Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.08.25MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY HALL 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 25, 1999 7:00 P.M. Conference Room A CALL TO ORDER Chairman Coffey called the August 25, 1999, special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Commissioners: Bojues, Coffey, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga and Vistica Staff: Monroe, City Planner, Brooks, Planner, Anderson, City Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. —aairman Coffey announced that this was special meeting of the Planning Commission to provide the developer of the property at 301 Airport Blvd, opportunity. to follow up on the ideas exchanged at the Commission's special meeting on August 4, 1999. He noted that this was not a meeting at which the Commission would take any action or to give any specific direction to the developer; it was an opportunity to have a further exchange of ideas. He then introduced Dan Levin of Glenborough Partnership, 400 South El Camino Real, San Mateo, which is the developer as well as property owner. PRESENTATION BY THE DEVELOPER OF REVISIONS TO A PROPOSED PROJECT AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD. Mr. Levin began by presenting the conclusions which he carried out of the August 4, 1999, meeting: city is concerned about the impact of development on this site, it is big and calls for a special project which will carry into the next millennium; do not want to see buildings set in a sea of parking (although he noted from leasing point o view it is necessary to have parking within a reasonable distance of worker's destinations); project needs to be pedestrian friendly in order to fit into Burlingame's bay front area future; project should provide support facilities especially day care and a restaurant which should be close to the area used by wind surfers. He noted that he went to an architect with these concepts and two site plans were developed: three, five story buildings and two, eight story buildings. The buildings continue to have the more curved, aerodynamic shape used in the second set of wind tunnel studies and presented at the last meeting. He noted that the purpose of this session was not "let's make a deal" but an opportunity to put ideas on the table. City of Burlingame Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 25, 1999 PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES BY APPLICANT TO ADDRESS EFFECTS OF REVISIONS. resentation of Alternative One, 3 live -story buildings: buildings are not much taller than the existing movie screens; arranged similarly to what the second wind tunnel examined with seven story buildings; showed a model of the five story building at F : 25' scale; have revised site plan to allow 2 one -quarter acre areas at the northwest corner (Airport at Sanchez Channel) and southeast corner (Airport frontage near Beach Road) to provide for day care and restaurant facilities to be provided by private sponsors, will subsidize the day care operation with substantial reduction in land cost if provider will provide rest of activity, will :not provide additional parking for restaurant, would expect city to grant exception for shared parking to encourage this use, these two areas will remain in heavy landscaping until appropriate users come along; he noted that they are not in either of these two businesses and doesn't know how they work; the new site plan has one, four lane (two lanes in and two lanes out) entrance to the site with an additional turf block egress for safety equipment; a 30 foot wide pedestrian promenade connects the buildings at the center of the site to the 100 foot wide pedestrian access in BCDC jurisdiction and the 30 foot front and side setbacks with sidewalks along Airport Blvd.; the buildings are setback from Airport Blvd. at the front 85'-90'; the entrance drive will slope down to the buildings from elevation 10' to about elevation 1.5' MSL, the five stories are measured from top of curb so the proposed structure:; are -±L- 78 feet tall, the building modual is very efficient from a leasing point of view because of the gentleness of the curve which also makes it aerodynamic; proposal is 480,000 gross square feet of office. Commissioners discussion on Alternative One: will the developer subsidize the clay care, yes by writing down the cost of the land to the user; is parking area provided sufficient, have not counted each space at conceptual stage, but believe it can be met; before Planning Commission sees revised project will you do market research on the liability of a day care facility, don't know how to do such research but will be sure to ask questions of people who .,; day care is one amenity that makes the square footage work, are willing to set aside land forever so opportunity will always be there; if put two quarter acre areas in landscaping can you still meet city landscape requirements without them, have not done measurements but think so; if you have restaurant and day care how will it change the parking requirements, restaurants have a very high parking requirement in this area cannot meet it with project and would look to the city to give a variance based on the shared opportunities; have you considered using uni-stall parking, have not done layout; how would the parking below the buildings work, unlike last discussion, there would be space under the whole building for parking have not done the design to get the people up to the entrance of the buildings; noted that would provide land for day care if facility was profitable- is the same true of the restaurant, yes objective is to keep the people in the area all day, commission can chose: through their action the type of restaurant; will there'be food service within the complex; yes, type depends upon the tenant, big tenants provide cafeteria as amenity to their workers, smaller tenants want some kind of more free standing, could put a hot dog cart inside or even on the quarter acre if wanted; this building placement with the comers for other development allows for more versatile redevelopment in the future -the sea of parking can be valuable real estate as needs evolve in the future, but this is still buildings in a sea of parking, don't know how to get people out of their cars some people simply choose to drive; is there a planned life expectancy for these buildings, life expectancy is based on useability of the floor plate, the ability of the design to accommodate changes in technology, class A structure, will address these long term issues in the design so should be there at least 50 years. Presentation of Alternative 2, 2 seven -story structures: same site lay out with a single four lane entrance, turf block emergency egress, two one -quarter acre plots set aside at the comers, buildings set rather parallel to one another at the center of the site so one is in the wind shadow of the other; less wind effect than the three building alternative; "-is project has greater visibility from 101 and thus appeals to a certain type of tenant; with each building having _ *0,000 GSF it takes courage for a developer to propose, prefer three smaller buildings because not such a risk to build and lease; 30 foot wide pedestrian promenade connecting pedestrian areas around site is more across 2 City of Burlingame Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 25, 1999 the center of the site; cannot connect site to city bridge over Sanchez Channel in either plan because there is a private property, a parking lot, which lies in between, have not talked to owner, will; prefer three buildings because creates a better sense with the street, they seem more tucked together. Discussion of Alternative 2: with this alternative parking becomes a barrier to .the street and am more comfortable with three buildings to reduce the risk of vacancy; from site lay -out prefer three building alternative; does this include the same set asides at the corners, yes; did you compare wind effects, not on this specific alternative -are probably about the same as second set of wind tunnel studies on 3, seven -story buildings will do a wind tunnel test on whatever the proposed project is; could you add a parking garage if parking demand estimates are way off, yes with either alternative could build free standing garage; advantage with this because; have a deck at the front at street level, gives an opportunity for pedestrians to access street level directly, it is intention to improve pedestrian access over last plan; providing a hard landscaped edge preferable to see into site, prefer berm with turf, trees, flowers; is it possible to connect to the city bridge over Sanchez Channel, will depend upon the willingness of the neighboring property owner, willing to do but will take part of the parking on his site; what if reduced the square footage to 400,000 and increase landscaping with opportunity to build more later when the traffic and parking problems in the area are fixed-concemed with the way office space will be used in the future and we need to provide for a contingency, if parking is a problem we could build more in a parking structure in the future with either of these alternatives, meanwhile you could have more trees and landscaping in at grade areas. Discussion returned to the three building alternative: Mr. Levin handed out wind tunnel data analysis for three, seven story buildings at virtually the same placement on the site, did not re -run the test for three, five story buildings but felt that the results would be less than these shown; looked at two wind criteria, speed and turbulence; discussed comparison of existing condition with change based on three building alternative shows increase in wind speed over isting (with movie screens) in the area because of curved design of building and that greatest turbulence caused by development will occur 200 feet from shoreline adjacent to Airport Blvd.; these tests were independently contracted for with the same people who did the wind tunnel tests for the environmental firm. Impact of change on traffic effects are more linear; will reduce the square footage by 24 % so should reduce the traffic impacts at all locations by 24%; part of planning is knowing if the size of the project is going to work with the infrastructure. There was no more discussion by the Commissioners. FROM THE FLOOR Chairman Coffey opened the meeting to the floor asking for comments regarding wind first. Peter Thorner San Francisco Board Sailing Association, Mark Tischler, aerospace engineer at NASA -,Ames, Lynn Fritz, Superintendent of Parks, San Mateo County commented. Perception when look at that building; design is better for wind but this presentation is not that much different from last one, buildings should be oriented so they can split the wind cleanly with less profile to the wind, let Dr. White arrange building orientation to maximize wind; turbulence is greatest concern at 20 % at 1200 feet and bubble out to 1500 feet, near beach this is less of a problem than in open water but need to study how this compares to what was shown before, also know that data for 5 stories will be different so will wait until we see that before comment, reduction to three stories would reduce effect by 2/3; perplexed by data given this evening because it does not seem to match baseline given last time., Applicant noted that the current diagrams show that the increase in turbulence is in the area which is outside of the sailing lane; yes, but the wind tunnel studies are theoretical, must evaluate in terms of real world effects, some people do swim out from the corner by the sailing shop; also people have some difficulties when sailing downwind with the tide, needs to be evaluated. r''hairman Coffey intervened noting that when the actual wind tunnel data based on the revised project is complete ,vill be made available to those interested and the developer will need to document that the impact of the project on the wind will be the same or no greater than the previously proposed project, the commission is aware of the wind boarding community's concerns as the changes to the project demonstrate. Would like the data from the wind 3 City of Burlingame Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 25, 1999 tunnel to compare the current proposal with the previous one and enough time to review. Chairman Coffey noted that any revised project will be subject to the same public review process as the previous one was. Applicant asked hat the board surfers share their data as well. Ms. Fritz thanked the Commission for the consideration given to wind surfing, this is a significant use at Coyote Point Park and the county is interested in providing improvements for popular activities at the park. Chairman Coffey asked if there were any comments about traffic. Lloyd Mahaffy, 4 Peninsula; Kathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands; Dick Lavenstein, Beach Road property owner; Steven Henniker, North Central San Mateo Homeowners Association; Ron Munekawa, Planning Department City of San Mateo; Marilyn Mahaffy, 4 Peninsula, commented. Wind surfing will affect 10's of people during the week and 100's of people on the week ends, traffic will affect 1000's of people 24 hours a day; say can calculate traffic reduction directly, not sure that original traffic study was correct; city needs to understand that if you used all available capacity for this one project there will be no capacity for future projects and won't be able to do any future development in the area; traffic should not be an after thought to wind; there are no bad parts of Burlingame because freeway interchanges have not destroyed neighborhoods with through traffic, as resident do not want to see any more access into this area; even with reduction in project the traffic at Coyote and Airport will be more than 100 % of intersection capacity; developer should be asked to provide information about trip generation from other office; developments on the Peninsula to substantiate the 1:300 SF parking requirement, such developments as Bay Hill in San Bruno; Peninsula Office Park; San Mateo; Metro Center, Foster City; concerned that all southbound traffic will be through my neighborhood; want to see new numbers when project firmer, thought the original estimate was conservative when compared to actual trips we will see; would like to see the construction time line on this project as compared to the Caltrans work on 101, San Mateo Public Works Director indicated that Caltrans study would be out in mid -September and it will influence the alternatives for the modifications to Peninsula and Broadway interchanges; need to find a solution ihich considers both communities; at last meeting City of San Mateo's traffic consultant raised issues of concern, still the same, Peninsula/Amphlett/ 101 and Peninsula/Humbolt intersections and public education and disclosure of issue with neighbors in San Mateo; important to provide day care to address traffic impacts, keep people on -site at lunch time. There were no further comments from the floor. Chairman Coffey asked the commissioners if they had any further comments: would like to see flexibility built into the project for future; once a project is approved the market place will drive what the developers do, 577 Airport is an example where approved for three buildings, required to build a parking structure, over the span of a decade ended up with two buildings and no parking structure; if the traffic capacity is not there no one will lease until the infrastructure catches up; important to provide child care and cafeteria in this area, it could be on this site and available to other businesses in the area; will provide some kind of food service as a part of the project, what it is will be driven by the size and type of tenant. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. MINUTES8.25 Respectfully submitted, Stan Vistica, Secretary 4