Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.07.29A special study meeting was called to order at 8:05 P.M. on the above date by Chairman Mink. He advised this was a special study meeting to review Supplement #1 of the Anza Master Plan EIR-28P and explained to the audience the purpose was not to take action, but instead to exchange information between the applicant and the Planning Commission after presentation by the applicant. He acknowledged the presence in the audience of several members of the City Council and stated the initial privilege of questions to the applicant would be granted to Council, secondly to the Planning Commission and city government officials, after which the audience may extend questions. This meeting would also cover setting of a tentative schedule of hearings for the Anza Master Plan EIR which would probably last at least three months. A member of the City Council had asked for an audio recording of the meeting which request was approved by all present. Mr. David Keyston, Executive Vice President of Anza Pacific Corp., made initial remarks, stating the primary function of their presentation at this time is to review supplementary information added since the last joint study meeting on the environmental impact report. He said that this supplement included a relatively minor amount of additional informa- tion on the capacity of the sewage system and waste water treatment plant. Studies to be presented would include: a street tree planting program, minimizing the visual impact of tall buildings on the skyline, lowering the height of buildings, and a revised parking plan which would incorporate more landscaping. If more parking is needed, it could be developed for parking at a later date. Mr. Robert Blunk appeared before the Commission to present slides of buildings in Southern California that used mirror glass to lessen the visual impact of highrise buildings. Buildings closer to the ground might keep earth tones. Various examples showed: white sides of the building stand out strongly but the center almost disappears into the sky; building becomes an extension of the sky; clouds reflected in the glass could be seen; large mirror cube building tends to disappear into the skyline; horizontals that are in shadow are what really count - very little impact; reflections of the sun are seen but are not serious. THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 29, 1974 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Manager Schwalm Jacobs City Attorney Karmel Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink COUNCILMEN PRESENT Fire Chief Moorby Norberg City Planner Swan Sine Amstrup Asst. City Planner Yost Taylor Harrison Mangini A special study meeting was called to order at 8:05 P.M. on the above date by Chairman Mink. He advised this was a special study meeting to review Supplement #1 of the Anza Master Plan EIR-28P and explained to the audience the purpose was not to take action, but instead to exchange information between the applicant and the Planning Commission after presentation by the applicant. He acknowledged the presence in the audience of several members of the City Council and stated the initial privilege of questions to the applicant would be granted to Council, secondly to the Planning Commission and city government officials, after which the audience may extend questions. This meeting would also cover setting of a tentative schedule of hearings for the Anza Master Plan EIR which would probably last at least three months. A member of the City Council had asked for an audio recording of the meeting which request was approved by all present. Mr. David Keyston, Executive Vice President of Anza Pacific Corp., made initial remarks, stating the primary function of their presentation at this time is to review supplementary information added since the last joint study meeting on the environmental impact report. He said that this supplement included a relatively minor amount of additional informa- tion on the capacity of the sewage system and waste water treatment plant. Studies to be presented would include: a street tree planting program, minimizing the visual impact of tall buildings on the skyline, lowering the height of buildings, and a revised parking plan which would incorporate more landscaping. If more parking is needed, it could be developed for parking at a later date. Mr. Robert Blunk appeared before the Commission to present slides of buildings in Southern California that used mirror glass to lessen the visual impact of highrise buildings. Buildings closer to the ground might keep earth tones. Various examples showed: white sides of the building stand out strongly but the center almost disappears into the sky; building becomes an extension of the sky; clouds reflected in the glass could be seen; large mirror cube building tends to disappear into the skyline; horizontals that are in shadow are what really count - very little impact; reflections of the sun are seen but are not serious. -2 - Mr. Blunk introduced Mr. Dushan Hrovat of his firm to discuss the height and bulk of buildings. They had considered buildings along Bayshore Freeway with seven and three stories, but with equal floor to land ratio. The most they could achieve were nine story buildings and some three story buildings, and parking structures of three and four stories. He discussed the use of double tier parking which could help eliminate parking on the surface. Mr. Hrovat then showed slides of the skyline to illustrate his discussion. Chairman Mink, summing up that this presentation was essentially to mitigate height and change the parking arrangement which would add landscaping, asked for questions at this time. Commissioner Jacobs inquired as to the effect on residents on the hill when the sun hits these buildings, and was advised by Mr. Blunk that :in Southern California it was almost impossible to get a reflection of the sun. He believed there would be no problem from Skyline Boulevard, a building would never reflect more than the sun spot itself. Mr. Keyston pointed out that in certain areas one floor of parking could be eliminated in order to increase the parking ratio which is now one to 250 square feet of floor area. If more parking is needed in the future, space will have to come from surface areas; if adequate public transpor- tation were available, they could go to one to 300 and gain additional landscaping on the top decks. Mr. Blunk pointed out that the alternate plan would have a corridor in the middle and beyond it is almost solid three stories. Commissioner Jacobs felt it was a bulky project at three stories.. Replying to Councilman Amstrup, Mr. Blunk advised the remaining buildings were 10, 12 and 15 stories. Councilman Harrison advised that his main concern was traffic (17,000 people moving in and out: each day), and asked about the economic feasibility of lowering the buildings, lowering the density and not coming up with a "Chinese wall." Mr. Keyston replied that they felt they had been very reasonable with their 1.3 floor area ratio. In order to have an economically feasible project, provide the amenities, the open space, the landscaping, the safety protection systems, Anza needs that much density. He added that three story building costs would, of course, be less expensive than those for highrise structures. Mr. Keyston commented on the traffic which would be generated by the project with offices, restaurants, hotels and public recreation facilities. This variety of uses, he felt, wouldn't concentrate all traffic at the peak hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.; if the density were cut, the first structures to go would be hotels and recreation centers, et cetera, which perhaps would generate the least traffic as opposed to office buildings and restaurants. Chairman Mink commented that city staff is currently doing a study on restaurant parking and when this is completed the Commission would have a better idea of this aspect of the traffic problem. With the new proposal of lower buildings, the FAR remains about the same; the change would be in the land coverage. Commissioner Sine questioned whether -3- Anza had already received FAA approval of the mirror type of glass. Mr. George Keyston, President of Anza Pacific Corp., advised they had submitted the Master Plan to the FAA and it would only give approval on specific buildings; anything below 120 feet, from the point of view of the FAA, would not require review. Commissioner Jacobs inquired about the possibility of a project somewhere in between the two rather opposite proposals and was told by Mr. Keyston there is an infinite number of financially feasible alternatives. Commissioner Sine commented that if a developer might wish to go higher, the foundations can be made so that this can be done at a future date. Chairman Mink asked if it would be well to begin to establish parameters of density, FAR and use? He was advised by Mr. Keyston that Anza has attempted to proceed within the confines of the General Plan of the City of Burlingame, and that definition of these parameters would be greatly appreciated. Chairman Mink explained to the audience that the purpose of this meeting is to develop information to go into an environmental impact report, not to negotiate with the developer or the City, and then asked for any questions from the audience. In reply to a question in regard to the parking structures, it was pointed out that currently there are two alternatives, namely, a four-story or a two-story structure. Mr. Blunk commented that by lowering the buildings, a certain amount of parking structure is eliminated. The next major item for study was the impact on Burlingame housing and business, and specific costs of protection services for the site. Mr. Len McVicar of Ribera & Sue advised that they did prepare a report for the Commission on economic impact and it was their finding that the Anza Pacific development would have a minimal effect on Burlingame downtown. Commissioner Taylor stated he would like to know what factors the consultant considered and what material he used to draw this conclusion. Mr. McVicar said it was also their finding that there would be minimal impact on police, fire and other city services. Fire Chief Moorby replied to Chairman Mink's inquiry that he had no questions at this time, and Chairman Mink advised the meeting that the Commission has a copy of a formal memorandum from the Fire Chief. Mr. Keyston next mentioned the problem of traffic impact which would be presented by Barnard C. Johnson, Vice President of JHK & Associates. He said that Anza is sincerely looking for guidance from the Planning Commission and the City Council since they are aware the project will generate much traffic, and would wish for a solution that would be acceptable to everybody in Burlingame. Mr. Johnson stated they estimate 35,000 two-way trips per day for the completed project, at peak hour approximately 4,000 vehicles. They believe the existing two lanes on Airport Boulevard will handle up to 45% of the project. Five lanes would handle peak hour traffic. If more congestion were tolerated, fewer lanes would be possible, but they would not recommend it. Mr. Johnson said that from his point of view, the most obvious solution would be improvement of Airport Boulevard including -4 - freeway access. He mentioned the three alternatives presented: (A) provide full ramp access to the freeway from Airport Boulevard, (B) access to Oak Grove, (C) ramp access only for the northbound lanes. He added, at this point of time traffic distribution has not escalated and referred to his basic report which mentioned mitigation measures, namely, staggered working hours, local transit service. At Chairman .Mink's suggestion, slides of schematic drawings for the three alternatives were shown. The Chairman asked if there had been any sketch made of a silhouette overpass; where does the interchange lie with respect to 800 feet of open space between the two major structures? Mr. Keyston advised this was at the end of this area, and may not be consistent with the three story plan. A recess was declared at 9:15 P.M. and the meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. Chairman Mink announced this completed the report by Anza Pacific Corp. consultants and that questions were now in order, first from the City Council, then Planning Commission, City staff and the audience. In reply to Councilman Amstrup's inquiry regarding guidance .from the City Council and Planning Commission on the matter of impact on :Burlingame, Mr. Keyston reiterated Anza did want guidance, especially in the case of the traffic problem which could only be handled in cooperation with the City. After receiving this guidance, they would be quite willing to expand their traffic studies. Councilman Amstrup advised the impression he had received from members of the Council and others indicated it would be desirable to eliminate the Oak Grove alternative, and refrain from dumping traffic into a residential area. Councilman Mangini questioned where the money would come from for these alternatives, and what priority Burlingame would have to get this money from the State. City Engineer Davidson stated that State funds are very tight as far as improvements to a freeway system are concerned. A 20 year priority system is established, and this type of project is not on it. He was pessimistic about the possibility of moving up the priority or getting State funds. Discussion followed regarding other possibilities, discussion with the County of San Mateo, and the Peninsula Avenue overpass. Mr. Keyston said Anza has a minimal easement across County property adequate for a four lane road. Councilman Harrison voiced his feeling that he did not want to see traffic poured into Burlingame streets and was opposed to Alternate C. Chairman Mink next asked the Planning Commission for their questions. Commissioner Francard wondered what effect traffic from the airport would have on this improvement. Mr. Keyston stated his belief that traffic usually follows the course of least resistance. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the consultant as to studies of Broadway and Peninsula Avenue overpasses, at peak hours particularly, and on what he was basing his conclusions that the present two lane Airport Boulevard could carry up to 45% of the project. Mr. Johnson advised he did not have studies of Broadway and Peninsula Avenue with him. He said a freeway lane can carry 2,000 vehicles per hour at a congested level, but that it was his feeling 1,500 would be a better figure at a higher level of service. Commissioner Sine commented that Plan B with an overpass to Oak Grove infringing on a residential area would not be possible in less than 20 -5 - years from now. Plan A, a deadend overpass to bypass the residential area might be possible but he couldn't see it for some 20 years. He suggested Plan C be incorporated between Broadway and Millbrae overpasses. Plan C is at best only a temporary measure. He suggested it was necessary to go to the State and ask for revitalization of the Peninsula Avenue overpass and further revitalization of the Broadway overpass. Mr. Johnson confirmed JHK's suggestion that at peak periods three lanes to the south and two lanes to the north would be needed; he also mentioned many other details would have to be looked at, technology is such that reversible traffic at peak hours could be considered. Commissioner Sine submitted that the Commission give direction to further pursue this matter with the State at Peninsula Avenue and Broadway; investigate feasibility of working with the State and County as well as the City of San Mateo. Commissioner Kindig asked Mr. Keyston if Anza Pacific had plans regarding what their next steps would be, if the City Council should give the direction they had been requesting. Mr. Keyston advised political control. over Peninsula Avenue is vested in the City of San :Mateo, perhaps some with the County; Anza would be happy to go to San Mateo but he felt would be relatively ineffective if they went as a private citizen. With respect to the north end of the project, Anza would participate in an over-all traffic study. Commissioner Kindig agreed that joint efforts will be necessary but that the developer should take the initiative. Chairman Mink commented that with regard to cooperation of the City staff, City Council must direct staff. Commissioner Taylor expressed his feeling that the Planning Commission has now given guidelines as to the traffic impact. He felt there is a need for study of the traffic impact beyond the limits of the Anza property, and for more precise information of the impact on housing and business in Burlingame. He advised he was favorably impressed with the mirror glass buildings, but still concerned about the visual impact, in particular avoiding sameness. He preferred Plan 1 because it offered far more open space. Chairman Mink wondered about the effect on the necessary bay fill if there is a proposal to develop four lanes of traffic, two entering and two leaving, toward the Broadway overpass. City Engineer Davidson answered that all lands out there are city properties to the edge of the Bay. A future road would take lands away from the future park. Another alternative would be to acquire lands in the Bay, approaching BCDC to fill. Chairman Mink commented that it then appeared there were more problems going toward Broadway because the City would rather not use its land. The City Engineer advised he would like to have the costs for street cleaning, street lighting, water system, additional costs of maintenance, traffic signals, and engineering in general expanded. Also, with regard to the sanitary sewage treatment (a 20% increase of the sewage treatment plant has been estimated), he would like figures for additional manpower and costs. In the area of traffic the City Engineer recommended the scope of traffic impact be expanded, as far north as Millbrae or possibly the Airport. Chairman Mink requested Mr. Davidson contact Anza Pacific and determine a scope statement jointly with Anza. The Commission would be prepared to hear this whenever it is ready for presentation. The Chairman explained to the audience that it has been the practice in Burlingame for the applicant to bear the major cost of an environmental impact report after which the City itself or an outside consultant evaluates and amends this report, and subsequently :it is recommended and adopted. In this case the final report will be a report by the City of Burlingame regarding the Anza Master Plan EIR. The City has entered into a contract for the services of Charles D. Bigelow of Bigelow and Associates, Menlo Park, California. Mr. Bigelow's :report will be included as a part of the City's certified EIR. Chairman Mink commented that the question of overpasses will and does exist, but at present it would be more to the point to talk about surface transportation to and from the project, in addition to the treatment of exterior of buildings and clusters of buildings. The Chairman then opened the meeting to audience participation. The Commission was queried as to whether residents would have to fight for their homes in 10 years time again. Chairman Mink replied there are two things that can be done, at least to forestall something of this nature: (1) be sure the General Plan of the City of Burlingame recommends against entrance of traffic from the freeway at Oak Grove, and (2) include in the EIR a very strong state- ment against the development of traffic across the freeway into the City. He then asked the audience if they would like to see the two aforementioned considerations. There was a strong reply of "yes" from all residents attending the meeting. A member of the audience commented for Planning Commission and City Council guidance that the residents of Burlingame are concerned. They would like the Planning Commission to make the recommendation that (1) there be no overpass at Oak Grove and (2) there be as much open space as possible. Another resident commented on the fact that no matter what alternative is decided, there will be many additional cars in the area, with their adverse effects such as pollution; and he suggested lowering the density in the project area. Chairman Mink advised the proposed FAR is substantially less than permitted by code and there has been an attempt by the developer to have a mix of uses so that traffic peaks are mitigated. Commissioner Norberg commented on the question of a pedestrian bicycle overpass at Broadway, and his studies of this problem, the present pathway being less than 30". He felt this pathway is most essential. Chairman Mink advised that the City Council is currently considering a shoreline pathway; Councilman Amstrup advised that the Council is also studying the possibility of undergrounding or going over the S.P. at Broadway. Audience comment was made that the traffic study had been conducted at the height of the fuel shortage and since the crisis had passed, would the assumptions made still hold. Mr. Johnson replied the rates used were on the low side but he felt the figure would still be all right. At .this point in the meeting the Secretary of the Commission, Mrs. Ruth Jacobs, read for the record a letter from Marilyn Horgan, 471 Cumberland Road, Burlingame, California expressing concern over the proposed alter- native of an overpass to Oak Grove. Chairman Mink summarized the proceedings to date as follows: (1) There had been a fairly strong statement that structures in the form of -7 - overpasses should be one of the last considerations. (2) A consensus was expressed in favor of Alternative.C, that is, ingress/egress to the north freeway lanes only. (3) Further consideration should be given to the land needs with regard to acquiring right-of-way toward either Peninsula'Avenue or Broadway. (4) Staff is to cooperate with Anza Pacific Corp. to determine the scope of a traffic study. (5) Regarding visual impact, there seems to be more interest in surface appearance than concern over tall buildings. There was a consensus of the Commission on these points enumerated by the Chairman. The Chairman announced a series of hearing dates for the Anza Pacific EIR, the first being Planning Commission regular meeting of August 26 at which time a portion of time will be dedicated for review of the land use and traffic sections of the EIR. At the September 23 regular meeting there will be discussion of those sections which relate to general appearance, landscaping, street trees, etc. On October 30 at the regular meeting final reports on local impact, results of land use and traffic studies will be heard. The content of the August 26 discussion is definite; however, the other dates are tentative at the present time. The intention would be, if this schedule of meetings works out, on the evening of October 30 the Planning Commission could take some formal action in regard to the EIR in its entirety. Commissioner Jacobs requested that the Traffic Commission be invited to the August meeting and the Beautification Commission to the meeting in September. Chairman Mink advised this subject will also be discussed at the various Planning Commission study meetings in the coming months, but no action can be taken at a study meeting. The Chairman thanked all those in the audience for attending and declared the meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary