the cost of Candace Hathaway, a community relations consultant,who has successfully led collaborative process to resolve controversial development projects. Since April, Candace and City Manager Jim Nantell have been co- facilitating a working group. The Working Group is composed of representatives of seven "stakeholder groups" that were identified by the City Council as having an interest in the development of a new Safeway. They are; the Chamber of Commerce,the Citizens for a Better Burlingame,the downtown merchants, the downtown property owners, neighborhood residents, ,petitioners for a new Safeway, , and, of course, Safeway. Working Group representatives and alternates are responsible for providing input from and feedback to their respective groups. The objective of the Working Group is to identify a store design that both enhances Burlingame and is financially feasible for Safeway. The Working Group's tasks have been divided into two phases: 1) identifying stakeholder interests and articulating a design criteria for the site and 2) identifying design options. Their work follows the guidelines of the"The Burlingame Process," a unique community collaboration that was designed specifically for this project by a Council sub-committee and endorsed by the city council earlier this year. The process emphasizes initial consensus building to create agreed-upon design criteria for evaluating design options. In Phase I of the Burlingame Process, the Working Group identified stakeholder interests and articulated eight design criteria for a successful project (Exhibit Q. They have also identified the challenges and obstacles to achieving that design criteria (Exhibit D). The purpose of the September 25th meeting is to confirm that the Council and Commission share the Working Group's perspective that they are ready to move on to Phase II, as well as, to provide responses to the following questions: 1 . Is the Council still willing to allow use of city owned parking lots, as was the case in the last project proposal? 2. During Phase II the Working Group will be considering all the following use options: a. Single store b. More than one store c. Ground floor store(s) with office and/or housing above Is the Council comfortable with those options? In Phase II, the Working Group will generate and evaluate several design options for the store. It is expected that Phase II work should be ready for discussion in a public study session during 2008. In Phase III, Safeway will develop the recommended design option into a project application for a new store. ATTACHMENTS: A. Best Possible Outcome as Articulated by Stakeholders May 2, 2007 B. Stakeholders Interests C. Design Criterion D. Safeway Project Challenges, Obstacles and Constraints E. History of Burlingame Process F. Burlingame Process G. Project Processes Comparison H. Stakeholders Representatives Exhibit A Best Possible Outcome As Articulated by Stakeholders May 2, 2007 Citizens For Better Burlingame. Grocery Store (24/7 — relationship to downtown — share parking for off peak) Architecturally pleasing (5) Pedestrian friendly (4) Set back from Primrose Compliments vs. competes with existing merchants Attractive interesting landscaping (3) Connects to downtown and shares parking (2) Compliments the vision for Howard Mitigated traffic issues (2) Mitigated pollution issues Built in a "green-friendly" fashion Downtown Property Owners Mixed-use will add economic vitality Aesthetically pleasing architecturally Pedestrian friendly Improves relationship of Fox Plaza with Safeway site Adequate accessible parking Neighbors New modern Safeway Architecturally pleasing on all sides of building Safe and encouraging to pass by/through Avoid unsightly areas (dumpster alley) Truly integrated with the rest of downtown Not negatively impact parking of downtown Avoid EI Camino Real back up & maintain flow on Howard & Primrose No parking over flow in neighborhoods Encourages shopping at other downtown stores, i.e. shared parking Design to retain or enhance walking experience Mixed feeling on mixed-use i.e. concern on impacts on underground culvert Improved entry statement on EI Camino Real Visual attractive entry statement Avoid sea of cars Group has mixes feelings about the size of the new store Maintain or enhance safety while crossing surrounding streets Downtown Merchants Improved downtown productivity and vitality Pedestrian Friendly Connects Burlingame Avenue to Howard (2) Attracts additional customers to downtown Multi-use retail, office, residential Petitioners Shopping pleasant, efficient experience Safe convenient park Adequate parking Better selection and more inventory of products Design compliments the neighborhood Inviting building Chamber Downtown business more robust Expand business energy toward Howard Economically feasible for ongoing success Expand customer choices and attracts more people to downtown Make area more inviting Safeway Customers able to meet all their shopping needs Convenient accessible parking Addressing operational needs, i.e. delivery, backroom function, recognizable front entry Design — feel, height, bulk enhances Burlingame downtown Note: numbers in O indicate number of times that outcome was mentioned by other stakeholders. Exhibit B Stakeholder Interests Feedback Loon Exercise- For this exercise each stakeholder was asked to share what they heard from another stakeholder in the group. The other stakeholders offered any additions and the respective stakeholder being discussed confirmed it was accurate. Citizens for Better Burlingame • Human scale • Avoid sea of parking • Open mind on structured parking • Multiuse is good • Improve whole area from Burlingame Ave. to Howard Ave. • Pedestrian friendly • Don't compete with existing merchants • Set back from Primrose • Inviting timeless • Avoid long aisles • Interconnectivity to rest of downtown • Sustainable development • Attractive landscape Chamber • Support for all businesses downtown • Economic growth and diversity is important to business success • Manage pace of growth in a way that does not disrupt or undermine existing business success • Ability to successfully compete with other downtown businesses • Economically feasible for business(Safeway) • Competition is good Safeway • New store • Economically feasible • Meet customer needs • Address store operational needs to make successful store • Easily accessible parking and access to store • Handle deliveries of products i.e. truck deliveries Petitioners • Want a new store! • Single use with retail • Timeless in design • Customer friendly • Sooner than later(no more than 2 years) • If it is going to be mixed use the additional traffic needs to be addressed • Fit into character of surrounding neighborhood(design wise) Merchants • Expand customer choice • Attract more people downtown • Improve connection,both physical and visually,to Fax Plaza on to Burlingame Ave and rest of downtown and Primrose • Expand business area toward Howard • Safe to transgress through • Pedestrian friendly • Adequate parking(probably underground if it is going to be mixed) • Enhance other downtown stores, improve vitality • Sustainable development • Shared parking Property Owners • Enhance downtown • Walkability • Importance of the downtown corner lot • Entry statement opportunity to make good first impression and reflect the rest of downtown • Tie Howard to Burlingame Ave. • Attract good retailers to downtown spaces • Orientation to downtown important • Mixed use will increase customers(more residents) • Architectural appeal landmark design Home Owners • Safe, convenient access to the site • How the building looks from all sides of the property • Open to mixed use but the traffic and parking would have to addressed • Want make sure there is at least one pharmacy after the project is built(either Walgreens or another one). • Connection/walkable to neighboring stores • Wide selection of products • Traffic not negatively impact current traffic condition • Enhance vitality of area to attract more customers • Architecturally interesting • Adequate parking/avoid overflow into neighborhood • Safe pedestrian access from all sides Exhibit C Design Criterion Traffic: Changes to vehicular and pedestrian flow on El Camino, Primrose Road, Fox Plaza Lane and Howard Avenue resulting from the Safeway project will not deteriorate below the existing level of service without acceptable mitigation, will minimize the impact of truck delivery and provide pedestrian friendly access to,through and from the site. Parking: After giving consideration to shared parking options through a partnership with the city the resulting parking is safe, sufficient and convenient on-site parking that provides a pleasing visual and physical connection to downtown. Use: The Safeway project adds to the economic vitality of the downtown by providing grocery as the primary use(giving consideration to additional uses such as retail, residential, and office)parking options, and walkways to and through the site. Economic Impact: Safeway project will improve the overall downtown economic vitality by having a synergistic(mutually beneficial)relationship with downtown businesses. Visual Impact: The Safeway project's architecture, site plan, parking layout, and landscaping will provide a timeless attractive "entry statement", a"human scale"*, (see attached)a design that reflects the character of Burlingame and the surrounding neighborhood and an orientation that attractively and conveniently connects the project to the business district. Shopping Experience: The project provides a pleasant and varied shopping experience that reflects the shopping needs, demographics and character of Burlingame while efficiently addressing store operation. Integration with Downtown: The site plan gives consideration to walkways, vistas and parking options that enhances and connects the shopping experience at multiple destinations in the Burlingame Ave/Howard Ave area. Environmentally Res nsible: The project will be designed and operated in an environmentally responsible manner by complying with all applicable environmental laws and regulations. In addition,the project will minimize waste, reduce pollution sources and promote energy efficiency. Corrected 8/23/07 *Human Scale This Not This Awnings and facade Lack of derail and datalls enhance human appurtenances make scale seem large and oil of scale with human use. In new construction, scale is analyzed in comparison to example buildings and based on a goal of achieving human scale buildings and human scale commercial neighborhoods. In additions, existing scale becomes an important factor. A human scale building will feel right and will be quite possibly unnoticed. A building that is out of scale will seem large and can make the users feel small, sometimes overpowered. Commercial buildings are often designed to support automobile scale,with the intention of making buildings visible by fast moving cars rather than slow walking humans. The result is often a neighborhood(or strip)which is not enjoyable for people and therefore does not leverage the usability of the neighborhood. Human scale buildings will include numerous ques that support human and pedestrian use. These elements will cause people to stay longer, shop more and visit more locations in a commercial area. Example buildings in Burlingame will often exhibit common elements that define human scale. These will include elements that define mass as described above. They will also include the scale of materials, openings and details that occur within the building. (City of Burlingame Commercial Design Guidebook) Exhibit D Safeway Project Challenges, Obstacles and Constraints Traffic: • Regulations related to levels of service • Ingress and egress onto EI Camino Real regulated by CalTrans Re: Turn pocket, bus stop, trees, signals • Need to accommodate bus stops • No sidewalks on Fox Lane & narrowness of the roadway • Potential increase in traffic impacts • Truck loading and access — turning radius • Private lot affects traffic flow Site Plan • Kurzman Lot • Culvert (creek) • Shallow depth of water table • Size of store • Truck Access & Loading • City Parking Lots • Operation of Safeway Store during project construction • Trees • Current grade slopes down towards Primrose Road • Parcels are both sub area A&B Use • Future of a 24 hour pharmacy • Project capital constraints • Need to share costs in general solution • City's ability to financially contribute to solution • Financial goals of mixed use developer not the same as Safeway's • Land ownership/on-going non-retail property management • No non-retail mixed use experience as landowner • Limited remodel and expansion potential in the future — location of columns, utilities, etc • Venting of odors t W H m — x W a i K 1� i 1 v i S 4 f T f f 3i. 4 f ' I HISTORY OF THE 13URLINGAME PROCESS OFT COUNCILSUBCOMMITME i o Cathy . 0 ► COUNCIL • * '. it , -.10, Proceee STUDY Objective o Jim r *mrm SESSION o Candace rr r 7 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS Working Group • Chamber of Commerce -- ► 11► Phase I Phase II • Citizens for a Better Burlingame ► �! �• Downtown Merchants I11 —r1► --�► Jim Nantell / —• Downtown Pro erty Owners ---�► + •�"+' F r Candace Hathaway ..,,� p \• Neighborhood Residents ---�----* !1 `• Petitioners for a New Safeway f -- ..... .... s Phase III • Safeway Representatives Project & Alternates Application THE BURLINGAME PROCESS Working Group JOINT Coumcil �.� staff -d w w � t Review � • Groups .r PHASE I Representatives • � � ' & Alternates Facilitators •--► PC/staff Public Design Criteria Resource Input Working Group / . INT r r JALM, ' project 5TU / ; . / I r i PHASE 11 t Design Options Pc/staff Facilitators f--r Resource Public Input I APPROVED APPROVED DENIED DENIED PHASE 111 t Project Application Public Input p Public Input Process Comparis©n EXHIBIT G TYPICAL PROJECT PROCESS: 2+ YEARS Final Project Application NEGOTIATED Project Application OUTCOME Project Concept Environmental Review (EIR) Project Review Hearings APPROVED Informal Project Review Hearings 1400 Feedback DENIED PREVIOUS SAFEWAY PROJECT: 5+ YEARS Final Project Application Project Application Project Concept EIR Project Review Hearing Informal Project Review Hearings Feedback DENIED BURLINGAME PROCESS: 2 YEARS EST. • Public involvement up front City Officials • Agreement on Design Criteria prior to design options City 5taff • Project Application is a result of public involvement Project COLLADORA 77VE Public 8 Design Criteria Design Options Application OUTCOME Project Concept Environmental Review Q EIR Project Review • F Q Project Review Working • r Hearings Hearings Q Design Option City staff (Phase 111) 0jr APPROVED*00 Q' Project Application City Official % 0 8 Design Criteria qW DENIED r V }-1 'B_ fa �_ H lQ E s 41 41 41 LU Y T _ m VJ � Q � z N WW LL O Z Z < v OZ O W 3 L uJ w fl Z Z W w AL s ' O to O O O U Q Y u flC to U- CL- 4A 4A O O Z Z = flc w U) 3 3 O w o O m Z Q 3 3 w o LL v v fl a z «¢