The ground has officially been broken for an 18-acre development at 300 Airport Boulevard, adjacent to Coyote Point in Burlingame.

Five buildings and a parking garage will rise up to seven stories in height across the site, yielding 767,000 square feet of commercial space designed by Gensler for Chinese developer Kylli Inc., targeting both technology and life science companies, with ground-level retail and restaurants aimed at attracting patrons outside of the Burlingame Point development itself.

Entitled for development by an affiliate of Millennium Partners back in 2012, the property was sold to Kylli in 2015. Construction of the Burlingame Point campus should take roughly two years to complete.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by matteo

    might not be a relaxing coffee break with airplanes landing right in front of this development every 3 minutes.

    • Posted by Tony

      ^ Someone who’s never been there. It’s actually kinda cool to see, and the planes honestly aren’t any louder there than Coyote Point which is an absolutely beautiful location.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Agreed. Granted I’m a bit of a technophile, but the landing planes are cool, and the location is very underutilized at present – this area is one of the most consistently sunny in the northern Peninsula region.

        Frankly, my only big concern about this is sea level rise – but that’s an issue that will affect the entire bayshore, from SFO to Berkeley to San Jose, so it’s no particular reason to stop this particular project.

      • Posted by louiemondot

        I agree, I LOVE the planes. Grew up in Daly City under the flight path. Very comforting to hear the planes.

        • Posted by Formerly Native

          Ahhhh yes….a Wessix Court alum here

    • Posted by Drew P

      I recently ate at Hangar Steak, which is closer to the airport (where they actually open up the throttle as opposed to the landing glide path) and didn’t hear a single jet engine over a 2 hour dinner.

  2. Posted by Paulski

    Finally getting a use out of that old drive in theater

  3. Posted by Pero

    There is quite a lot of office space being build around the South San Francisco area without nearly enough residential development to match future demand for housing. Future life science and tech tenants are likely to create very well paying jobs that will increase housing demand from San Mateo up to the Southern suburbs of the City. While new condos are being build in places like Milbrae or Candlestick, engineers and executives will have the means to bid for SFH. I would be long term bullish on still affordable Daly City, Visitacion Valley and South SF.

    • Posted by Bobby Mucho

      I often wonder if there’s a zoning or environmental issue with building medium to high-density housing on the bay down there. It seems like it’d be a great way to integrate a few hundred units into office park devs and help support the restaurants / retail space more effectively. I guess overall, I’d love to see more of the bayfront property be public, but yea.

    • Posted by Dave

      The stretch of El Camino from SSF to Burlingame would be perfect for medium density housing. Today its mile after mile of one and two story businesses and parking lots. Very few housing developments have been built there during the current boom. Many thousands of housing units could be created along that stretch. Perfect access to public transit, roads and freeways only add to the potential.

      • Posted by Mark

        Ah, but think of all the opposition to actually building density on El Camino, most of which is next to or close to Caltrain. Meanwhile, a huge development on the waterfront gets approved that will be pretty much 100% auto dependent. Welcome to California.

        • Posted by Dave

          Welcome to hotel California indeed. The state knew the Oroville dam was in need of repair for years and did nothing – but they are building the train to nowhere and are hugely over budget on it. Misplaced use of tax money which is the rule in this state.

          I am thinking medium density development – 5, 6, 7 stories. On huge blocks. I’m not sure if each of the localities would oppose it. I’d think SSF would support development. There is a block with an old one story strip mall and huge parking lot. Its been empty for years now. Why SSF does not develop this prime El Camino parcel is beyond me.

          • Posted by 101

            Keep in mind that the developers are the ones who build and individual cities on the peninsula do not. If a developer does not see the return, they will not build. The area you are describing is still old school and the NIBYs rule the roost.

            Not sure how along it is but the only major development in the El Camino area will be in Millbrae.

          • Posted by SFRealist

            Peninsula NIMBYs are as maybe more powerful in their own cities than SF NIMBYs

          • Posted by SFRealist

            But you’re right. It’s ridiculous that El Camino and the Caltrain stations aren’t more developed. 5-7 stories near the stations is a no brainer

          • Posted by Jack

            By train to nowhere, I guess you mean “train connecting the state’s two largest population centers.” Don’t be silly and disingenuous.

        • Posted by Zig

          BART too. San Bruno and SSF station very close to El Camino. Very odd alignment from land use perspective

          • Posted by Dave

            If only there was a regional planning authority with teeth. Squeezing more housing into SF where the infrastructure is close to being max’d out while the very low density El Camino – heavily served by public transportation – is allowed to sit untouched. Odd regional land use indeed.

    • Posted by Zig

      Adjacent to downtown SSF would be where I would buy a rental if I had extra money. They have a funky weird downtown and apparently there is plans to better connect the Caltrain station (if state GOP does not starve Caltrain). Some housing stock with preWW2 styling if that’s your thing.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Agree – until recently my only impressions of SSF were (1) the giant hillside sign (tacky, no matter how historic), and (2) the post-apocalyptic, under-freeway Caltrain station. Imagine my surprise on “having to” go to downtown SSF and finding a cute, viable little business district. With some better transit connections (and, let’s face it, marketing) it could really take off.

  4. Posted by scott f

    Garbage. Absolutely terrible. Everyone will drive (over 30 min unpleasant walk from Caltrain), and all the new employees will bid up existing housing stock since none is being built for them. If CEQA can’t stop this awful development, it is worthless.

    • Posted by emanon

      Please elaborate. Why is this garbage? Why is this absolutely terrible? Why and how should CEQA be used to “stop this awful development?”

    • Posted by Alai

      The walk isn’t so bad though. Starting at Broadway station, once you get across the first few intersections (which could/should be improved) and over the freeway, the walk on the waterfront is as nice as it gets. Would be suitable for bikeshare, too, maybe.

      If they could make a direct pedestrian connection over the freeway, the walk from Burlingame station would be under a mile.

      But, yeah, everyone probably will drive.

      • Posted by timbad

        Caltrain only stops at Broadway on weekends currently. and a walk over a freeway does sound unpleasant.

        • Posted by Alai

          It’s a pedestrian overpass. The street crossings are the worst part, really, and they can be improved with bulbouts and diets.

          And if there were more people using the station, Caltrain would make it a regular stop.

    • Posted by Zig

      I hope Bgame is smart enough to force the developers to have a TDM plan?

      A frequent circulator last mile shuttle that does a loop to Milbrae BART would help.

      • Posted by Zig

        Actually a loop to Caltrain

  5. Posted by Martin

    Funny how everyone complains about traffic and “too big” when it’s near a Caltrain or BART stations where we have capacity to absorb it. But stick an even larger building next 101 and not a peep.

  6. Posted by Adam

    Just in time for sea-level rise!

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      Sea level rise is a real concern. But it’s not something that we can, or should, deal with on a parcel-by-parcel basis. e.g., so let’s say they build this on a 10-foot podium…. and let’s say they also raise the whole Treasure Island development by 10 feet… that still leaves, oh, *billions* of dollars worth of buildings and infrastructure at risk from sea level rise – from Sausalito to San Rafael to Vallejo to the Port of Richmond to Berkeley and Oakland and Alameda, down to San Jose, and back up along the Peninsula to SFO and the Embarcadero.

      The *only* cost-effective and physically-effective way that the Bay Area is going to deal with sea level rise is either levees across the Bay (hauntingly reminiscent of 1950s plans to fill the Bay) – which would essentially funnel the Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers to the ocean and make the rest of San Francisco Bay and Suisun Bay into brackish lagoons – or to build a tidal barrier at the Golden Gate, similar to (but levels of magnitude more complex and expensive than) the Thames Barrier.

      Either route is going to require a massive infrastructure investment – and massive reliance on pumps to keep water levels behind levees / tidal barriers at current levels. And neither will be aided, nor delayed, by one-off parcel-by-parcel efforts to “combat” sea level rise.

      • Posted by Anon123

        I believe the cost of either solution would dwarf the HSR and any other public works project that the State can conceive.

        Another way to tackle the problem would be to require the necessary podium on new buildings and road ways as they are build and then gradually deal with the billions of dollars of buildings and infrastructure already build – similar to EQ regulation.

        • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

          The garage podium concept seems to be the strategy employed in Bangkok, one of the biggest cities at risk of sea level rise. All of the new tall buildings are built atop a multi-story parking garage. Bottom floor might become boat parking in the future.

  7. Posted by donjuan

    I wish we had more life around the peninsula water front. Its all office parks and marshes.

    • Posted by Zig

      I think one guy has been trying to build a marina in San Mateo for some time with restaurants

  8. Posted by Dan Redmond

    DonJuan, There is a shoreline trail from Broadway Burlingame to Foster City. The one place it is not on the shoreline is right where this dev. is proposed because of the channel just to the northwest. Just check out the map to the right of the beginning of the article, zoom in and look for “BAY TRAIL”.

    • Posted by Alai

      Sure, and it’s perfectly nice if all you want is to go for long walks. But it could be a lot more.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Used to bike there often, when living in San Mateo, and the bayshore paths are regularly used by walkers, bicyclists, joggers, and dog walkers.

  9. Posted by Bart Samsung

    built literally on garbage. will do great in the next quake!

    • Posted by SFRealist

      Building codes. The newest buildings will be the safest when the Big One hits

      • Posted by wayne sall

        one hopes. i recall a building in downtown SF that was supposed to only sink a few inches, how many feet has it sunk now?

  10. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    rising sea level and bay-fill great combo…. slide slide slip and slide…

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles