Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.05.03 Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the May 5, 2000, special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica Absent: Commissioner Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved as posted and mailed. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items on this agenda FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACTION ITEMS 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS REGARDING A PHASED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT BY DANIEL LEVIN, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT, GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER, NUCGAEK LUZWA ARCHON ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS Reference staff report, 5.3.2000, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed the process and Planning Department comments. Fifty one conditions were suggested for consideration as the mitigation monitoring program; condition 26 was amended to require the developer to maintain and regularly inspect the hydro-carbon filers installed in the parking lot drains. Commissioners asked staff: what is the Peninsula Congestion Relief Congestion Alliance; what is it=s purpose. CP Monroe noted that there used to be two organizations on the peninsula promoting, developing and implementing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, these 2 have merged into the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance, purpose is to work with businesses to develop and promote TDM programs. Commissioners asked about the statement of overriding concerns, what is the timing, why were draft findings prepared before commission action, what if commission decides there are no findings of overriding consideration. CP Monroe noted CEQA requires staff to prepare a draft of findings and statement, does not represent an endorsement of the project; CA Anderson noted that the draft findings are only there if the commission chooses to use them, commission can edit them or start all over, have certified that the EIR document is complete, but before project can go forward, must make findings and statement, if not applicant cannot get permits, City of Burlingame is the lead agency, planning commission is designated by city to take action on this type of EIR. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2000 Minutes page -2- Commissioners asked about the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant regarding the contribution towards a day care center, how would that work; regarding money for shuttle buses, developer is proposing to contribute towards purchasing buses, what about operating costs. CP Monroe noted that the City of Burlingame is not in the day care business, could tie contribution to an existing day care provider like San Mateo County Pal Care and ask applicant to work with them to find a location. The Freebee shuttle now runs one bus, during AM and PM peak and during lunch hour, it is funded by a collection of grants, Broadway merchants, State air quality and city money, next year the state money will not be available and the city will have to come up with about $50,000 for operating costs, the city is trying to negotiate with the Peninsula Alliance to take over administration and management of the system. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Dan Levin, Glenborough Partners, 400 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo made a presentation on the project. He noted that this review process is over 2 years old, original thought was to do housing, but since not allowed in plan, considered office or hotels; the general managers of the hotels have written a letter stating that hotel development is cyclical, refer to office development in the bayside corridor, said office development could help hotels; started out with one plan, commission and community did not like it, brought new proposal back, the design is a function of the zoning and design guidelines, if these should be changed, fine, but this project should be judged by current plans and guidelines; in order to do other uses, would be a two year process to change the plan and do not know what the outcome would be. He noted that he tried to meet with the San Francisco Board Sailing Association board of directors, windsurfers were concerned that the overall level of wind turbulence was understated therefore impacts understated as well; Bruce White, the wind expert stated that that was not a concern, true measure of test is relative change; Bruce White said since 2 buildings sit in shadow of other two buildings lowering the heights to three stories, will not greatly reduce wind impacts; have done what people asked us to do, changed height, shape and position of buildings, conclusion is there is no significant impact on the wind. Regarding traffic impacts, he noted that he went to a community meeting in San Mateo, the concerns were that traffic at Poplar on-ramp is getting worse, this project will make it even worse, but traffic counts were taken in 1984, 1999 and 2000 show that there has been no significant change in traffic on Humboldt in 15 years, traffic at Amphlett intersection is at Level of Service (LOS) F now, propose mitigation to limit traffic on Amphlett to right-turn only during AM and PM peak hours, this measure will change intersection operation from LOS F to LOS B; willing to do mitigation, should have been done a long time ago, met with City of San Mateo about mitigation proposal, San Mateo staff asked us to quantify impacts, asked us to use ATIRE index to evaluate impacts, index determines if traffic increase is noticeable, did that study less than significant; there was a concern with left turn movements backing up at Peninsula, traffic consultant counted cars making left turns during peak hour, found there was no back-up; did analysis of left turn movements adding project trips, still adequate capacity for left turns; asked about truck traffic, did count of trucks, there were 8 during peak, determined they would reroute to other truck routes since Humboldt is not a truck route, would pay for increased enforcement; have addressed every issue raised; traffic has stayed the same on Humboldt for 15 years, over 200,000 SF new office space has been added on Anza, still no increase on Humboldt; letters written say cannot guarantee mitigation will work, have followed C/CAG guidelines, will require development and implementation of TDM programs, cannot force behavioral changes, but can provide alternatives, San Mateo now asking us to consider project alternatives, have reduced size, done TDM program, San Mateo has suggested money could be set aside to study and implement traffic calming measures, would be happy to contribute $150,000 to study such measures on Humboldt. Applicant stated that comments were made that the entire community should not have to suffer for sake of development of this project; agrees freeway access should be improved, interchange improvements for Bay Meadows were done within existing right-of-way, changes to Poplar and Peninsula interchanges would require large amount of right-of-way acquisitions, not like Oracle mile, where there is a total of 5 million SF of office in that area plus residences, the total office in bayfront area, with this project will be about 1 million SF; regarding shuttle buses, now costs $10,500 per City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2000 Minutes page -3- month to operate, if purchase buses operating cost would go down, happy to pay fair share of operating costs with everybody on the bayfront participating; suggest a Business Improvement District; regarding bicycle improvements, want to create environment where it is easy and desirable to bike to work, provide showers, bike racks, bike lane on Airport, add bicycle/pedestrian lane to bridge on Airport, will improve BCDC access along channel, provide shoreline link with Beach Road bridge; new bicycle/pedestrian over crossings of US 101 are planned as part of the auxiliary lane project. Regarding the day care center, he said he thought it was a good idea, but has problems, since not all parents will work at this site, there will be added traffic, financially would not work if restricted to tenants of the building, within these buildings cannot meet the outdoor play area requirements because of flood plain restrictions, but willing to contribute to a facility if a provider is found willing to build. In conclusion, he noted that development will occur in Peninsula, if not here will be in other cities, project is good for Burlingame, businesses and residents. Commissioner questions: regarding day care center, said cannot be done on site, but why is traffic generated if they will park on site, why can=t day care just be for tenants; will there be a cafeteria in each building; what is meant by fitness center, where are outdoor picnic areas. Dan Levin responded that day care operators said they could not limit to just tenants because they would not know that enough students would be generated from the buildings to make it economically feasible for the operation; there would be one cafeteria for entire project, would serve lunch and dinner, sandwiches, hot meals; fitness center would be in one building, would have extra showers, not sure yet what equipment, would research what people would use; video conferencing room would be in first building, then see what demand is, would provide pick up and delivery service for laundry, grocery deliveries; the outdoor picnic areas would be in the landscaped area between the buildings. Public comment: David McGillicuddy, 293A Mather Street, Oakland, Marco Jerkunica, 606 N. Idaho Street, San Mateo, Tom Kaiser, Humboldt Street, San Mateo, Sylvia Newport, 110 Park Road #606, Burlingame, Ron Munekawa, City of San Mateo, 330 W. 22nd Street, Peter Thorner, San Francisco Board Sailing Association, 390 Alcatraz Avenue, Oakland, William Nack, 1153 Chess Drive, Foster City, Jim Bigelow, Economic Vitality Partnership Transportation Action Team, One Waters Park Drive, Suite 101, San Mateo, Ken Castle, 1411 Drake Avenue, Burlingame, Dan Farmer, 2340 Perch Court, Mountain View, Suzanne Suwanda, 1 Bay Road, Fairfax, Carlyle Johnston, Save the Bay, 1600 Broadway, Suite 300, Oakland, George Haye, 1191 Compass Lane #209, Foster City, Barbara Russell, 861 N. Humboldt, San Mateo, Shirley Licko, 930 Peninsula #210, San Mateo, Donna Slote, 1256 Laguna Avenue, Burlingame, Sue Lambert, 900 Peninsula Avenue, San Mateo, Jaime Cordera, Los Altos, Marilou Lee, 972 Peninsula Avenue, San Mateo, Leona Wilcox, 900 N. Humboldt Steet, San Mateo, Ted Hornaday, 811 Portman Drive, Redwood City, Adam Donovan, 803 N. Humboldt, San Mateo, Clem Wang, 906 Hyde Avenue, Cupertino, Lloyd Mahaffy, 4 Peninsula Avenue, Burlingame, Jim McGrath, 2301 Russell Street, Berkeley, Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue, Burlingame, Steven Henniger, San Antonio Street, San Mateo, Darlene DeMaria, Jane Gleason, 811 N. Humboldt, San Mateo, Jess Roat, 101 Lorton, Burlingame, Mike Moran, works on Bayshore Highway, John Webb, 720 Paloma, Burlingame, Scott Davis, works on Bayshore Highway, Chip Lindell, 1007 Peninsula Avenue, Dennis Sullivan, 815 N. Humboldt, San Mateo, Gayle Pergamit, Covalent, 330 Beach Road, commented on the project. Comments included: Coyote Point is one of most heavily used windsurfing sites, wind tunnel test is at best an estimate, what assurance do we have if it does affect windsurfing, after built no way to provide mitigation on affect to wind conditions at Coyote Point; boardsailing association is a volunteer board, cannot always meet, concerned about turbulence intensity, comparison charts may work in wind tunnel but doesn’t translate in real world, looks like turbulence was averaged over entire area, our concern is increase in corner nearest shore; floor area still quite large, a reduction in size would reduce wind and visual impacts; obvious there is no wind on downwind side of building; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2000 Minutes page -4- bottom line in decision, is there credible information that all feasible mitigation has been applied, responsibility to adopt feasible mitigation measures. Comments continued: what is Burlingame going to do to improve egress to highway on east and west side of freeway, this will not be the last development, need to make effort to slow down cars through residential areas, cars added will impact streets, hard to get on freeway now, think Burlingame should keep its traffic in Burlingame and not on Humboldt and Poplar which are already congested; applaud use of C/CAG TDM measures, should be called out as conditions, concerned with traffic generation of project, could look at alternatives; since traffic will affect San Mateo streets, should project be approved should add condition that $150,000 be set aside for study and implementation of traffic calming on Humboldt; regarding effectiveness of C/CAG TDM measures, shuttles to train will be important, shuttles rated highest in actually reducing trips, Peninsula Alliance has been achieving results at other work sites, alliance will report results; should size project appropriately to traffic capacity in area; additional traffic on Peninsula and Humboldt will impact property values, diversion will intensify impact on Humboldt; since many dot.coms are putting more people in smaller spaces, traffic impacts may be greater than projections; Coyote Point golf course has been closed during time of traffic studies, will be more traffic when it reopens; already gridlock on freeway between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., haven=t taken into account the emergency vehicles that flood the area continually; would like to know who pays for the upkeep of the shuttle system; bike racks don’t provide enough security; will be lucky if able to get many people to commute by bicycle, providing bicycle access ill advised until better access to area; should try to find way to route commercial traffic through a commercial area, not residential. Further public comments: saddened with lack of vision, project borders Coyote Point park, don=t understand why Burlingame didn’t consider adding a park, reflects lack of concern for future of community; support project reduced in size and design altered to reduce wind impacts, developer has volunteered to implement TDM program, put forth effort to be good neighbor; should hold commercial projects to same standard as residential; largest parcel of undeveloped land in Burlingame, general plan is 40 years old, shouldn’t do any more development until plan updated; this is special piece of land, next to Coyote Point which is special, project is not special, buildings boxy and glassy; will have impact, short-sited, just looking at impacts up to Poplar, no housing available in area, where will people live, will have impacts beyond immediate area; could provide more amenities; strongly encourage mitigation, lower building, bay is a precious resource, should maintain; project doesn’t offer anything visionary, doesn’t add anything to quality of life in this area; hope phasing starts with building further away from the bay, buildings will have visual impact, will cast shadow on park-blocking view; this could be visionary project, should be space open to community, don=t see in this plan, need more amenities, day care, should see alternatives; need to revise general plan and establish commercial design review; the needs of city have changed, before wanted to bring business, now long for open space, should have master plan that provides more open space; applicant’s previous developments are quality, has stepped forward to address issues. Applicant response: Dan Levin noted need to take emotional element out of equation; difficult to respond to comments that traffic increases, addressed facts earlier regarding property values, look at Redwood Shores area with homes close to office development, home prices have risen; site is in BCDC jurisdiction, will be putting in public access along Sanchez Channel, plans fit BCDC guidelines, non-residential traffic has been using Humboldt to access the Poplar freeway on-ramp since 1947, comes down to perception, Humboldt designated as an arterial in San Mateo General Plan; regarding quality of life, site is across the street from the bay, fits in with general plan and design guidelines, done things to enhance pedestrian access, will be more accessible than now; request regarding proposed conditions that the mitigation measure for traffic improvements in San Mateo be revised so that amount stated $150,000 and the funds could be put toward whatever mitigation San Mateo decides, not appropriate for San Mateo to have ability to override decision. There were no further comments and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commissioner discussion: commend the applicant for adding all the amenities presented tonight, understand the applicant has the right to develop this property, but what about the negative ramifications; commission needs to find City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2000 Minutes page -5- that there is a justifiable , rational benefit to the community which out weighs the negative effects documented; see no social, legal or technological benefit to the city, do see some economic benefit although the tax revenue as shown by the developer seems optimistic since the city only receives 14% not 17% of the property tax for example, and am concerned that the property tax revenues from this project will not pay enough to maintain the sidewalks and services it requires, so the economic benefit shrinks; if look at the revenue of this project compared to total city budget of $53 million the benefit is very small; why is the project so large, applicant=s response seems to be want as big as possible, he is entitled to what is reasonable, something smaller about 250,000 SF, the project should be sized to the thresholds of its negative effects; in marketing there is an approach called phased roll outs, using this you begin with one part or phase, evaluate the impacts and make corrections before going on to the next phase, so you test the actual outcomes and see if the impacts are the same or different, this would be a way to determine if office cubicles make a difference in on-site parking demand; a smaller development would also address the Abuilding in a sea of parking problem; in the end it is difficult to see how the small economic benefit outweighs the other impacts. Thank people who came, to address impacts we need to create work close to where people live, if we do the opposite will increase the traffic problem; we are in the midst of a second Gold Rush we will lose if we let traffic overwhelm us, just can=t add mass transit and hope the traffic problem will someday be fixed; the traffic studies in the EIR are unbiased they were done by a third party, not the developer or city; the project does conform to the General Plan and can=t change the plan in the middle of the process, but the Commission can recommend to a developer how intrusive a development can be; he has the right to develop this site but he should reduce the size 25% and build it in individual phases, with evaluation of the impacts following each phase before the next phase is built; the interchange is inadequate but that is not the developer’s fault; need a wider variety of activities in the building like cafeteria, fitness and laundry; the TDM program proposal was a good one as well as adhering to the C/CAG recommendations; the bicycle paths are a nice amenity for residents to recreate on but not useful for commuters; the goal should be to get 15 to 20% of the traffic from the site off the freeway; this is the last area designated for office in the Anza area, offices do support hotels and are important because the city’s revenues are so dependent on hotels, many of the benefits the residents enjoy are there because of the hotel revenues. Commission comment continued: the General Plan is like the city’s treaty with the people who live and work in Burlingame, and we do not want to diminish their way of life; there are a number of items in this project which conflict with the way we live, maybe not dramatically but in small increments which will add up; the General Plan is old; this is a very large building in a sea of parking intended for a large tenant, so very few employees will live in Burlingame, if it were designed differently with smaller buildings closer to the ground, more urban looking, maybe it would attract local tenants who would rent for a long time; gave a number of written comments to staff; hotels do need office, but Burlingame has done a lot already; that traffic can ruin lives is an exaggeration, but incremental change in traffic can; can=t force behavioral change but need to provide opportunity, however this context program is superficial since the project is isolated; never solve a traffic problem by adding lanes to the freeway; not understand issue of amenities, wanted this project to create a neighborhood environment for the employees of these buildings and the neighboring developments; demonstrated that other cities have a lot of office and Burlingame has little, Burlingame does not need to be like every other city; Building Trades support this project, but now there is a shortage of labor so not need; would like the project to increase its community accessibility, place for community to enjoy; would like a visionary project design for the next 50 years not one that reflects the past 50 years; cannot support the project. Project as presented was noted to adhere to the General Plan and the zoning, but does not meet community standards for quality of life; what is the benefit except revenue to the city; the project is oriented toward the people who work there and not the people who live in the community; for past 18 months have been telling the developer that want something the community can use in the future, a small piece of park as a part of the development, a place to go for coffee, a development which is approachable by the public like the Levi Strauss building in San Francisco; maybe it has to be a different type of development live-work? Developer addressed amenities, day care was my concern, want it on site so it would be convenient to people, perhaps it has to be subsidized or supported by other people working in the area, the developer could provide it as a non-profit, a community service; concern about these buildings being consistent with their City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2000 Minutes page -6- neighborhood in terms of FAR in the same way concerned about single family residential, average in area is .57 FAR proposing .69 FAR, a problem also because density of employees could be greater than we anticipate as well; TDM proposal looks good on paper but who will pay the operation and maintenance cost of the buses; concerned with the significant and unavoidable traffic impact on the 101 off-ramp at Broadway, problem may be regional, but the development will increase the impact and provides no answer to lessen it. Commission discussion continued: Planning Commission has evaluated the changes made to the project and considered the written comments, am in favor of the project if it improves the quality of life as the General Plan ascribes; cited several goals and implementing objectives of the general plan which identify items the project should address: well rounded city in terms of land use, encourage development of office to serve residents; maintain/strengthen local sources of revenue and not increase taxes, enhance land value without undue congestion; enhance local economy, reduce impacts of congestion and improve functional quality to central business district and other business areas; project met the letter of the General Plan but not the intention. Tonight the project has gone a long way in mitigation of traffic but got information so late could not study the effects in reduction of trips, so there is no basis to determine if the significant effects are reduced to acceptable levels by the new proposals; would like to know what size the project would be and have no significant negative environmental effect, this would be a baseline project size, then look at mitigations and evaluate additional size; ba sed on my professional experience this is a lucrative project, have worked on a similar project in terms of lot where developer could make profit with 280,000 SF of office, contribute to the community, need a smaller project. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to decline to make findings of overriding consideration and to approve a statement of overriding consideration for the 488,000 SF office project at 301 Airport Blvd. by resolution for the reasons stated by the commission this evening and acknowledging that the addendum presented by ESA documenting that the Revised Project was consistent with the certified EIR. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. CA Anderson noted that given this direction staff would prepare a formal resolution for the commission=s action at the May 8, 2000, commission meeting. Staff will fax or deliver the resolution to the commissioners tomorrow. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to affirm the action declining to make findings of overriding consideration and adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and to accept the addendum. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council Meeting, May 1, 2000 CP Monroe reviewed actions of City Council at their regular meeting of May 1, 2000. DISCUSSION OF EXTENDING FAR TO BASEMENT AREAS Commission discussed forming a subcommittee of two commissioners to work with the City Planner and City Attorney to resolve wording and consistency issues in the amendment to the zoning code to extend FAR to basement areas of single family houses. Cers. Keighran and Deal agreed to meet with staff to assist in developing a draft to bring forward to Planning Commission. DISCUSSION ABOUT REVISING THE GENERAL PLAN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2000 Minutes page -7- CP Monroe reported to the Commission that the City Council had discussed briefly the revision of the General plan at their May 1, 2000, meeting. They had referred the matter to a study session in the Fall. Commissioners expressed interest in what their role in a General Plan revision might be. Commissioners discussed how they might assist the Council in their deliberations on this matter and in preparing an RFP if Council decides to proceed. CA Anderson suggested that we might be able to scan the existing General Plan document and produce a more readable draft. CP Monroe suggested that if the Commissioners were willing they could review the current General Plan in pieces and make recommendation on what parts of it need to be completely rewritten and what par ts might be useable as they stand. Commission agreed that this would be useful and directed staff to follow up. DISCUSSION ABOUT EXTENDING DESIGN REVIEW TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CP Monroe noted that at their May 1, 2000, meeting Council had also discussed the issue of design review of commercial development, suggesting that the Commission might explore the idea of extending design review to commercial development. Commissioners noted that we have more experience now than when we began residential design review so should not take a much time to develop. Chairman Luzuriaga referred the matter of commercial design review to the standing subcommittee for Neighborhood Compatibility for further action. Their was a brief note by staff that the packet for the May 8, 2000, meeting has been delivered. Commission noted that there were 9 preliminary design review items on the agenda for that meeting. Suggested that the staff limit future commission agendas to 14 items while the commission works out the new design review process. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MINUTES5.03