Post Office post mortem

Sorry I am getting to this late in the game. The downtown Burlingame former Post Office site was the subject of an open house meeting Wednesday night. Here's a photo to give you an idea of what it being proposed. I will post some opinions that were posted here on another thread because I think it's important for this discussion to be al in one place for easy reference.

First however, my brief opinion: Two years ago I ran for City Council. I wasn't planning on running, but there were strong rumblings of major housing coming to downtown Burlingame. I thought it was the wrong thing to do two years ago and I still think that today. Downtown is not the place for housing that is this dense—148 units. And that is on top of the other dense housing developments that are being proposed on the fringes of downtown. Hey, I'm not against adding density to Burlingame, but our general plan calls out specific areas of town where density is better suited. Perhaps our downtown plan calls for housing as well, but I wasn't on the council when that particular document was approved and I would't have voted for it. I won't comment on the architectural style here because to me, no matter what the style, it will impact downtown in a negative way. 

If you agree or disagree, post a comment. I will post the other comments from other post directly below.

Comments

[Russ]

Here is what Jennifer posted about the meeting under another category: Way too early for Council or Planning Commission feedback, and definitely not the proper venue. The turnout was excellent, it was very well advertised, and I thought it was really great to see so much interest (and concern) related to this project. From what I saw, reactions seemed to be mixed-- many did not really understand how the renderings related to the parcel, and site orientation. The sketch type of drawings generally elicited positive feedback, except for those who noticed that the sketched humans and the structures were not drawn proportionally. But that wasn't the point. This get-together was about promotion of ideas, period. The sketches were meant to show mainly what the outdoor spaces could be used for, what would become of public parking. Notably missing were full elevations depicting the Lorton side; and these would be quite massive --there is little to no setback for the first 4 stories, and the 5th goes back somewhat, though it is unclear how far. What about street trees on Lorton? Definitely not room for the magnolias, which is a pity. Personally, the biggest disappointment (and for me, THE fundamental flaw) is how the USPO structure has been handled. Rather than being the focus and heart of the project, the two remnant wings look sad and forgotten in a mass of mostly far more flamboyant architectural styles...

As a side note, since there will be no ability to plant real trees onsite (because of the underground garage), there is a great opportunity for local artists to be involved in some notable public artwork on the plaza. Whether an Anson Burlingame statue, and/or an eclectic mix of pieces from the talented artists associated with the Peninsula Art museum, this is a no brainer and one of the few largely blank slates available to make this happen, one way or the other.

Posted by: Jennifer | August 25, 2016 at 11:17 AM

Cathy's comments: I arrived at 6 p.m. and people were still coming in and out. I also raised the issue of the lack of drawings regarding the Lorton side. There is a huge risk of casting Lorton Avenue and its wonderful restaurants in shadow in the fall/winter months. I, too, would like the architect, Tom Gilman, to embrace the post office building and the Preservation Covenant attached to it, instead of it being "something to get around". The fact that we are using a local architect and the consultant who worked with us through the Safeway process gives me hope that we might have a shot of creating something exceptional. That being said, the community must be VIGILANT in demanding the best, not accommodations for this development. It will be with us for the next century and it needs to be done RIGHT!

[Dan S]

What are the areas you propose for density? Downtown being near mass transit seems like an obvious choice. What's the downside?

[Joe]

Here is the link to yesterday's Daily Journal article which didn't actually say much:

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2016-08-26/community-looks-at-post-office-project-burlingame-residents-open-to-large-downtown-housing-and-shopping-development/1776425167274.html

I may be one of the few voices in the wind on density, but I do not agree we need more density. We are already seeing plenty of trees in distress from the reduced watering we are all supposed to be doing. There is no plan for any incremental water supply or storage anywhere and it is known that statewide the acquifers would need at least 10 years of "old-normal" rainfall to refill. Good luck on that. In addition we are at pretty much at capacity in Burlingame Elementary schools including the reopened Hoover. There is no plan or funding for additional land acquisition or building of schools. And plans already on the books add substantial capacity density already.

So basically, we are already full until major infrastructure projects that are not even in planning get completed. This project should be denied flat out. Come back with 20 units (~40 bedrooms) and add an overall cap to future development and we might be OK on the latter issue. On the former concern we are already toast since Daly City, Millbrae and San Mateo will finish us off. Why add to the problem? Funny how I always hear about "Think globally, act locally" from Greens but I don't hear anything about over development from them. Guess I am greener than Green.

[JW]

I agree with Russ on this--build out east of Highway 101 or off Rollins Rd South of Broadway. Please leave the downtown alone. Why mess with a good thing?

[Laura]

I also agree with Russ. Burlingame use to be and fortunately, still somewhat is, a quiet oasis in the middle of mass congestion. That is why our property values remain so high and that is why we all love to live in Burlingame. Unfortunately, the massive construction projects planned and already started in downtown Burlingame and the surrounding downtown areas, will soon make Burlingame more like San Mateo and Millbrae. The quiet oasis we once enjoyed, will be gone. Adding 167(?) residential units that is under parked, will seriously effect the downtown and surrounding areas. You think we have a parking issue now downtown? Just wait until this post office site is built out!

The developer will tell you the residents will "take the train",walk and thus won't need a car. The developer will tell you that the residents will use the "zip" car they will supply in the garage and thus will not need a car if their own. Baloney. The residents will all have cars and the residents will mostly all drive to work and park in the downtown area. The Lyon Hoag area will become overrun by cars racing to the freeway and the quiet enjoyment we all use to love, will be gone.

[local motion]

Totally agree. You can already see it in the permit parking streets expanding from around downtown. That is residents defending themselves by agreeing to paying for permits to park in front of their own houses and putting up with the hassle for their visitors who stay more than two hours. Why? Because the alternative is worse.

[Joanne]

The developers will tell you anything to get their projects pushed through.
It's their job. Once they have destroyed our oasis they will be long gone in their own!

[[email protected]]

I wish I could be "Editor for a Day."
Stories, like this, as well as others regarding things that only "The Burlingame 1%'s" care about should only be allowed to have their posts "up" 48 hours.
If there is no response, take it down.
Lets share things that really matter to our Community.
These type of "Navel Gazing" has nothing to do with everyday life in Burlingame unless you are a Real Estate Mogul, here to make money, and yes send that money elsewhere in the world.
"Editor for a day" would have me deleting these FREE "Real Estate Advertisements" for the 1%'s and their marketing teams after 48 hours.
That is all.

[Joe]

Your post is the 8th post on the thread so I guess it would stay up. I'm not following you on how a massive overbuilding of a key piece of downtown only impacts your imaginary "Burlingame 1%".

[Sir Paul]

This rendering doesn't seem to flow that well.Bit of this an a bit of that piled on top of one another.Cheap construction methods will not be acceptable for a once in a lifetime opportunity to build something great an appeasing to local an current architecture.

[[email protected]]

Whenever I see that Mr. Joe is the first response to my put my head down and get ready to be "informed."
I appreciate the lessons, and apply them to my next comment-if I can.
Thank you Joe.
I will get back to you.

[Ham Sandwich]

Not sure who this [email protected] is but as a community, we don't need these hateful discriminating types in our community.

If they easily discriminate based on wealth, they certainly have no problems doing the same based on race, religion, etc.

[Cassandra]

6pm- no mail yet- as usual. Hearing lots of complaints in the hills.

[Poop DePoop]

As long as it is solid construction and not the cheap kindling wood type up and down Millbrae and San Mateo. These have to be very upscale similar to the ones across from the City Hall Building or The Versailles in San Mateo on Crystal Springs at El Camino..

[Joe]

It's been about 18 months since the last proposal and the "Old Post Office" has changed hands with a new developer proposing an all-office space building with 280 underground parking spaces and some public space. The main point of conversation, albeit not disagreement, is the height of the building. Per the DJ today:

While no formal plans have been submitted, initial discussions suggest the tower of office space proposed to be set back behind the post office portion is slated to rise six stories to about 95 feet. On average, the building would be about 55 feet, as heights are distributed across shorter portions such as the mail facility, which is protected from redevelopment.

Currently, the tallest building in downtown Burlingame is the former Crocker National Bank building at 330 Primrose Road, which also rises six stories but only reaches 82 feet, said officials.

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/post-office-project-to-be-burlingame-s-tallest/article_655d65e2-5e9b-11ea-9f3c-b3dd159f732b.html#utm_source=smdailyjournal.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1583420401&utm_medium=email&utm_content=read%20more

[Joe]

The Planning Commision gave "high praise" to the revised, office.retail only plan that is progressing:

The Burlingame Planning Commission universally praised the six-story office and retail project proposed to replace the old mail facility at 220 Park Road during a meeting Monday, July 13.

Commission Chair Audrey Tse shared a similar opinion of the building comprised of 139,887 square feet of office space and 12,402 square feet of retail space over two underground stories of parking providing 283 spaces.

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/high-praise-for-post-office-redevelopment-in-burlingame/article_3e5c71b0-cbcc-11ea-bcbc-7b151a6c629a.html

[Concerned]

That is an enormous project in a tremendously under-parked, congested area.

I guess it's OK to the City's "Leaders" as long as they address the non-existent Police Violence tomorrow evening in their Town Hall.

Maybe someday they will address the increased car thefts, break ins, catalytic converter thefts and general lack of law compliance that is growing in our community. However, that will not help City Council members achieve their real goal of further political advancement.

[Barking Dog]

No gas line??

[Joe]

BD, excellent question. When I say that, it generally means "damn, wish I had thought of that". Maybe they can claim grandfathered for prior plan submission. Would be a bear to heat and cook with electric--a lotta electric!

[Barking Dog]

I guess Beach and Brownrigg won't be using the term "grandfathering" for the gas line...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/us/racism-massachusetts-grandfathering.html