Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.08.04MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 4, 1999 7:30 P.M. Conference Room A CALL TO ORDER Chairman Coffey called the August 4, 1999, special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojuds, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica (in @ 7:39) and Coffey Absent: None PRESENTATION OF REVISIONS TO A PROPOSED PROJECT BY THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY AT 301 AIRPORT BLVD, ZONED C-4 (DAN LEVIN, GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER=. Chairman Coffey noted that the Planning Commission had reviewed an office project at the site and denied it without prejudice. This evening the developer was here to clarify the direction which the commission gave him in that action and to discuss how he might respond to that direction. This was not an action meeting for the commission. The public uld be given an opportunity to comment on the overall discussion at the end of the meeting. In the interest of the tact that this is a study meeting and in the interest of time the commission would appreciate public comments at the end of the meeting to be focused, not repetitive, and held to 3 minutes. Dan Levin, Glenborough Partners, commented that he represents the property owner and they employ Carl Danielson, also present. Mr. Levin noted that as the property owner's representative he would be presenting the conceptual plan this evening. In order to more accurately discuss the site, Mr. Levin put out on the table an aerial photograph which was at a scale of 1":50' and arranged to scale models of the existing drive-in movie screens on it. He noted in their reconsideration of development on the site they considered a number of elements: fewer buildings, the setbacks from the water, changing the shape of the buildings, and having less effect on the wind. He discussed briefly the local development experience and background of the Glenborough partnership; and discussed their original considerations of the site, first for residential use, then for retail use --both of which were not permitted under the city's general and specific area plans and zoning for the area. They then focused on a use acceptable to the city, office, and developed a project within the Specific Area Plan guidelines, including at a .9 FAR which is allowed. He noted the history of the environmental studies, the emergence of wand as an issue and the decision to recirculated the EIR. He commented that they take wind issues seriously, and even put the new proposal they are going to discuss tonight through a wind tunnel study to determine the effects of the new building design and alternative building placements. Mr. Levin then placed three 7-story building models which represented 636,000 SF of office space on the aerial noting that this redesigned building plan would have no wind shadow, presenting no change in wind from the existing site with the movie screens, no change in wind turbulence from existing„ and in some areas because of the -ves now designed into the buildings would actually increase wind speeds on part of the adjacent bay surface. 'the structures would be 106' tall from adjacent grade. This approach would include a parking deck similar to that in the original proposal, i.e., at top of curb level, extending from Airport Blvd. 1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 1999 He noted that they also looked at two 480,000 SF alternatives, using the same new structure module, one with four ^--story buildings (each 67' tall as measured from adjacent grade) with no parking deck, but some parking under _.1e structures. This approach had no change from the existing wind from that pattern with the existing moving screens and addresses most of the conditional use permits required with the original project. Complying with apparent width would require some minor rearranging of the buildings whose wind impact is unknown at this time. But at four stories there would be no height exception. A modification of this lower density approach is to put the 480,000 SF of office space in three buildings, each 80' tall from adjacent grade. This arrangement is the optimal for wind. It was noted that the bottom of the site would be 9'-Y lower than top of curb and thus all building heights for city purposes would be 9' -Y shorter. The city's design guidelines and their application to this site were discussed briefly. Mr. Levin noted that the most challenging was apparent width since the view along Airport Blvd. to the east from Sanchez Channel was limited and the view of Sanchez Channel from along the east side of Airport Blvd. less expected. Meeting landscaping requirements is no problem with these alternatives; nor is height since there are taller buildings than these proposed in the area. Discussion with the commissioners: there is not a parking structure with the 480,000 SF proposal since the size does not justify the cost of building a parking structure (need 625,000 to 636,000 to justify a parking structure); will the site continue to be bowl shaped, no the bottom will be graded flat while the sides will continue to slope up at an angle; when refer to wind as it was before what do you mean, compared changes to existing wind condition with the presence of the movie screens; is the previous project off the table, yes; did you look at including a hotel in this development, abandoned residential and retail since would require a general plan amendment and rezoning, contacts the hotel industry and hotel development said that hotel was not viable at this site, also were aware of letter from ,)cal hoteliers to city council which asked for more office to spin off business in the area to them, finally don't want to build a hotel have no experience; how would 636,000 SF of office be used, market to high tech, bio tech or computing tech all want to be in a large complex where they will have space to grow; these businesses have found over time that it is more efficient to grow within a building than to spread to other buildings, also found that some high tech generate sales tax because they are the site of sale for goods produced so could generate revenue for the city. Traffic is an issue with this development, the 480,000 SF option would reduce traffic impacts proportionately. Commissioners discussed long term vision for the area: have you considered other uses not presently in the zoning, photo demonstrates what an important site this is both to the city and peninsula its on the bay's edge, has good access to recreation resources, has good visibility from 101; building you've designed is striking for leasing out; we do not have unlimited money to take the time to change the general plan which could take several years; what about including other amenities to support office use, believe in mixed use and have done such projects, but believe it would be a two to five year Planning approval process and can't afford to pursue; this project is a building in a sea of parking, will encourage people to drive to it, is there a way to build it that: would cause it to lead the way to a different kind of neighborhood; could design look at the channel, street, location of existing open space and bring the buildings out to touch and reinforce these amenities; Mr. Levin noted that when went back to the drawing board only limit placed on the designer was the maximum height.established by the FAA, also wanted to create a center on the site which would be sheltered from the wind and encourage employee use; recognize project would need a shuttle bus which was useable (5-10 min. frequency to downtown, easy to access and free), need to have events on the site to keep people there; could buildings be moved close to the channel and street, not want to put buildings within BCDC jurisdiction; should we be looking at some trade off for wind turbulence to get better, more direct :ess of the buildings to Airport Blvd., it was noted that the realignment of Airport Blvd. at the comer would ,,reate about a half acre of use able area which if the city wanted could be used for retail; perhaps the site could be designed with flexibility for future use at the corners, uses which would support the employees on the site and the recreational users and other office employees in the area, need to retain some flexibility so can be responsive to 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 1999 future opportunities and issues. Still see traffic as a problem, see recreational area going in the right direction, 'indscaping issue is a technicality, height of the buildings can be a problem but decrease in the setback for the juildings would be a positive tradeoff. Discussed the issue of the project being set in a "sea of parking", noted common problem of suburban office development compounded by the problem that employer won't lease when must walk more than 300 feet from car to building. It was noted that while there was parking under the buildings shown there was also the main entrance, elevators etc. on that ground level, so one would not be able to see through the site unobstructed at ground level. Site design should consider the proximity of the Bayshore pedestrian path and the pedestrian bridge which is a part of that system across the channel, note that it connects to bayfront pedestrian access areas that connect directly to the adjacent buildings, encouraging employee's use; if use the less dense office alternative could incorporate some of these peripheral uses like a day care facility, services for the employees in the area, open space activity areas or nodules; need 1 million square feet of office space to support a day care facility or a tenant who is willing to subsidize, don't have either, similar problem with a good food provider, willing to do what can as long as it will work for both the city and the developer, would like to have any feasible amenities; zoning would allow a free standing restaurant but has a big parking requirement, if provide would need to share parking some how; parking is important because more offices are increasing the density of office space use with module arrangements, current studies indicate that this is often true until get to about 500,000 SF of office then the average number of trips to the site require less parking; parking and traffic are two separate problems, if people stay on site all day will reduce the traffic generated, but people will leave the site, would be a big help if 25 % of the people would change their commuting behavior; need to have development look at peripheral uses which can be supported by all workers and users of area. Discussion moved to wind and traffic: wind is not an issue, used same wind tunnel expert to look at project revisions an be designed to have no change in wind over existing conditions, realize that when get to a more fixed alternative ,vill need to have it reviewed by EIR consultant and may even need additional wind tunnel testing; traffic will be addressed by reducing the size of the project, will include Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs and understand will need willing employees to make the program work; the change from 636,000 SF to 480,000 SF is a 25 % reduction and will have a proportional reduction on all intersections. How will the construction phasing work, would like to build out in 3 to 5 years, will build one building as soon as possible but the rest will follow based on market demand; Owen project at 577 Airport took 12 years to build out but the market was dead between 1983 and 1993, today we are at the center of the Silicon Valley universe; people have suggested that this site be used as a park, it is important to note that there will be some development on this site, city can't take the land and can't afford to buy; important that design not eliminate the opportunity to use the site differently to respond to changing needs over time, should provide a separate pedestrian entrance from the driveway to encourage pedestrian orientation and shuttle use; want to see how which amenities would reduce traffic generation numbers; can the number of entrances on the site be reduced so that the p.m. peak hour traffic is metered on the site rather than on the public street; can a shuttle with a 10 minute headway be provided to mass transit centers including BART; aware cannot dictate to Caltrans to increase 101 capacity or access and can't expect the developer to undertake these improvements, citizens need to know that this project is dealing with a multi -city situation and the citizens need to get involved with state to support viable solutions and coordinate land use efforts in the rest of the corridor, here try to get an acceptable scale but it will still have an impact, 636,000 SF is too much for the infrastructure. One commissioner noted in summary that there were some specific things that could be done to the site which could affect the next design: the west corner of the site could be linked to Beach Road, the north west corner could be linked to the bayfront access on the other side of the channel and the bridge connecting the two areas, this could include an open space area; activity area near Fisherman's park could be provided to create a visual connection in ie space left after the roadway is redesigned; reduce the scale of development at the Beach Road side where the existing scale is less. There were no more comments from the commission and Chairman Coffey asked for a 5 minute break. KJ City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 1999 The group broke at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. ,:ROM THE FLOOR Chairman Coffey opened the meeting to comments from the floor. He asked for a show of hand from people with different interests and noted that since in total there were about 8 interested in speaking he would take the wind surfer comments then the traffic comments, acknowledged C. Bojues' return. Speaking on wind issues were Peter Thorner, 390 Alcatraz Avenue, Oakland, and Karine O' Conner, 915 Ashby Street, San Francisco. They commented commission in previous actions had found the EIR sufficient but had not certified that document which only looked at average wind speed changes, the wind surfing community still has a concern about changes in turbulence, applicant says that he has now dealt with turbulence issue, if that is true it is great, need to review the data, concerned about 5 story buildings because of the experience in Aruba would like to have their expert review and discuss with expert who ran wind tunnel test. Mr. Levin noted that he too would like to have the facts reviewed, he did call the hotel in Aruba and discovered that the hotel building was 20 yards from the beach compared to a 1000 foot separation from the water in this project. Wind surfing representatives went on to note would like to see plans which establish location of buildings on site relative to the shoreline; feel wind surfers would use a reasonably priced restaurant in the area and know an operator looking for a location, perhaps a day care facility would work if it were open to all the employees in the area and they were given price incentives to use it; there needs to be a bicycle/pedestrian overpass added over 101 to connect bayside area to residential area; would like to get wind data so can put on web site; encouraged that looking so seriously into TDM programs; about phasing would like to know the order in which intend to build buildings. ;peaking on traffic issues were Marilyn Mahaffy, 4 Peninsula Avenue, John O'Brien, Peninsula Avenue, Larry Patterson, City of San Mateo Traffic Consultant. Have contacted Caltrans and am aware that Burlingame and San Mateo are discussing the overpass at Peninsula and the number of lanes on the bridge. Chairman Coffey referred this item to Councilwoman O'Mahony in the audience because of her position on C/CAG, she noted that both staffs met with Caltrans on what to do about 101 between Third Avenue and Millbrae interchanges, the abutments of the Peninsula interchange need to be strengthened, but what can be done depends upon the cost and the projects competing for money; will what they build depend upon what Burlingame and San Mateo want, don't know what will be built. San Mateo Traffic Consultant noted that a number of alternatives are being considered for the roadways including a two or four lane bridge at Peninsula, the staff of San Mateo are concerned about a 4 lane bridge and has asked for additional detail, there should be some kind of evaluation available in 2 to 4 weeks; is the golf course untouchable, yes; can the bridge be realigned within the existing right-of-way, don't know. San Mateo's issue with the 301 Airport is traffic generated which will travel through San Mateo, know Burlingame can not undertake a roadway project in San Mateo so must make finding of over riding concern in environmental document, but even if reduce to 480,000 SF will send traffic through San Mateo, want this area of San Mateo involved in discussion, solutions should be addressed in detail and a comprehensive solution provided, the neighborhood process needs to be followed. Commissioner noted that the EIR included the information that the Poplar/Amphlett intersection now operates at LOS F, yes; what is the City of San Mateo proposing to do to fix this, have looked at - what is missing is the other half of the interchange, there is no easy solution, this project EIR suggested restricting the movement at Amphlett which will change people's access pattern and affect some truck traffic; yes but if close south bound Poplar to 101 people will stay on the east side and affect residents there or stay on Humboldt and affect residents there, cannot close Poplar access to 101, suggestion in EIR not a bad solution but would affect access for -is and truck, make it more difficult for properties in area so need process to ;get people in area affected to agree and to make it better. Mr. Levin indicated that as developer he would be happy to do the solution suggested in the EIR need to know what has not been done; want the secondary impacts evaluated and need to involve the city of San Mateo and outreach to the neighborhood. Feel should explore the use of shuttle service it was effective in South 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 1999 San Francisco in reducing traffic from offices across 101, also what will full development of this area mean to the �,a on the west side of the Peninsula bridge. Chairman Coffey said that these impacts were available. Mr. Levin noted that a commissioner had suggested that another study session inight be useful, would like to do soon while still in sketch stage, suggested Wednesday, August 25. CA Anderson asked if the wind study would be released. Developer noted that he was not intending to release the data until they had arrived at a finalized plan because shifting the buildings may make a big difference and would require another analysis. Hoped that the wind surfing group would be willing to work with them but was concerned that their primary concern might be precedents of this project which would affect their interaction with the airport and what they are planning. CA Anderson noted that it is important to note that no one is at this table to make a deal and any project. arrived at by the developer must go through the CEQA and Planning Commission/Council review process. He noted that if a second study meeting was held it would need to be noticed with posting 72 hours in advance. Rory Walsh from the City of San Mateo Planning Department noted that they would probably renotice the San Mateo residents as they have been doing. The Commissioners agreed that there would be another study meeting on this issue with Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday , August 25, 1999. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Coffey adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stan Vistica, Acting Secretary MINUTES8.4.99