HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 043-2012RESOLUTION NO, 43-2012
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FINAL EIR) PREPARED FOR THE BURLINGAME
POINT PROJECT, ADOPTING THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT, AND APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR DAY CARE USE
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for various planning approvals for development of property
located at 300 Airport Boulevard in Burlingame, California in April, 2010; and
A. CEQA AND REVIEW PROCESS
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and application has been made for
amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan, amendments to the zoning code related to the Anza
Point North and parking regulations, amendment to the sign code, rezoning of a portion of the site
from the APS zone district to the APN zone district, vesting tentative parcel map, development
agreement, commercial design review, and conditional use permit for day care use for construction
of 767,000 square feet of new uses including office space or life science uses, retail uses, food
services, a childcare facility and an exercise facility on property located at 300 Airport Boulevard,
zoned APN and APS;
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2010, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was submitted to the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and OPR notified State
agencies of the preparation of the EIR and directed that they make comments on the proposed
project, in addition, the City of Burlingame sent the Notice of Preparation to local agencies
requesting comment; and
WHEREAS, the City retained an independent consultant to prepare an EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the scoping of the EIR on December
132 2010, and provided direction on the issues to be covered in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Water Supply Assessment has been prepared by Atkins in accordance with the
requirements of California Water Code Sections 10910 et seq., and the Water Supply Assessment
ndicates that water supplies are acceptable as to quality, quantity, and reliability and that based on
the entire record the projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project
in addition to existing and planned future uses; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2011, following staff review and comment on the Administrative Draft of
the EIR, the City duly noticed the availability and completion of the Draft EIR (DEIR) and the public
comment period on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, a public comment period of forty-five (45) days was opened from December 1, 2011 to
January 17, 2012, during which all written public comments were welcomed; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, this Planning Commission held a public hearing on
January 9, 2012, to receive any oral or written comments that the public might wish to offer on the
DEIR; and
WHEREAS, in response to the comments received during the comment period, the City consultant
prepared responses to each of the comments made in the form of a Response to Comments
document; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2012, the Response to Comments Document was made available to the
public; and
City Council Resolution 300 Airport Boulevard
Certification of Final EIR and Project Approval
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report, consisting of the DEIR and the Response to
Comments document, all supporting information and any responses to late comments (Final EIR),
clearly presents the issues involved in the development of this property and identifies appropriate
alternatives as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations); and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR provides the City Council, the City and the public with sufficient and
thorough information regarding the potential significant environmental impacts of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR has been prepared and considered in conformance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines, with independent preparation by aCity-retained consultant and application of the
independent comment and judgment of both City staff and the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR have been incorporated into the
conditions of approval for the project as outlined in the attached Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the Final EIR and the proposed project, at which time the Planning Commission considered the staff
report and all written materials, and received all testimony and documentation presented by all
interested persons; and
WHEREAS, as described in Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-2012, on May 14, 2012, the
Planning Commission found that the Final EIR for the project was complete pursuant to CEQA, and
made a recommendation to the City Council to certify the Final EIR and approve the project; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2012, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final
EIR and the proposed project as reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission, at which time the City Council considered the staff report and all other written materials
and all testimony and documentation presented at said hearing by all interested persons; and
B. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
WHEREAS, the Final EIR clearly outlines the proposed project, presents the issues involved in the
development of the property, analyzes all potentially significant environmental impacts, and identifies
appropriate mitigation measures and alternatives as require by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations);
and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR provides sufficient disclosure of the issues involved as required by CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, the extensive public participation in the development of this Final EIR has provided
valuable information and analysis, as well as important changes and alterations to the original
project; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR addresses the significant potential environmental effects of the project in
the areas of: (1) Land Use, Plans and Policies, (2) Visual Quality, (3) Transportation, (4) Air Quality,
(5) Climate Change, (6) Noise, (7) Biological Resources, (8) Hydrology and Water Quality, (g)
Population and Housing, (10) Parks and Wind Effects on Recreation, and (11) Utilities and Service
Systems, a summary of the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures is outlined in
Exhibit A to this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies and analyzes seven potentially significant and unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts that would probably occur from development of the project, these
2
City Council Resolution
300 Airport Boulevard
Certification of Final EIR and Project Approval
potentially
significant and
unavoidable adverse
impacts and findings regarding these impacts are
outlined in
Exhibit B to this
resolution; and
and
WHEREAS, Exhibit B also outlines findings regarding the feasibility of the identified alternatives to
the project that could mitigate some of the potential significant and unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project will provide an economic asset to the City and will provide
amenities for recreation along the Bayfront which will benefit the community so it is appropriate to
override for the specific economic, social and other considerations noted in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments Document,
provides the Council, the City, the public and responsible agencies with sufficient and thorough
information regarding the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project; and
Whereas, the Final EIR has been prepared and considered in conformance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines, with independent preparation by aCity-retained consultant and application of the
independent comment and judgment of City staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the mitigation measures
required by
the Final EIR have been
incorporated into the
conditions of approval for the project
as outlined
in the attached Exhibit D;
and
C. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS,
the City
Council has
considered the seven potentially significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts
identified by
the Final EIR and the mitigation measures proposed by both the
City and the
applicant;
and
WHEREAS, the project will contribute to impacts to the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar/US 101
intersection in the City of San Mateo, and the City of San Mateo is exploring options to improve
circulation in the vicinity of this intersection. A mitigation measure has been included requiring that
the applicant contribute a fair share towards this solution. However, since the City of San Mateo has
not yet chosen an alternative and the improvement is outside the jurisdiction of the City of
Burlingame, the impact must be considered significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, project generated traffic will have an impact on the operation of six freeway segments
and would have a cumulative impact on ten freeway segments. Mitigation of these impacts would
require freeway widening to construct additional through lanes to increase freeway capacity. The
project has incorporated all feasible transportation demand management measures to reduce the
number of trips generated. However, it is not feasible for an individual project to bear responsibility
to implement such extensive transportation system improvements due to constraints in acquisition
and cost of right-of-way. In addition, no comprehensive project to add through lanes has been
developed by Caltrans or the City and County Association of Governments for individual projects to
contribute to, and there is no other mechanism for making a fair share contribution. Therefore, the
significant impacts to freeway segments would be considered significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, given the stricter standards imposed for air quality impacts, mitigation measures to
reduce these impacts to the extent feasible have been applied to the project, but it is not possible to
reduce the potentially significant, unavoidable impacts on air quality to less than significant; and
WHEREAS, the project would result in a significant impact from both direct and indirect generation of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. However, the nature of the project is such that mitigation cannot fully
address the associated emissions. Mitigation measures proposed would reduce these impacts to
the extent feasible, but would not reduce the GHG emissions below the BAAOMD thresholds.
Therefore, the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable; and
3
City Council Resolution 300 Airport Boulevard
Certification of Final EIR and Project Approval
WHEREAS, the findings regarding the potentially significant, unavoidable effects identified in the
Final EIR and Exhibit B detail and summarize the analysis of those effects and their possible
mitigation; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit B also contains the findings regarding the feasibility of the identified alternatives
to the project that could mitigate some of the potential significant and unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit C hereto weighs the
benefits of the proposed development against the unavoidable environmental impacts as defined in
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, these benefits and
considerations make the unavoidable environmental impacts acceptable.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by the City Council that:
The City Council was presented and has reviewed and considered the documents
constituting the Final EIR and received testimony regarding the Final EIR at the June 18,
2012 public hearing. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Final EIR is the
independent judgment and analysis of the City. The Final EIR contains additions,
clarifications, modifications and other information in its Responses to Comments on the Draft
EIR, and such additions, clarifications, modifications and other information are not significant
new information that would require recirculation of the EIR as defined under CEQA.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that mitigate,
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Draft EIR, as described in
the mitigation measures incorporated as project conditions in Exhibit D, except for the
identified significant and unavoidable impacts described in Exhibit B. On the basis of the
Final EIR documents and comments received and addressed by this Council, it is hereby
certified that the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft 'EIR, the Response to Comments
document, and all supporting information including any response to late comments, is
complete pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15090.
2. The
findings
contained
in the resolution and those
attached hereto as
Exhibits A,
B, and C
are
adopted
pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Sections
15091, 15092 and
15093.
The City Council further finds and determines that the Water Supply Assessment prepared
by Atkins was included in the EIR for the project as Appendix J and in Section 3.12 Utilities
and Service Systems, and was prepared in accordance with the California Water Code and
the Public Resources Code. The City Council hereby adopts the Water Supply Assessment
and, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, finds and determines that the
total projected water supplies of the City will meet the projected water demand associated
with the project in addition to existing and planned future sues in normal, single dry, and
multiple dry years.
4. By separate resolution and ordinances, the Council is concurrently approving a development
agreement, amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan to increase the maximum floor area
ratio for office uses and commercial recreational facilities, to amend the Design Guidelines
related to setbacks and heights of buildings and to reflect the proposed roadway
realignment, rezoning of a portion of the site from the APS to the APN zoning district, and
amendments to the APN zoning regulations to increase the FAR for office and commercial
recreation facilities, add incidental food establishments and retail services in business
campuses as permitted uses, changes to required setbacks and height regulations, design
guidelines criteria, allowing for a reduction in parking requirements when a Transportation
0
City Council Resolution 300 Airport Boulevard
Certification of Final EIR and Project Approval
Demand Management (TDM) plan is implemented, and allowing additional freestanding
monument signs on parcels with frontages exceeding 300 feet in length.
5. As provided in the Final EIR and supporting information, staff reports, minutes, and recording
of hearings for the project, the vesting tentative subdivision map application for the project is
consistent with requirements of Government Code Section 66410 et seq. and Title 26 of the
City's Municipal Code;
6. As provided in the Final EIR and supporting information, staff reports, minutes, and recording
of hearings for the project, the daycare use proposed in the project amenities building would
not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and, as
conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience, and the daycare use is otherwise located and conducted in a manner in accord
with the Burlingame general plan and Zoning Code;
7. As provided in the Final EIR and supporting information, staff reports, minutes, and recording
of hearings for the project, the project is consistent with design review requirements of the
Specific Plan and Burlingame Municipal Code;
8. As such, the applications for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Commercial Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for Day Care Use are hereby approved subject to the conditions set
forth in Exhibit "Y attached hereto.
9. Conditions of Approval 24 to 69 represent the mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR
for the project and constitute the mitigation monitoring plan for development of the proposed
project.
I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 18"' day of June, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BAYLOCK, BROWNRIGG, DEAL, KEIGHRAN, NAGEL
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
City Jerk
S:IBurtingame PointlCC Reports -Ordinances & ResolutionslCC Resolution -EIR and Projecf1300 Airport. CC.Resolufion. docx
Q � U
a oov
rl
a o b 3 a m o o `i b
au o P, aux 3 4 u
r
'� p p p a 15m P,.,
ro
a. . `n ami.; o o.an
o'° A o o °a o'er a �Arci 0�
z
z
z
z
z
x
x
x
x
x
s
z
z
z
z
z
Q � U
a oov
rl
a o b 3 a m o o `i b
au o P, aux 3 4 u
r
'� p p p a 15m P,.,
ro
a. . `n ami.; o o.an
o'° A o o °a o'er a �Arci 0�
z z z
" Oct
p
OOOOl 'o - obn
p+ N OtOOOOOb U b a L7
0000
M p
x o
U FL
p. U O y U W c'Ud a .a
Cq Prd N N
� b '".�y
"004 '004
4.0004 m C m
OOq
° p ° o ° > 001
�a a p.
0 AOOOA C)4 '00004
004
z m .p U ro id ctl ~ b ,000
`d w
U � O
Y Up 4 N b
'00000F ,-. O 0
O� ti N h a 7 F' N N nJ .4; 'O N
9 0 •°; ri F o°n M o B0 o, F 3 0
N
O
m
Q
z z z
y�Elm.,vmml
_❑ U
mo r.4
o rob Ly] moon °° .o o
'o 0 m o
°x a >qob °
�.�w v f� �P�o� oww's
'.' q m o p o a
b .� .a m ;; p ro `� b o° U o
mmmmA
q'U ro
p y w m o„ ,q u b G Y •� o o �o o ...�
rcl
o mg u d ,moo
> E a a m
q A. ra
,o .5 TPApi u ° o ,� .w p, P. o ,n j vv
o a >me. mms b
> abi o
In
p O' .� q U qo P� ro id O .q v P. N o °: 'J 7
c M
rH. U Op, G � U vFL cC E." C)4qa
° o ani .q z z z a m,nb oo a N°D.d
o o a±o
ctl w ° � � •a � q �" 0 a o
o ro o > ms
b P. o .w W b uro
o
033���
oP.. up" OA .o P. � O h u W
cd U '� id U r U y iL
Pm -
'El Pm -
y b
coo k° a u o.
v P. 6 q u h� y a v
° o °
y
v q
U � �
d U V d
a g aro ° g z ro° a b ro ti
000
0 o
'CJ.0 ,h .`�
wo w° o qoy m U o
N .� °
U y
Cjq
V oq g 4 aoi "o . ro .� . .�
0 p
cn ro° o o U- w o 'g sa m U
a
° ° a row ;.u� ° �.�
u �� o `d � A p ro ro� o mrc4 'y
a a� ro V o o a a
td
005
ra
a a. ro o� o
ai ca o o p > o
w C o P. v a� .� w a. 2 ro° o d d v Cu
OF
.�Z, .R P. v m p, ai 1:14
3 oen :d
u a �
q
b o o m
O o o4(5
° Q
❑❑ o
M4
rn
w b o 0
m P. B ,� c o
U? o U ro d U N y o
P
00 N 01 y O
C yCLa
aa�A°a
ti
zt
CZ
CQ
O
M
W
.71
b
a u . �a G � b ' b
� .� V G 6 U p U O U .-'�'. Va] ° v' •O ° �°d m O P y P. o p� 'k a�J O
rS
.N O^� h a3i b .UC
C14 o V p v v o �
F.' bq y U T3 7zI
N d a vvpvaa� b es o ,� 'o o H U U o
ro
.� ° L
" ro
rz
oq P.rCj p,
04 .E
V1
b b U L7 vi ti .� �Uy C .ti N N aJ p
Q M a�J C Q Urs
FFa]] .' a, .i°° ai a o L• J d Q P4 N y .
d ,� y 'a
aim b �8
OrS
N Ojn
Wro
o p o '° ❑° > o 3° O
' a o
p 9 b U O .� .O �tl ° U " •ydH, Utj
F'i W id .� 'ter" O aUJ N N
a"N�8 5�0u'� °ob��Fiib
•o Cr �+ p,
.R 1 .G O �+ .d
Cll
0 y U O M
v '�^�
m o N
oo rs
'O U .�❑ �� .b `• A W o w p N� O
_ m q❑ p v o z� w tv � p 3 ,� G v
cy "g �❑rd
��r+ ° o o '� b❑ Ci o q �.' p b❑
U1
U Si
U � �
0 0
m nn •^ o �a o o - o
° o x .3
78 U
V
C)4 0.1 itl cu x ro U w° °
ro o .� �
P4 2
U a V
a C' o 0
.a
10
06 t r5
bo a`di b .�.d •oma a ° o °° o A.. v aCi -� G ° V a
,L,
oC) w o y
G❑ o a 0 3 o U .p o d d v F4 0 o 0
v? ° o
6 °
• • • • . • • V d
da'
>0.di6..
U C
U � C
a o
C.
�
d a
"rig
4C�
d a
°
o°
b-0
ro P. v
7f N C
d F �
d V o 3
ro
`I
M Q ? m
cr
F
a
gym.` ai o .5 0 a°�i .� b b
Fj
o .c G �'C
Q
o
PQW .�yr!! .°G> o
C) ro
M U O 'aA
3xaou'o^obp o v
o b
ro
Oo OR
R4 +R C14
rn
ro
T5
o.db w v b.o o.�., •' o �'o.° W o a v oqx o
o.� h � o o a o o o.
m
° o F wv v Y y u o o n° cmn
o a� a v o
P7 o v o 4t- p o '� wo " v .°�. m
oF74
a°iQ KO o �A GOn N. .. r�io W'!T OF as ,'�j Q+ zi
.o b
uo w° o . OF cn .n y awi o w m m a�'i 0 'M y o o °?
qaq
,�. U .^ ° b '0 oM ° Pr U 0 E. m �q' w ° Q as m d a> 3 .d
q u p ro °' O W 0
A a'o d
P. P. b_
o b 0004
o.�. '�wo ofpp o
3 u q�q o o o .amu Ol i q a��i $ H° o 0
Qq U M Py W ,�
D
0
0
m
w
rs
o _
a
ti
r+
H�
p r5 T p � U b aH o o a
ro ro U ro b ❑ a a t o 0 o 5 G bt�
3 ov b v w b
.,I
U
Y Q a Y �u a o
3 qU .p o a"i ra o ,b a 5 0 ou '� b coi o U'�
,�°J• a , '� .w .eo o ' p a� p ,.a, o m o
. o o o O W 4'' '� `� o 0 0 ro
ICA
x cb~o ani a G7
0
o
4C� M4
U o � � d1 •� w •n " � N b4J � y O � h O vj .4+J OU `-' N
ZL F .�l .on ,�' �q o u
Qi
z
a
�
o
aAi
vv
v
a
.
4J
U
U
O
a
.n
c`1
rd
j
N
O
rs
N
.ti
v
N
"
ro18
.,�8.";n
w
C4
o
v
o
71
U
U
G
U
�
N
U
CL
cd
b
U
OU
ti
Qi
z
a
U
o
'd
N
y
bl]
U
Q''
U)
U]
O
m
I
W
k;
U row q'
b o •� o o a' o .� o a' o' o
� � o
G'. q y a) Pbti9 m LL O .0 O N C U ,v
<e U w c2 � ai � � y � •o
o v cdn L7 0' . y o c. o .° 0 5
Ed
b .� C7 b o b o H P.
a G E a� m vE�j
o C7 a d o 0 0 0 EO Cf > o
�b
EEC,
.p M.o G 3 Mm.op Ori, 'ro
F6 b 'o" w° a G a d o rs
ro
on
U
0
0 r6 'Ell
°
14S Ec�
a o C m o o •b Np o a, U U
z m'a ro. o B CA w o' m .� o" u u W as U
ti
�i
C
0
W
I�
M
� y 0 a\ � ayyJ d O U" _Oy U 7 U rte. b�] � N � � id �"� O O � b-0 .^+ •fid�++
asas 00
U 3 s° oAvwoa axa
m o as ° 'c7
oFj
F1evno " ° $F v a, u 0C7 Ca o
p a� >, ryq d v •� y p, o 'N
avi a ° A > Rr,^ '� C7 ',� o " W
' Axa v o o °"b " a W xPP. � v.db °�� � c .
aB
rq
ad
U o o U
pq
°Pa° .o W
.� 'o a c rM. o
x •ate° a o B w w �' oIvaaq
U ab b N U N^>^ �OM •n M; o �O U
.a m ran �.. O U' N d ° .� '�
.� Py 5 o .3 0 0 UO b � o U o q m C) y U
° a ° as b G° 5 a W n a4c� Palrw°
cOn
rp
Or, '0004
���'� ° oU�.o•�W�aaio°nb���'r.��o��m'-��-��~Waoa�ai°o
by 7 0 0 0 O F 'd r0, chi .r O
oM " m.a a. d' ° w 3•Sv a: Ub;S 'Q u O v
W
u c�a � •°
0
b0
CA
v y
U O y .H P� p CL
_ q O
q. 0o u
o "zt o
Y y p p 'o, Py�7go
L a v > H a
o o q c°Ji o ° q v 0C)4 ° ti
q o v o p v v G 8 a q ,, o a on
B.�''
g �
"po^ ' .o . ,o .a o .k •}.y .ar °' o
v b y °> <a a. ani p •q ,a .r, v B p ,p•.^� o .a . ti
q
Ej
o rd
An ro a.rcl
m 3 P.. rii ro
N
U �
d Y O
ro
rn
O
a q qro
aao
m
U CL
«� N ro b b
O N N
z� �ax a
C�❑
G
0
w
H . a
vj
� 5 u
a
" 3 a
y Ci 2
g
aroi'Sb ro�
z 0.
ti
0
W
Q
z
U
C
C
O
u
x
x
x
a
x
0
Q
z
H
x
x
x
a
x
0
0
0
0
0
is
.fro
'm
.ci
�n
on
ep
aq
on
z
z
z
z
z
H
M
:;
ro
�r
U
V I
PI
LL o CL cl m N b
.F o b ° o .o v w'. OS v o
bib 5 ° a B �a �p w uu �as�
d ro ,y 'w o zt
o U o o b o v o .� ° o
ter b .. U O p q d ° Q H .-. ° 'U O H a
0004 OF 0
• v> 74
005 Oj
b U o�
ors P4
wn 'o U c. q 2 a; ro � ° °: v q ° °
0
vqa 0�5° yoP.aa o'�°tj 47)A
0 w bo
° Q rob ,I '
a, Y •5 .o. ��°, a�°ii 'E� CCPA,
a _T
4 v o bq Pow. w v] '� w .b p� `� p3 W '� a
d
W
0.01 'o ro zto >.ou'a o �.r
baaarci o
0 o a .o V P o o q O v -_ o 0 o q °' p a W \? o°
d ° '� ro N o a 00 Cdig
o �� C o
pp qq
0 Pa ."�. om rv� .q ami o
qqq�
m � 0.'1 •� N g4 -q .� .^�-. � N �q p, =
� U o
� U b
q °
o] w m
a b�
>o
bb
�O o Z
0 ob o,Z
o �
w a a a
O W O pq� On
o o
rS
ro
° . b �a b :d .� r5
0 v° y oro ro a o m o 0
0
.� e> rs �
:d
o cd anZi
i
.o Fi a 0 ,c o 3° N b rs
A O N° B b d9 °
r�++�� N .cC
P mg
5 G
b � m aS.> u a o o N
W u b Uo z z
H
a z
Y
b
o
U
o o
rS
ro
° . b �a b :d .� r5
0 v° y oro ro a o m o 0
0
.� e> rs �
:d
o cd anZi
i
.o Fi a 0 ,c o 3° N b rs
A O N° B b d9 °
r�++�� N .cC
P mg
5 G
b � m aS.> u a o o N
W u b Uo z z
H
a z
a
ti
0
O
m
U q
U � O
�a
0 3 0
ani ai uo ° o
A. U
broD O Fey' FL U
pq O ❑ C>
I❑❑y � N
GL '� v Z a
> '�
z N
�•;�3 � �' a a a a
a�
arq
•d o >' .�. 4,5bpb o' Npa
o
PrE�
oav�pb'gaoo �0�o VUo m
y w - y'''p b .0° .vro
ci o o d
a° ° E 7ao 3 U o ��° Ocl
� p a H x
o v� o' o o o 0 0
o w S a y
v n
p o
a" q o ro
�a o o
m m
ro o o � o >❑, ti �� U N �� o b o ro 3
U 0 0a.� � coMu o
;a ao.� o o o 'yam ao 'o A p� '� .yam
� ,� r! 1.>.I, '� .� v o m � •�,° �o! P Y ani .b0 a abi o 'gin
15i. ro Fa
N
Q
z
H
a
� O� A
o5000nvo o���'�>ob
x rs ° o o a o
Z'
u o b °" o °4 cn� eu •o ti V a y
o b>
o
U U O
rt by b
.oa a
a ro
rd
b on biz
rl
Ho cq
c
w
L
W
ra
Fi
a °o :cl
ro ro a o
,��°, o °' ° ° d xa .n o4 'rt U° .a .� o o U ..'8
N vi U GL N O O U 'y � tC •°
U O •
k' q as En r5 0. abi
U 5 w b°
a'o
rci ° '� 0.b m q .� •� a '� .
o o �,
oroU o g� � ..meq G.: v R, M�.�.n o•o G`���
5 G w p A
b �� ;a4 My a0. qU � o u arv°i.� 3w n,3
cl
F
�m a W ag
rci
79
NUS fob a .:�oxob' abao
� .� H a o W °' o b
.5 v
a b 3 Q 9 a > o
m v " 'a o° a o a 0. b
0 •C w O � itl O C o � U ro N � � ^✓' ''�° ° � y b � � h ~ f'-' ° a. -w°.
Ctl cdd O ren 0 p4
U '� O�
^9 N ate+ N 0 a< O .a O
o o 0 v
0 0
°vIIqa o aq v w o p
U � y y � � � � ro .� b. 'd W � 3 •p p � � o a� �p O .d ^ao F'� T3 V' � �
o .� v a v 'd" o� w o °o o U CIA
'a
�A vai D 0 o vo q o M q0 v :a o
yC
o'era".nq'�.:.
N O.°. a `.�"" l� � 'd
r�
0
M
U c
�A
Gn
K+
(V
0
m
z z a
46 �o
r.n g qU �yf
p N O cd a' GO ra
aU+ 30 WcS
� U 3
U o Y d
b Ri N m Q O O N
.� b N A.
00 uotWWWWq
>1u E°o�rYY o
U :-1
id Wro
VWWA
'� 6 Ln N N y ti Vt U '� ro O N
Cb b' L1' b b
z Z M 3 ro 6 .3 .�
3 3 •n v
00
N
0
M
0
m
W
'z z
46
req
2°met
.3 � � +' v �'.°� Q v b o 4, � '� � .p •o p� °� ° h 0.l
°
44 Urjo Yb ° citltin� o aq
v m m
.� B m � � � � a� m 'b m 'm y m � °D cn .`�• . '�
Pre
a a
75° o G wo ... >
° o e—q.� U 5° b o a a°Gi °'' W G.
a y U 5 0 0
� a G U ° reee
l' z° ° d o 3
o d
Y °.b.� G.p ° r<
rE
Core)p c°i o NF, es .� b° 4d e a
m � •� � F d •� o o ani ° q � :� o � ? °J .� � � � � � oq .on
• o �m �i . r a .d
rl
N
U
b
�
U
d
U
y
Free
'z z
46
req
2°met
.3 � � +' v �'.°� Q v b o 4, � '� � .p •o p� °� ° h 0.l
°
44 Urjo Yb ° citltin� o aq
v m m
.� B m � � � � a� m 'b m 'm y m � °D cn .`�• . '�
Pre
a a
75° o G wo ... >
° o e—q.� U 5° b o a a°Gi °'' W G.
a y U 5 0 0
� a G U ° reee
l' z° ° d o 3
o d
Y °.b.� G.p ° r<
rE
Core)p c°i o NF, es .� b° 4d e a
m � •� � F d •� o o ani ° q � :� o � ? °J .� � � � � � oq .on
• o �m �i . r a .d
rl
N
s
W
C
'z
tel
EXHIBIT B
300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT
UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that should an agency choose to approve a
project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more
significant effects of the project, the agency shall make one or more written findings for each of those
significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. These findings
shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Possible findings are:
1J Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
2J Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3J Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(Public Resources Code 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15091).
CEQA requires that if the agency finds that an alternative to the project considered in an EIR is
infeasible, the agency is required to explain the specific reasons for rejecting the identified alternative.
An alternative is considered feasible if it is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, technological
and other considerations, as well as considerations for employment of highly trained workers (Public
Resources Code Sections 21061.1, 21081(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3); 15364). Under CEQA case
law, the concept of "feasibility" encompasses (i) the question of whether a particular alternative
promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project; and (ii) the question of whether an
alternative is "desirable" from a policy standpoint to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.
300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
The proposed 300 Airport Boulevard Project (Project) would include the construction on the 300 Airport
Boulevard Site of approximately 767,000 square feet of new uses including office space or life science
uses, retail uses, food services, and an amenities building with child care, an exercise facility and a food
service area, as well as parking to support these uses, rezoning of a small portion of the 300 Airport
Boulevard Site from the Anza Point South (APS) to Anza Point North (APN) district, as well as attendant
amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and Burlingame Zoning Code to accommodate
the Project:
The proposed amendments to the Specific Plan and Zoning Code would also apply to the remainder of
the APN area not subject to the Project development proposal. The remainder, an 8.58 -acre parcel
north of the 300 Airport Boulevard Site is referred to herein as the 350 Airport Boulevard Site. No
specific development proposal has been presented for the 350 Airport Boulevard Site, and any such
development proposal would undergo further project -specific environmental review, as necessary.
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OFALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
The Final EIR (as defined herein) analyzed the potential environmental effects of the Project, as well as
the environmental effects of the potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in
accordance with the proposed planning and zoning amendments as applicable to that Site. The Final EIR
also considered three alternatives to the Project (and development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in
accordance with the proposed planning and zoning amendments): the No Project Alternative, the
Existing Zoning Alternative and the Office/Hotel Alternative.
Listed below are the significant effects identified in the Final EIR for the Project (including potential
future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with applicable proposed planning
and zoning amendments), the mitigation measures incorporated in the Final FIR to reduce these effects
and the findings for the selected alternatives for consideration. Included by reference are the 300
Airport Boulevard Project Draft EIR, SCH #2010122012, December, 2011 and 300 Airport Boulevard
Project Response to Comments Document, May, 2012 (together, the Final EIR).
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
Based on substantial evidence in the whole record of these proceedings, it is hereby found and
determined that, where feasible, changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the
proposed Project to reduce the significant environmental impacts as identified in the Final EIR and in
Exhibit A —Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Improvement Measures,
accompanying these Findings. It is further found, however, that certain mitigation measures identified
in the Final EIR and as described in these Findings have been required of the Project (and where
applicable, potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site), pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21002 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, which may lessen, but do not avoid
(i.e., reduce to less -than -significant levels), the potentially significant environmental effects associated
with implementation of the Project. These are described below in this Exhibit B. Although all of the
mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval accompanying these Findings (which
implements all feasible mitigation measures required of the Project in the Final EIR) are adopted, for
some of the impacts listed below, the effects remain significant and unavoidable despite the
implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.
It is further found, as described below, based on the analysis contained within the Final EIR, other
considerations in the record, and the significance criteria identified in the Final EIR, that because some
aspects of the Project (including potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site) could
cause potentially significant impacts for which feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce
the impact to a less -than -significant level, those impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
Thus, the following significant impacts on the environment, as reflected in the Final EIR, are
unavoidable. As more fully explained in Exhibit C —Statement of Overriding Considerations
accompanying these Findings, under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and (b), and CEQA
Guidelines 15091(a)(3), 15092(b)(2)(B), and 15093, it is found and determined that legal, environmental,
economic, social, technological and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant
adverse impacts of the Project (including potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site
in accordance with proposed planning and zoning amendments applicable to that site) for each of the
significant and unavoidable impacts described below. This finding is supported by substantial evidence
in the record of this proceeding.
2
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT —Intersection Operations:
Impacts TR -1 & TR -7: Traffic contributions from the Project (and any potential future development of
the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments)
to the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar Avenue intersection in the City of San Mateo would exacerbate the
existing intersection condition, which currently operates at a Level of Service "F". This would be a
significant transportation impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE
The City of San Mateo is considering a range of potential improvements at the Amphlett
Boulevard/Poplar Avenue intersection to provide sufficient capacity for existing and future traffic
volume. The Amphlett/Poplar intersection would be operating at LOS "D" or better with
implementation of any of the options, both under existing conditions and the 2030 time horizon, which
takes into account future development of the Project, and potential future development of the 350
Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with planning and zoning amendments applicable to that Site.
However, the City of San Mateo has not identified a specific improvement project at this time.
Accordingly, the Final EIR includes the following mitigation measure to address impacts to the
Amphlett/Poplar intersection:
TR -1 Fair Share Contribution.
The Project Sponsor shall make a fair -share contribution toward the construction costs of the
alternative selected by the City of San Mateo to address the Amphlett/Poplar intersection,
which will be based on the net additional traffic contributed to the intersection by development
of the Project. The effects of potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in
accordance with proposed planning and zoning amendments as applicable to that Site would be
mitigated by requiring sponsor(s) of such development to make a similar contribution.
No further feasible mitigation measures exist to address this impact because the affected intersection is
not within the jurisdiction of the City of Burlingame.
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
As discussed in more detail in the Final EIR, the Project -related and cumulative impacts to the Amphlett
Boulevard/Poplar Avenue intersection would be mitigated to a less than significant level through
implementation of a traffic solution by the City of San Mateo. However, since no specific improvement
project has been identified and because the range of proposed solutions for this intersection is under
the control of an agency other than the City of Burlingame (Caltrans and San Mateo), implementation
must be considered uncertain, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT —Freeway Segment Operations:
Impacts TR -3 & TR -9: Traffic generated by the Project (and any potential future development of the 350
Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments as
applied to that Site) would have a significant impact on the operation of six US 101 freeway segments,
and would have a significant cumulative impact on the operation of ten US 101 freeway segments.
MITIGATION MEASURE
Mitigation of significant Project impacts on freeway segments would require freeway widening to
construct additional through lanes, thereby increasing freeway capacity. It is not feasible for an
individual development project to bear responsibility for implementing extensive transportation system
V
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OFALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
improvements due to cost constraints and constraints in acquisition of right-of-way. In addition, no
comprehensive project to add through lanes by Caltrans or C/CAG exists for individual projects to
contribute to, and no other mechanism exists for making a fair share contribution to such
improvements. As such, no feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce the Project's impacts on the
specified freeway segments to less than significant levels.
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
As discussed in more detail in the Final EIR (pages 3.4-24 and 3.6-17 and Appendix C), construction of
bicycle pathways and multi -use trails to encourage travel to and from the Project site by non -motorized
modes, and the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program incorporated into the Project
includes all feasible measures to reduce impacts to US 101 freeway segment operations. Effects of
potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with proposed planning
and zoning amendments applicable to that Site would be mitigated, though potentially not to below a
significant level, by requiring a similar TDM program. Despite implementation of these measures,
individual and cumulative impacts from Project traffic contributions to US 101 freeway segments would
remain significant and unavoidable.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT— Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans•
Impact AQ -1 & AQ -8: The Project (and any potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard
Site in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments as applied to that
Site), would increase individual and cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) at a rate greater than that
assumed in Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2010 Clean Air Plan (which
incorporates and updates BAAQMD's 2005 Ozone Attainment Plan), and therefore would result in a
conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
As discussed
previously, all
feasible
measures to reduce VMT have been incorporated in the TDM
program to be
implemented
as part of
the Project.
Mitigation Measure AQ -1.1 would require implementation of TDM measures for any potential future
development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site similar to those included as a component of
development of the 300 Airport Boulevard Site:
AQ -1.1 Implement TDM Program as Part of Any Future Development of the 350 Airport
Boulevard Site. These measures could include: secure bicycle storage, showers and changing
rooms, shuttle service, preferential parking for carpoolers, preferential parking for vanpoolers,
commute assistance center, employees' surveys, video conferencing centers, on-site amenities
accommodations, on-site bicycles for employees, child care services, guaranteed ride home
program, transportation action plan, transportation management association, and coordination
of TDM programs.
This measure is included for potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in
accordance with the proposed planning and zoning amendments as they apply to that Site. Inclusion of
this measure for any future development at the 350 Airport Boulevard Site could reduce VMT from the
Site, however, there is no current development proposal for the 350 Airport Boulevard Site, so the
extent of that reduction is unknown at this time. Any future development proposal will undergo further
project -specific environmental review, as necessary.
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
With the extensive TDM measures included in the Project (and with similar measures required of any
future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site), there are no additional feasible mitigation
measures that would further reduce impacts as a result of increased VMT. For the reasons set out in the
Final EIR, Project -related impacts resulting from conflict with assumptions of the 2010 Clean Air Plan
would be significant and unavoidable.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT — Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursor Emissions Compliance
(Construction -Related Emissions):
Impacts AQ -3 & AQ -9: Equipment used for construction activities associated with the Project would
result in short-term emission increases of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors (ROGs and NOx),
and any potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with the
proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments as applied to that Site would result in short-term
construction -related ROG emissions, that exceed the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA significance criteria for these
pollutants, resulting in an individual and cumulatively significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -3.1 and AQ -3.2, implementing BAAQMD's Basic and
Optional Control Measures for construction emissions would reduce construction -related emissions of
ROGs and NOx from the development of the Project (and any potential future development of the 350
Airport Boulevard Site):
AQ -3.1 Construction Equipment Emissions Minimization. To reduce the potential impacts
resulting from Project construction activities, the Project Sponsor shall include in contract
specifications a requirement for the following measures:
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes;
• The Project shall develop a construction plan demonstrating that the off-road
equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction Project (i.e.,
owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a Project wide fleet -average
20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent
CARB fleet average (as specified in California Code of Regulations Article 4.8, Section
2449 General Requirements for In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets). Acceptable
options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low -emission
diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after -treatment products,
add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become
available;
e All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best
Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM;
Use of Interim Tier 4, if applicable, or equivalent equipment for all uses where such
equipment is available;
• Use of Tier 3 equipment with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or alternative
fuel vehicles for applications where Tier 4 Interim engines are not available;
Prohibition of diesel generators for construction purposes where feasible alternative
sources of power are available;
5
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF A L TERNA TIVES THAT COULD MITIGA TE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
• All construction equipment shall be maintained in proper working condition in
accordance with manufacturer's specifications;
• Diesel -powered construction equipment shall comply with BAAQMD requirements or
meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 EPA/CARB standards; and
• To the extent feasible, the existing electricity infrastructure surrounding the
construction sites shall be used rather than electrical generators powered by internal
combustion engines.
AQ-3.2Application of Low-VOC Coatings. The Project Sponsor shall use low VOC (i.e., ROG)
coatings beyond the local requirements as per the BAAQMD Guideline (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3:
ArchitecturalCoatings)
These measures are included in connection with the Project and the proposed planning and zoning
amendments as they apply to the 350 Airport Boulevard Site. Inclusion of these measure for any future
development at the 350 Airport Boulevard Site could reduce near-term construction -related emissions
of ROGs from the Site; however, there is no current development proposal for the 350 Airport Boulevard
Site, so the extent of that reduction is unknown at this time. Any future development proposal will
undergo further project -specific environmental review, as required.
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
As discussed in more detail in the Final EIR, even with the implementation of the foregoing mitigation
measures, which would reduce near-term construction -related emissions of ROGs and NOx, emissions of
these pollutants associated with the Project would still have the potential to exceed the 2011 BAAQMD
significance thresholds for ROG and NOx emissions, and potential future development of the 350 Airport
Boulevard Site in accordance with the proposed planning and zoning amendments applicable to that Site
could also exceed the 2011 BAAQMD significance threshold for ROG emissions. No additional feasible
mitigation measures beyond those set forth in Mitigation Measures AQ -3.1 and AQ -3.2, above, are
available to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, near-term construction -related
emissions of ROGs and NOx from Project development (and ROG emissions from potential future
development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accord with the proposed planning and zoning
amendments) are considered significant and unavoidable.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT— Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursor Emissions Compliance (Operational
Emissions).
Impact AQ -4 and AQ40: The Project would result in operational emissions of PMlo in excess of the
2011 BAAQMD CEQA significance criteria, and together with any potential future development of the
350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with proposed planning and zoning amendments applicable to
that Site, would result in emissions of ROGs and NOx, as well as PMlo, in excess of the significance
criteria.
MITIGATION MEASURE
The Project would reduce stationary source emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors by
seeking Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification or equivalent for Project
buildings and exceeding energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements, as discussed in more detail in
the Final EIR at page 3.5-25. Furthermore, the Project includes all feasible mitigation measures for
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
reduction of ROGs, NOx and PMlo attributable to mobile sources through the TDM program included in
the Project.
For any future
development of the 350
Airport Boulevard Site based
on the application
of the proposed
planning and
zoning amendments to
that Site, implementation
of AQ -4.1 would
further reduce
stationary source operational emissions
of criteria air pollutants and
ozone precursors:
AQ -4.1 Implement Energy
Efficiency Measures for Any Future Development
of the 350
Airport
Boulevard Site, LEED Gold
or equivalent certification and to exceed energy
efficiency
beyond
Title 24 requirements which would further aid in reducing stationary source emissions.
This measure is included in connection with the proposed planning and zoning amendments as they
apply to the 350 Airport Boulevard Site. Inclusion of these measure for any future development at the
350 Airport Boulevard Site could reduce air quality impacts from the Site; however, there is no current
development proposal for the 350 Airport Boulevard Site, so the extent of that reduction is unknown at
this time. Any future development proposal will undergo further project -specific environmental review,
as required.
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
As explained in more detail in the Fina! EIR at pages 3.5-23 to 3.5-25, operational emissions of ROGs,
NOx and PMlo, primarily attributable to mobile sources, would not be reduced to below the 2011
BAAQMD CEQA thresholds for these pollutants even with the extensive TDM measures already included
in Project (and required of any potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site).
Stationary source emissions of ROGs, NOx and PMlo would be reduced through LEED Gold or equivalent
certification of Project buildings, but not sufficiently to reduce emissions to below the 2011 BAAQMD
thresholds when combined with mobile source emissions. There are no additional feasible mitigation
measures that would further reduce impacts as a result of increased VMT (mobile sources) or stationary
sources associated with the Project (or potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site
in accordance with the proposed planning and zoning amendments applied to that Site). Therefore, the
impact of operational PM10 emissions from the Project (and cumulative operational ROG, NOx and PMlo
emissions from the Project and potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in
accordance with the proposed planning and zoning amendments applied to that Site) would be
significant and unavoidable.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT—Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Impact CC -1: The Project, and potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in
accordance with the proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments as applied to that Site, would
result in generation of GHG emissions that exceed 2011 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds for land
development projects.
MITIGATION MEASURES
300 Airport Boulevard
As discussed in more detail in the Final EIR at pages 3.6-19 to 3.6-20, implementation of Mitigation
Measures CC -1.1 through CC -1.8, below, would reduce GHG emissions associated with operation of the
Project by approximately 18%, but would not reduce GHG emissions to below BAAQMD CEQA
thresholds for such emissions:
G
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OFALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
CC -1.1 Incorporate GHG Reduction Measures for Maintenance Activities. Provide infrastructure
for the use of electric landscape equipment during Project landscaping activities, where feasible.
CC -1.2 Incorporate Trees and Vegetation into Project Design. Trees and other shade structures
shall be incorporated into the Project site Plan to maximize summer shade and to minimize
winter shade.
CC -1.3 Renewable Energy System. Offset 10 percent of Project electricity demand through
implementation of onsite renewable energy systems or through investment in offsite alternative
energy systems.
CC -1.4 Drought Tolerant Landscaping. Reduce irrigation -related water demand of the Project
by a minimum of 10 percent through the implementation of drought tolerant landscaping.
CC -1.5 Cool Roof Material.
Incorporate cool -roof materials
into Project design
to reduce
electricity demand associated
with building heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning
(HVAC) by
a minimum of 7 percent.
26
percent.
CC -1.6 Water Conservation Measures. Implement immediate water conservation measures to
reduce Project building water demand by 33 percent. Building water demand shall ultimately
be reduced by 50 percent when the City's recycled water system is implemented.
CC -1.7
Energy Efficiency
beyond Title
24
Standards.
Reduce Project building energy demand
beyond
the 2005 Title 24
Standards by
26
percent.
CC -1.8
Operation
Solid
Waste Reduction. Implement a solid
waste reduction program to
reduce
operational
solid
waste from the Project
by a minimum of
10 percent.
350 Airport Boulevard
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CC -1.9 through CC -1.11 would also reduce GHG emissions from
operational activities associated with any potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard
Site in accordance with the proposed planning and zoning amendments applied to that Site:
CC -1.9 Incorporate Mitigation Measures CC -1.1 through CC -1.8 as described Above. Any future
development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site shall comply with Mitigation Measures CC -1.1
through CC -1.8 as described for the Project, above.
7C-1.10 Implement
aTDM program. Any future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site
shall implement a TDM program similar to that included in the Project, to reduce transportation -
related GHG emissions.
CC -1.11 Pursue LEED Certification. Any future development of the 350 Airport
Boulevard Site
shall seek LEED Gold certification or equivalent for development per the recommendations of
the City's Green Building Ordinance, and shall submit draft LEED (or equivalent) checklists to the
City Sustainability Coordinator for review and consultation.
:3
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
These measures are included in connection with the proposed planning and zoning amendments as they
apply to the 350 Airport Boulevard Site. Inclusion of these measure for any future development at the
350 Airport Boulevard Site could reduce GHG emissions from that development of Site by up to 18%;
however, there is no current development proposal for the 350 Airport Boulevard Site, so the extent of
that reduction is unknown at this time. Any future development proposal will undergo further project -
specific environmental review, as required.
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce GHG emissions from the
operation of the Project and from operation of any future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard
Site, but would not reduce GHG emissions below the BAAQMD significance thresholds either individually
or cumulatively. No further feasible mitigation measures are available for reduction of operational GHG
emissions from the Project (or potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site.
Therefore, the impact of operational GHG emissions from the Project and operational GHG emissions
from potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with the proposed
planning and zoning amendments applied to that Site, individually and cumulatively, would be
significant and unavoidable.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT —Conflict with Applicable Plans Policies or Regulations Regarding Reduction of
GHG Emissions:
Impact CC -2: The Project, and potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in
accordance with the proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments as applied to that Site, would
conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions since it is not consistent with the BAAQMD's implementation of the State's GHG reduction
goals pursuant to AB 32. This conflict with GHG reduction plans, policies, and regulations would be a
significant impact.
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
Even with implementation of applicable mitigation measures CC -1 through CC -11 above, the Project,
and potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with the proposed
planning and zoning amendments as applied to that Site, would not comply with BAAQMD's
implementation of AB 32. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available to bring the Project,
or potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site, into compliance with BAAQMD's
implementation of state plans for reduction of GHG emissions. Therefore, this conflict with regional
GHG reduction plans, policies, and regulations would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITYOFALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT
UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
BACKGROUND
This Section describes the reasons for approving the proposed Project and the reasons for rejecting the
alternatives identified in the Final EIR. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives to the proposed project or the project location that substantially reduce or avoid potentially
significant impacts of the proposed project. CEQA requires that every EIR also evaluate a "No Project'
alternative. Alternatives provide the decision maker with a basis of comparison to the proposed project
in terms of their significant impacts and their ability to meet project objectives. This comparative
analysis is used to consider reasonable, potentially feasible options for minimizing environmental
consequences of the proposed project.
The Alternatives set forth in the Final EIR and listed below are hereby rejected based upon substantial
evidence in the record, including evidence of economic, legal, social, technological, and other
considerations described in this Exhibit B, in addition to those described in Exhibit C — Statement of
Overriding Considerations accompanying these Findings, that make these alternatives infeasible. These
determinations are made with the awareness that CEQA defines "feasibility" to mean capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, legal, social, technological and other considerations. Pub. Resources Code 21081(a)(3);
CEQA Guidelines § 15364. Under CEQA case law, the concept of "feasibility" encompasses (i) the
question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project;
and (ii) the question of whether an alternative is "desirable" from a policy standpoint to the extent that
desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal,
and technological factors.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
Tables 5-9 and 5-10 in the Final EIR show that, except for the No Project Alternative which would not
change the environment from the present, all of the alternatives considered would have significant and
unavoidable impacts on intersection operations (Amphlett/Poplar), Freeway Segments, Cumulative
Transportation Impacts, and impacts from operational GHG emissions similar to the Project (and
potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with the proposed
Specific Plan and Zoning amendments as applied to that Site). For the Project, the Existing Zoning
Alternative would have a less than significant impact on Compliance with the 2010 Clean Air Plan and
operational air quality emissions; for potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site,
the Existing Zoning Alternative would have a less than significant impact on. Compliance with the 2010
Clean Air Plan. For the proposed Project, and potential future development of the 350 Airport
Boulevard Site, the Office/Hotel Alternative would have comparable significant and unavoidable
m pa cts.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it is not satisfactory at achieving the basic
project objectives. The No Project Alternative would not meet the primary objective of providing a
corporate campus of multiple office buildings and an amenities center at the 300 Airport Boulevard Site.
The No Project Alternative would not include construction of buildings; therefore, office/life science and
amenity uses would not be able to function at the Site. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not
allow for the realignment of Airport Boulevard through the Site, which is intended to provide traffic -
10
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
calming and safety in the area. Further, Bay waterfront access would not be improved, construction of
an improved Bay Trail segment along the shoreline would not be accomplished, and public access to the
eastern shoreline of Sanchez Channel would continue to be limited. As such, the No Project Alternative
does not meet the specified project objectives.
In addition, the No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible because the present state of the land, a
vacani site with paving from a former drive-in theater and car parking operation, is underutilized and
fails to capture potential economic and social value from its designation as a development parcel under
the City's adopted land use plans for the Bayfront area, and limits public use of the adjacent San
Francisco Bay shoreline at Sanchez Channel contrary to goals of the City's adopted land use plans.
Existing Zoning Alternative
Under the Existing Zoning Alternative, the 300 Airport Boulevard Site would be developed in accordance
with the existing Bayfront Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Anza Point North (APN) Zoning Code
regulations (and Anza Point South (APS) designations for the 0.4 -acre Rezone Parcel at the southern
edge of the Project site). The office/life science buildings on the 300 Airport Boulevard Site would be
constructed at 0.6 FAR and the amenities center could be constructed at 0.5 FAR, which would result in
approximately 474,000 square feet of development. In addition, the buildings at the 300 Airport
Boulevard Site would not exceed 30 feet in height along the Bay and 50 feet along Sanchez Channel. Up
to 1,529 workers could be employed under the Existing Zoning Alternative, Airport Boulevard would not
be realigned through the 300 Airport Boulevard Project site and as a result, shoreline and Bay Trail
improvements would be less extensive. Lastly, since no amendments would be made to the Specific
Plan or Zoning Code, one less significant and unavoidable impact — conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan
— would occur from any potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance
with applicable planning and zoning requirements.
The Existing Zoning Alternative would meet or partially meet four of the project objectives. The Existing
Zoning Alternative would still develop the 300 Airport Boulevard Site, but not to the extent identified in
the project objectives. It would develop a waterfront corporate campus of multiple office buildings,
potentially including an amenities center as called for in the project objectives. Since the alternative
would be in the same location at 300 Airport Boulevard, the campus would still be located in a
prominent location proximate to major transportation corridors. The Existing Zoning Alternative would
be LEED or equivalent certified and designed in a sustainable manner.
The Existing Zoning Alternative would result in fewer significant and unavoidable impacts compared
with the proposed Project, and from potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard in
accordance with planning and zoning amendments as applicable to that Site, and as such is identified as
the environmentally superior alternative in addition to the No Project Alternative, as required under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In comparison to the Project, the Existing Zoning Alternative
would not conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan because it would result in a proportional percentage
ncrease in both population and vehicle miles traveled, consistent with the assumptions of the Clean Air
Plan. Also, the Existing Zoning Alternative would meet 2011 BAAQMD thresholds of significance for
ROG, NOx and PMlo emissions on a Project basis, resulting in a less than significant impact related to
operational emissions of those pollutants. As discussed in more detail in the Final EIR at pages 3.5-23 to
3.5-26, these emissions are predominately attributable to mobile sources, so the lesser total
development under the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in fewer total vehicle trips and thus
fewer total emissions. However, the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in cumulatively significant
impacts from operational NOx and PMlo emissions greater than the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds.
11
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OFALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
Lastly, potential
future development
of the 350 Airport
Boulevard Site under the Existing Zoning
Alternative would
not conflict with the
2010 Clean Air Plan.
The Existing Zoning Alternative is rejected, however, because, although it would have fewer significant
and unavoidable impacts and meet or partially meet four of the project objectives, it would completely
or partially fail to meet the majority of the project objectives and would not result in a project that
meets commercial office market demand in the vicinity of the Project, and is thus considered infeasible.
The Existing Zoning Alternative would not achieve the primary project objective for the Project to
"develop an approximately 800,000-sf waterfront corporate campus." The Existing Zoning Alternative
would include only 474,000 sf of development (compared to 767,000 sf under the Project), which is
significantly less than the stated objective. As such, this alternative would not include the desired
development intensity.
Furthermore, to provide approximately 474,000 sf of development at the 300 Airport Boulevard Site
within the existing zoning setback and height limits, the buildings under the Existing Zoning Alternative
would be less dense, spread out more extensively over the Site. A less dense building pattern would
occupy what could otherwise be intracampus open space and connections, and necessitate placement
of buildings closer to the Sanchez Channel shoreline, reducing the amount of public shoreline open
space available. This would conflict with the project objective of developing the campus "with sufficient
building height and density to provide usable public open space among the buildings that connects to
the improved waterfront edges of the site,"
Also, as discussed above, the Existing Zoning Alternative design calls for smaller buildings spread
throughout the Project site that conform to the existing height limitations of 30 feet along the Bayshore
and 50 feet along Sanchez Channel. The smaller floor plate buildings, of two to three stories and
between 20,000 and 85,000 total square feet, would not meet the project objective of "individual
buildings of sufficient density and floor -plate size to allow flexibility in user make-up, particularly
focused on life science and information technology users." In the vicinity of the Project Area, market
demand for commercial office uses from these users is greatest for buildings with larger floor plates
(approximately 30,000 sf) and sufficient total building area that allows for larger (greater than 100,000
square feet) blocks of leasable (or saleable) space. The Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet this
project objective, and would also be insufficient to address current market demand, putting the
Alternative at an economic disadvantage in obtaining tenants and meeting City revenue projections for
the development of the Project site.
The Existing Zoning Alternative also would fail to meet the project objective of realigning Airport
Boulevard through the Project site. Since the Existing Zoning Alternative proposes a less dense building
pattern, it would not provide sufficient land to permit 474,000 sf of development and realignment of
Airport Boulevard in a manner that would provide the traffic calming benefits of realignment through
the Project site. This would be inconsistent with the project objective of "realignment of Airport
Boulevard through the site in a manner that provides traffic -calming effects to maintain a pedestrian -
friendly atmosphere within the campus and additional access to the Bay shoreline."
Lastly, maintaining the existing Airport Boulevard alignment would prevent rehabilitation and expansion
of the Bay Trail in place of the existing roadway alignment, and would permit far less restored and
improved shoreline open space along the Bay. This would be inconsistent with the project objective of
tFa
EXHIBIT B - 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PROJECT
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
"improving and enhancing public access to and within the site, including the waterfront, by extending
the Bay Trail through the site and by expanding and improving the waterfront edges of the site."
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, it is found that the Existing Zoning Alternative is infeasible based on
economic and social considerations, failure to promote the underlying goals and objectives of the
Project and provision of less desirable policy outcomes for the Anza Point North area, which, on balance,
outweigh the reduced environmental impacts of the Alternative.
Office/Hotel Alternative
The Office/Hotel Alternative would include offices in Buildings B3 and B4, an amenities center, and a
parking structure, as proposed under the 300 Airport Boulevard Project, However, Buildings B1 and B2
would be replaced by a 226,338-sf hotel. The Zoning Code would be amended as per the 300 Airport
Boulevard Project; however, the existing requirements and limitations for hotel uses would still be
applicable. Up to 1,786 workers would be employed under the Office/Hotel Alternative.
The
Office/Hotel Alternative
would not result in fewer significant
and unavoidable impacts compared to
the
proposed Project.
The Office/Hotel Alternative would meet or partially meet the majority of the project objectives. The
300 Airport Boulevard Site would be developed with a 447,000-sf office campus with a 37,000-sf
amenities center in the West Campus and a 226,338-sf hotel in the East Campus, for a total of 710,338
sf. Although the hotel complex would make the proposed square footage of the alternative almost
equal to the proposed Project, the corporate campus would be significantly less than proposed under
the 300 Airport Boulevard Project. The Office/Hotel Alternative would build out the site to almost the
full development potential allowed under the revised zoning, but with a much reduced office campus.
The Office/Hotel Alternative would also permit development of a waterfront corporate campus of
multiple office buildings with an amenities center. Since the alternative would be in the same location
at 300 Airport Boulevard, the campus would still be located in a prominent location proximate to major
transportation corridors. The Office/Hotel Alternative would be LEED certified or equivalent and would
design the office and hotel uses to function in a sustainable manner. In addition, Airport Boulevard
would be realigned to bisect the site and adequate parking would be provided to meet the demand.
Further, this alternative would allow public access to the shoreline along the Bay and Sanchez Channel
and would extend and rehabilitate the existing Bay Trail. Since the Office/Hotel Alternative would
include amendments to the Specific Plan and Zoning Code, the buildings would be able to be
constructed at a greater height than currently permitted. As such, the taller building heights would
allow for more open space between the buildings.
The Office/Hotel Alternative is rejected because it would not result in fewer significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts and hotel development is inconsistent with the primary project objective of a
corporate office campus of approximately 800,000 square feet.
Furthermore, current market demand for hotel space in the vicinity of the Project site is insufficient to
justify the construction of a hotel as called for in the Office/Hotel alternative. Thus, the hotel
component of the Alternative is economically infeasible under current market conditions.
5:181I(lingame Point�CC RepoRs-Ordinances & Resolutions�CC Resolution - EIR and Pioject�Exhibit 8 -Findings Regarding Significant EJfects.docx
13
EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that in the event an agency chooses
to approve a project that includes significant and unavoidable impacts which can not be reduced
to acceptable levels the agency must adopt a written Statement of Overriding Considerations
which identifies why the local agency is willing to accept the significant unavoidable effect(s).
14 Cal. Code Regs (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15043. The purpose of the statement of
overriding considerations is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (a and b):
(a) CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance, as applicable, the economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the
project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of
a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations should be read in conjunction with the findings under
Section 15091 (attached herewith as Exhibit B) and should be used in decision making to
balance the benefits of the project against the unavoidable environmental risks. CEQA also
requires that the statement of overriding considerations be included in the record of project
approval and mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
Significant and Unavoidable Effects
The proposed 300 Airport Boulevard Project (Project) would include an officellife sciences
campus development, rezoning of a small portion of the 300 Airport Boulevard Site from the
Anza Point South (APS) to Anza Point North (APN) district, as well as attendant amendments to
the Bayfront Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and Burlingame Municipal Code to accommodate the
Project.
The proposed amendments to the Specific Plan and Municipal Code would also apply to the
remainder of the APN subarea not subject to the Project development proposal. The remainder
s a 8.58 -acre parcel north of the 300 Airport Boulevard Site referred to herein as the 350 Airport
Boulevard Site. No specific development proposal has been presented for the 350 Airport
Boulevard Site, and any such development proposal would undergo further project -specific
environmental review, as necessary.
The Project, and any potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in
accordance with the proposed planning and zoning amendments as applied to that Site, would
result in environmental impacts in the following seven categories which are significant and
unavoidable and cannot be reduced to levels acceptable to the community:
Statement of Overriding Considerations
300 Airport Boulevard Project
Impacts TRA & TR -7: Traffic contributions from the Project, and any potential future
development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with proposed Specific Plan and
Zoning Code amendments as applied to that Site, to the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar Avenue
intersection in the City of San Mateo would exacerbate the existing intersection condition, which
currently operates at a Level of Service 7",
Impacts TR -3 & T114 Traffic generated by the Project, and any potential future development
of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code
amendments as applied to that Site, would have a significant impact on the operation of six US
101 freeway segments, and would have a significant cumulative impact on the operation of ten
US 101 freeway segments.
Impacts AQA & AQ -8: The Project, and any potential future development of the 350 Airport
Boulevard Site in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments
as applied to that Site, would increase individual and cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
at a rate greater than that assumed in Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
2010 Clean Air Plan (which incorporates and updates BAAQMD's 2005 Ozone Attainment
Plan), and therefore would result in a conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
Impacts AQ -3 & AQ -9: Equipment used for construction activities associated with the Project
would result in short-term emission increases of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors
(ROGs and NOx), and any potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in
accordance with the proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments as applied to that
Site would result in short-term construction -related ROG emissions, that exceed the 2011
BAAQMD CEQA significance criteria for these pollutants, resulting in an individual and
cumulatively significant impact.
Impacts AQ -4 and AQ -10: The Project, and any potential future development of the 350
Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code
amendments as applied to that Site, would result in operational emissions of PM10, ROGs and
NOx, in excess of the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA significance criteria.
Impact CC -1: The Project, and potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site
in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments as applied to that
Site, would result in generation of GHG emissions that exceed 2011 BAAQMD CEQA
thresholds for land development projects.
Impact CC -2: The Project, and potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site
in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Code amendments as applied to that
Site, would conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions since it is not consistent with the BAAQMD's implementation of the
State's GHG reduction goals pursuant to AB 32. This conflict with GHG reduction plans,
policies, and regulations would be a significant impact.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
While the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), composed of the 300 Airport Boulevard
Project Draft EIR, SCH #2010122012, December, 2011 and 300 Airport Boulevard Project
Response to Comments Document, May, 2012, notes that development of the Project, and any
potential future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site in accordance with proposed
2
Statement of Overriding Considerations
300 Airport Boulevard Project
planning and zoning amendments as applied to that Site, may result in the generation of
significant traffic, air quality and climate change impacts, the City Council hereby finds that, for
the reasons set forth below, the economic, social and other considerations prompted by the
Project outweigh the unavoidable traffic, air quality and climate change impacts identified in the
findings.
First, the Project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the Burlingame General
Plan by providing office development consistent with the Plan. The General Plan recognizes
that, given the generally developed nature of the City west of US 101, development of the
Specific Plan area east of US 101 generates additional revenue for services to the west side of
US 101, while providing San Francisco Bay access amenities for city residents and visitors.
Revenue generated by commercial development in the Specific Plan area is a significant
contributor to the City's capacity to provide the quality of life that residents enjoy, such as
recreational facilities, libraries and community parks and open space. The thoughtful integration
of new office and hotel uses throughout the Specific Plan area continues to give the City
additional revenue and foundation to provide expanded community services and facilities in the
Bayfront area and throughout the City, which benefit the entire community.
Second, the Project would generate net positive revenue to the City in accordance with Specific
Plan policies that any development in the Specific Plan area should yield a high revenue to cost
ratio. The applicant has provided a Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Project, prepared by Economic
& Planning Systems, Inc. dated April 23, 2012, which discusses the economic benefits to
Burlingame. Overall, the Project will result in approximately $500,000 annually in general fund
revenues above the costs of providing services to the Project.
According to the Fiscal Impact Analysis, the fiscal impact of the Project on the City's General
Fund at Project buildout will be positive, with the revenues generated by the Project estimated
to be greater than the costs of providing additional public services. By buildout, the Project is
expected to generate annual revenues of approximately $1.1 million. General Fund costs will
be $582,000 annually, resulting in a net positive annual impact on the General Fund of
approximately $500,000 This surplus is driven primarily by the property tax generated by the
Project. The Project will be able to cover its service costs and provide surplus revenues to
increase levels of service in other parts of the City, consistent with the goals and policies of the
Specific Plan.
Third, development of the Project in the Specific Plan area will benefit the City through
increased hotel occupancy and collection of increased transient occupancy taxes. The Specific
Plan encourages such beneficial integration of commercial land uses to maximize future
revenue opportunities. See, e.g., Specific Plan Policy D-3. The Fiscal Impact Analysis
demonstrates that the Project would provide such beneficial integration by adding office/life
science uses which support existing hotels located in the Specific Plan area. Also, hoteliers in
the area have expressed to the City a need for a strong office community nearby to support and
complement the area hotels, and have requested that the City encourage office use to provide a
more diverse customer base and better economic stability. Thus, increased hotel occupancy
generated by the Project will benefit the City.
Fourth, the Project proposes to construct two major transportation improvement projects
outlined in the Specific Plan as being necessary to provide a safe, efficient transportation
system within the Specific Plan area and connecting to US 101 and other parts of the
community.
3
Statement of Overriding Considerations
300 Airport Boulevard Project
A. The Project will realign Airport Boulevard through the Project site to alleviate capacity
constraints and safety issues presented by the existing, substandard roadway
alignment as identified in the Specific Plan. See Specific Plan, pp. III -10, IV -7,
Airport Boulevard would be realigned through the Project site in a manner that
provides for more efficient flow of traffic through the site, eliminating the problematic
curve at the northeast edge of the Project. In addition, the Project would widen
Airport Boulevard to four lanes through the site, except where it moves offsite to the
southeast of the Project site because Airport Boulevard narrows to two lanes as it
moves offsite to the southeast. However, the Project provides additional dedicated
right of way in the southeastern portion of the Project site to accommodate any
potential future widening of Airport Boulevard offsite to the southeast. The realigned
and widened roadway will also provide signed bicycle routes to facilitate increased
and safer bicycle travel through the Specific Plan area.
B. The Project will widen the existing Airport Boulevard Bridge over Sanchez Channel
to provide full pedestrian access across the channel and to the Bay Trail. Currently,
Trail users are required to cross the existing pedestrian bridge at the western edge of
Sanchez Channel, which alights onto Beach Road, Beach Road is traveled by
vehicles serving warehouse/industrial uses along the one -block road, has no marked
bicycle lanes and has narrow sidewalks that are substandard compared to Bay Trail
improvements in the remainder of the Specific Plan area. Lastly, users must cross
Airport Boulevard at an unsignalized intersection to continue on the Bay Trail that
leaves the Plan area towards Coyote Point Recreation Area. The Project proposes
to remedy this condition by widening the existing Airport Boulevard bridge to provide
a pedestrian crossing. This improvement will provide a more convenient crossing of
Sanchez Channel for users of the Bay Trail and Plan -area trail network. Consistent
with the Specific Plan, and in particular Policies E-7 and E-9, the new bridge would
an important link in the pedestrian trail system throughout the Specific Plan area and
to the Bay Trail as it moves through and away from the Project site.
Fifth, the Project would realign Airport Boulevard through the interior of the site. This
realignment permits an improved Bay Trail within the existing Bayfront road right of way, and
permits the Project to greatly expand and improve public shoreline access at the eastern end of
the Specific Plan area beyond what would otherwise be provided. This is consistent with
Specific Plan Policies E-4 and E-6, which respectively call for relocation of arterial roadways
away from the Bay edge, and construction of Bay Trail improvements in a manner that allow for
multiple modes of recreational travel.
Sixth, proposed Project density would provide additional and enhanced public access to the
Bay. Continuous public access to the shoreline of San Francisco Bay (and the use of recreation
facilities) is an important local community and social value. See, e.g., Specific Plan Goal B,
Policies B-2, B-3, Goal C, Policies D-1 and F-7. The Project's building density permits
concentration of development of the Project site, thus opening of the entire eastern Sanchez
Channel shoreline to public access and recreational use, and providing sufficient area to
relocate Airport Boulevard through the Project site (the open space benefits of which are
discussed in the previous paragraph). The Project will build, maintain permanently, and provide
for use of public access pathways and landscaped open space along the edge of Sanchez
Channel and along the San Francisco Bay at the eastern edge of the Specific Plan area, , as
well as an improved segment of the Bay Trail through the Project site. Free public parking for
Statement of Overriding Considerations
300 Airport Boulevard Project
shoreline access will also be provided on site clearly signed and close to the Bay shorelines.
These proposed improvements are extensive, are consistent with the quality of the newer
portions of the Bay Trail through the Plan area. They meet the bay access standards of the Bay
Conservation and Commission (BCDC) and further the vision of the Specific Plan for integration
of hotel, commercial, and park and recreation uses along the Bayfront.
Additionally, proposed Project density permits greater public and community opportunity for
recreational use in the interior of the Project site. In portions of the Project site not used for
buildings, the Project provides a significant public open space network, including a pedestrian
promenade which will connect the improvements along Sanchez Channel to the Bay Trail
amenities along the eastern edge of the Project site. Retail and restaurant uses are proposed
along this promenade, which will have outdoor seating areas and plazas, benefiting users and
drawing visitors to the Project site.
Seventh, by taking into consideration the wind effects of the Project on recreation through
designing and orienting Project buildings in a manner that minimizes reduction in winds
important to Bay recreation, the Project complies with Specific Plan Goal B and Policy B-1, to
respect the unique environmental characteristics of the Specific Plan area, including wind
characteristics.
Eighth, the Project will provide needed upgrading of public wastewater infrastructure serving
development in the Bayfront area. The Project will also contribute funds to assist the City in
reaching its funding obligation for the planned Broadway/US 101 Interchange Reconstruction
Project that, once constructed, will provide regional transportation benefits.
Findings
It is hereby found, after consideration of the FEIR and the evidence in the record, that each of
the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project as
set out above independently and collectively outweighs the significant and unavoidable impacts
and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. The reasons for approval
cited above are not unitary, so that even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is
supported by substantial evidence, this determination is that the remaining reasons would be
sufficient to justify approval of the Project. The substantial evidence supporting the various
benefits can be found in the FEIR and the preceding Exhibit B — CEQA Findings, which are
incorporated by reference into this Exhibit C, and in the documents found in the administrative
record.
On the basis of the Findings made in Exhibits A and B included herewith, and the substantial
evidence in the whole record of this proceeding, it is specifically found that there are significant
benefits of the Project in spite of the unavoidable significant impacts. It is further found that, as
part of the process of obtaining Project approval, all significant effects on the environment from
implementation of the Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are found to be
acceptable due to the above -discussed specific overriding economic, technical, legal, social and
other considerations.
S:IBudingame PointlCC Reports -Ordinances 8 ResolufionslCC Resolution - EIR and ProjectlExbibd C - Dreft Statement of Overtiding Ccnsitlerations.docx
S
EXHIBIT "D"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard and, where applicable, future development of 350 Airport
Boulevard
Conditions of approval for Amendments to
the
Bayfront
Specific Plan, amendments to the
zoning code related to the Anza Point North
and
parking
regulations, amendment to the sign
code, rezoning of a portion of the site from
the
APS zone
district to the APN zone district,
tentative parcel map, development agreement,
permit for day care use.
CONDITIONS:
commercial design review, and conditional use
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
and date stamped May 8, 2012, Sheets: Cover Sheet; 1 Project Notes, Vicinity Maps
and Sheet Index; 2 Building Code Analysis; 3 Preliminary Landscape Plan, 4 Building
Perspectives — Building B1 — South face, 5 Building Perspectives — Building B1 — North
Face, 6 Building Perspectives — Building B2 — North Face, 7 Building Perspectives —
Building B3 — South Face, 8 Building Perspective — Building B3 — North Face; 9A North
Campus Gateway; 9B Airport Boulevard and East/West Promenade Intersection; 9C
Retail Promenade; 9D Retail along East-West Promenade; 9E Street Retail along Airport
Boulevard; 9F Overlook to Bay; 9G Building 1 Restaurant with view to the Bay; 9H
Amenities Center with Sidewalk Cafe; 9J Streetscape of the Campus; 9K looking out
from the Office; 9L Amenities at New Bay Trail; 10 Site and Vicinity Plan; 11a Podium
Parking/Site Layout Plan; 11 b Podium Parking/Site Layout Plan (Retail Alternate); 12
Podium Parking/Site Dimension Plan; 13 Basement Parking Plan; 14 Site and Building
Sections (1); 15 Site and Building Sections (2); 16 Building B1/B2 Typical Floor and Roof
Plans; 17 B3/B4 Typical Floor and Roof Plans; 18 Building B1 Elevations; 19 Building B2
Elevations; 20 Building B3 Elevations (1); 21 Building B3 Elevations (2); 22 Building B4
Elevations (1); 23 Building B4 Elevations (2); 24a Parking Structure — Floor Plans; 241b
Parking Structure — Elevations; 25 Amenities Center — Floor Plans; 26 Amenities Center
— Elevations; 27 Site Analysis and Neighborhood Photos; 28a Site Area Diagram; 28b
Landscaped Parking Area Diagram; 28c Landscaped Front Setback Diagram; 29 Site
Circulation Diagram; 30 Site and Building Exit Path Plan; 31 Building Materials/Finishes
Examples; 32 Landscape Section and Images; 33 Landscape Design Details (1); 34
Landscape Design Details (2); 35 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan; 36
Preliminary Utility Plan; 37 Preliminary Parcelization Plan; and 38 Site Survey;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or
adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
4. that the project shall include installation and maintenance of the Bay Trail and Sanchez
Channel improvements as shown in the submitted plans and shall obtain approval from
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) for the work within BCDC
jurisdiction;
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 300 Airport Boulevard
5. that the project shall include approximately 13,000 square feet of retail use and 13,400
square feet of food service use that may be located in buildings B1, B2 and the
amenities building, and Developer shall use its best commercial efforts to lease this
space for retail or food service, including recreation -related uses such as bike rentals,
and interactive educational space, as the case may be, for two years following issuance
of the final certificate of occupancy for each building. Thereafter, any change to the use
of the space designated for retail, recreation -related or food service use shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission using the process set out in
Municipal Code Sections 25.16.040 through 25.16.085, using the conditional use permit
findings as the standard of review;
that the following items agreed to by the applicant shall be included as a part of the
project:
a. Drinking fountains shall be provided as a part of the Bay Trail improvements, and
shall include ground -level spouts for dogs.
b. The educational nodes provided within the Bay Trail improvements shall include
interactive features such as binocular/telescope stands and pictographic
educational elements regarding local flora, fauna, marine and wind phenomena.
c. The Sanchez Channel open space shall include an area for active use (e.g.
frisbee or catch);
that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 7, 2012 memo shall be met,
which includes the following comments:
an application for a building permit for this project received after December 31,
2013 must comply with the 2013 California Building Codes and adopted City of
Burlingame Ordinances unless specific land use provisions for the project were
approved by the City of Burlingame prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2013. If
the Planning Commission has approved the project then the building permit
application for that project may use the provisions found in the 2010 California
Building Codes including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1856 2010.
This project must comply with the City of Burlingame Green Building Ordinance
in effect at the time of building permit applications.
1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California
Building Codes (CBC) which will be employed by the City of Burlingame
beginning January 1, 2011.
2) Comply with the City of Burlingame Green Building Ordinance in effect at
the time of Planning Commission approval for this project.
3) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of
Burlingame business license.
4) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
5) Indicate on the plans that all work shall be conducted within the limits of
the City's Noise Ordinance. See City of Burlinqame Ordinance Municipal
Code, Section 13.04. 100 for details.
6) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California
Energy Efficiency Standards or standards in effect at the time of building
EXHIBIT D —CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
permit application. Note: All projects for which a building permit
application is received on or after January 1, 2010 must comply with the
2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to
http://www.energV.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/ for publications and
details.
7) Indicate on the plans that all roofing systems will comply with Cool Roof
requirements of the 2008 California Energy Code. 2008 CEC §151 (f) 12.
The 2008 Residential and Non -Residential Compliance Manuals are
available on line at http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/.
8) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed
property lines.
9) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures.
10) Obtain a survey of the property lines.
11) Indicate on the plans that, at the time of Building Permit application, plans
and engineering will be submitted for shoring as required by 2010 CBC,
or applicable Building Code, regarding the protection of adjacent property
and as required by OSHA. On the plans, indicate that the following will be
addressed:
a. The walls of the proposed basement shall be properly shored,
prior to construction activity. This excavation may need temporary
shoring. A competent contractor shall be consulted for
recommendations and design of shoring scheme for the
excavation. The recommended design type of shoring shall be
approved by the engineer of record or soils engineer prior to
usage.
b. All appropriate guidelines of OSHA shall be incorporated into the
shoring design by the contractor. Where space permits, temporary
construction slopes may be utilized in lieu of shoring. Maximum
allowable vertical cut for the subject project will be five (5) feet.
Beyond that horizontal benches of 5 feet wide will be required.
Temporary shores shall not exceed 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical).
In some areas due to high moisture content / water table, flatter
slopes will be required which will be recommended by the soils
engineer in the field.
c. If shoring is required, specify on the plans whose sole
responsibility it is to design and provide adequate shoring,
bracing, formwork, etc. as required for the protection of life and
property during construction of the building.
d. Shoring and bracing shall remain in place until floors, roof, and
wall sheathing have been entirely constructed.
e. Shoring plans shall be wet -stamped and signed by the engineer -
of -record and submitted to the city for review prior to construction.
If applicable, include surcharge loads from adjacent structures that
are within the zone of influence (45 degree wedge up the slope
from the base of the retaining wall) and / or driveway surcharge
loads.
EXHIBIT D —CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
12) Indicate on the plans that an OSHA permit will be obtained for the
shoring* at the excavation in the basement per CAL / OSHA
requirements. See the Cal / OSHA handbook at: http://www.ca-
osha com/pdfpubs/osha userouide pdf. *Construction Safety Orders
Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 6 , Section 1541.1.
13) Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained
from the Department of Public Works.
14) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in
height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot
coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project
entails landings more than 30" in height.
15) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
16) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
17) Prior to applying for a Building Permit the applicant must obtain an
address for each structure on the site, acceptable to the Fire Marshal,
from the Engineering Department. Note: The correct address must be
referenced on all pages of the plans.
18) On your plans provide a table that includes the following:
a. Occupancy group for each area of the building
b. Type of construction
C. Allowable area
d. Proposed area
e. Allowable height
f. Proposed height
g. Proposed fire separation distances
h. Exterior wall and opening protection
i. Allowable
ii. Proposed
i. Indicate sprinklered ornon-sprinklered
19) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements
described in the 2010 California Plumbing Code, Chapter 4, Table 4-1
Minimum Plumbing Facilities and Table A - Occupant Load Factor.
20) Show compliance with all accessibility regulations found in the 2010 CBC
for commercial buildings including:
a. Accessible paths of travel
b. A level landing must be provided on each side of the door at all
required entrances and exits.
c. Accessible countertops
d. Accessible bathrooms
0
EXHIBIT D— CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 300A ortBoulevard
e. Accessible parking
21)
Per CBC 3003.5, all structures four or more stories in height must have at
least one elevator that can accommodate a stretcher. See the referenced
code section for dimensions (80" x 54") and other details.
22)
Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel
23)
In Assembly occupancies specify aisle widths that comply with Section
1025.9.
24)
Specify the total number of parking spaces on site
25)
All NEW non-residential buildings must comply with the requirements of
AB -2176 Sec. 42911 (c) [2003 — 2004 Montanez] as follows:
a. Space for recycling must be a part of the project design in new
buildings.
b. A building permit will not be issued unless details are shown on
the project plans incorporating adequate storage for collecting and
loading recycled materials.
26)
Include with your Building Division plan check submittal a complete
underground fire sprinkler plan. Contact the Burlingame Water Division at
650-558-7660 for details regarding the water system or Central County
Fire for sprinkler details.
27)
Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to issuing the building permit.
8, that the conditions of the NPDES Coordinator's February 8, 2012 memo shall be met,
which includes
the following comments:
a. The project will need to comply with additional and new Low Impact Development
(LID) requirements under the Municipal Regional Permit, C.3 Provisions, which
became effective on December 11, 2011. For details and technical guidance on
these C.3 requirements visit the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution
Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) at
http://www/flowstobay.org/bs new development.php.
b. The following C.3 forms/worksheets have been updated and project proponents
will need to use and submit these forms as part of the final construction
documents and associated building permits:
1) NPDES Permit Impervious Surface Data Collection Worksheet
2) C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist*.
`both forms are available for download at http://wwwlflowstobay.org/bs new development. ph)).
c. When submitting plans for
a building permit include a list of construction
stormwater pollution prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs) as project
notes and include them as a separate full size plan sheet, preferably 2' x 3' or
larger. Project proponents may use the attached Construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs) plan sheet to comply with this requirement. Electronic file is
available for download at http://www/flowstobay.org/bs construction. php (scroll
about half -way down the page and click on Construction BMP Plan Sheet).
5
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 300 Airport Boulevard
9, that the conditions of the Parks Supervisor's February 6, 2012 memo shall be met, which
includes the following comments:
a. Submit a Landscape Project Application to the Parks Division in compliance with
the Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance.
b. New trees in the Airport Boulevard islands shall be Platanus acerfolia 'Columbia'.
10. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's April 26, 2010 memo shall be met, which
includes the following comments:
a. All buildings shall be equipped with fire alarms, fire sprinklers and standpipes
where required by the California Fire Code and the Burlingame Municipal Code.
b. Fire Flow and Fire Hydrants shall conform to Appendix B and C of the
International Fire Code 2006 Edition.
c. Fire apparatus access shall be provided for all buildings in accordance with §503
of the International Fire Code.
d. Fire Control Room as required by the California Building Code shall be placed to
the exterior of the building with exterior access. Rooms shall be positioned
facing fir apparatus access. This requirement may negate exterior remote
annunciators and key boxes intended to house HMIS/HMMP as required for
Burlingame Municipal Code.
e. Please see Burlingame Municipal Code specific to Addressing Requirements and
Key Boxes associated with Hazardous Materials.
f. The fire department shall request HMIS/HMIP in accordance with the California
Fire Code. All inventory lists shall at minimum indicate the hazardous material
class and quantities consistent with Table 2703.1.1(1), Title 24 CFC classes and
units (i.e.: pounds, gallons, cubic feet at NTP, etc.).
g. Space shall be provided within each Highrise for installation of a
repeater/receiver antenna and supporting equipment for City Communications.
An electrical supply source shall be provided at the antenna/equipment location.
Reasonable access shall be provided to City staff contractors for installation of
necessary telephone lines and for purposes of installation, maintenance,
adjustment and repair of the antenna/equipment.
11. that the conditions of the Public Works Department, Engineering Division's May 8, 2012
memo shall be met, which includes the following comments:
a. With City approval, the Developer proposes to construct a new, realigned Airport
Boulevard through the Project and to construct Bay Trail and Bay frontage
improvements in the City's right-of-way easement of the original Airport
Boulevard. Developer understands that the underlying fee of the original Airport
Boulevard ROW, from the existing Sanchez Chanel Bridge East to Fisherman's
Park and South from Fisherman's Park to Beach Road, is owned by the State of
California, State Lands Commission and that the City only holds a ROW
easement over same. Developer shall give the State Lands Commission written
notice of its development plans and specifically, notice of the proposed
improvements to be constructed in the ROW of the original Airport Boulevard
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 300 Airport Boulevard
alignment, within ten (10) days of the Planning Commission's recommendation of
the Project to the City Council. At any time, should State Lands have any
concerns over said improvements, object to any aspect of the proposed
improvements or initiate any type of administrative or judicial action in regard to
these proposed improvements, Developer shall hold harmless, defend and
indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all fees
(including attorneys' fees), damages, fines or any other costs of any kind related
to such objections, claims or actions.
Additionally, the Developer shall obtain letters of no objection to the proposed
realignment of Airport Boulevard from all utility companies. The Project
Developer shall relocate all existing utilities from within the existing Airport
Boulevard roadway to the proposed realigned Airport Boulevard roadway to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and affected utility companies.
b. The developer shall prepare necessary engineering drawings and construction
documents to construct the Sanchez Channel Bridge widening as identified in the
existing BCDC permit to provide the necessary width for pedestrian, bicyclist and
vehicular access along Airport Boulevard. The developer shall complete
construction of these improvements at his/her expense. These drawings shall be
approved by the City Engineer as part of the Building Permit process.
c. The developer shall be responsible to meet all San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) requirements for the project and provide
the City with documentation of all approvals by BCDC for all work within 100 feet
of the shoreline band along the San Francisco Bay and Sanchez drainage
channel.
d. The developer shall enter into a Site Maintenance Agreement with the City for
maintenance of all landscape, sidewalk, medians, and stormwater improvements
as well as roadway improvements that do not conform to city standards, such as
the proposed roadway intersections. The Site Maintenance Agreement shall be
executed prior to the issuance of the Building permit.
e. All traffic improvements, including but not limited to traffic signals, pedestrian
countdown signals, pedestrian audible signals, signal interconnection hardware,
street lights, signage, street markings, etc., shall be approved by the City
Engineer and installed at the property owner's expense. The proposed
streetlights must conform to current standards which require Beta LED's or
equivalent. The developer shall submit and obtain approval of the required
engineering drawings and specifications for all public improvements as part of
the building permit process.
f. The project shall reimburse to the City the operation, maintenance and energy
costs of the proposed traffic signals. The City will maintain the newly proposed
traffic signal operations. The operation cost of the traffic signal will be adjusted
annually by the City based on prevailing costs. The electricity costs will be based
on direct billing by PG & E.
g. The developer shall provide at his/her expense shoreline access, adequate
erosion protection and site amenities to the standards established by the City
and BCDC.
The Bay and drainage channel shorelines
located on
this property
will require
stabilization improvements to provide flood
protection
for the public
access trail
7
EXHIBIT D —CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
and bridge. All shoreline and drainage channel slope protection measures, need
to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
i. The public and facility users shall be safely provided for and protected from the
flooding of the site in the event of a disaster. This includes a storm or an
earthquake which coincides with a maximum high tide and possible breaching of
Sanchez Channel and/or Airport Boulevard levees. The property owner shall
employ a qualified engineer to analyze the seismic stability of the Sanchez
Channel and Airport Boulevard levees and identify protection against possible
earthquake or storm event. The property owner shall submit the structural and
seismic stability analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the
analysis indicates that improvements are necessary along the project site to
provide stability for an event, such improvements shall be installed as approved
by the City Engineer prior to occupancy of the first building.
j. The developer shall be required to incorporate the following measures into
project design in order to reduce the potential impacts of flooding:
1) Necessary tide gates shall be installed in the storm drain system on the
project site to prevent high water from back flowing into the site during flood
periods;
2) Adequate drainage and pump facilities, including a sound -baffled backup
power supply, shall be provided in the parking area to prevent water ponding
in excess of ten (10) inches in the event of a 100 -year flood;
3) Storm drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate any future
settlement of the site, levees and other fill along the site perimeter;
4) A flood contingency plan shall be developed to provide guidelines for
management of vehicles in the event of flooding of the parking area; and
5) On-site improvements shall be designed to provide 100 -year flood protection.
All emergency equipment, generators, controls, and motors shall be located
above the 100 -year flood elevation.
k. The developer shall install asix-inch diameter recycled water main with the
roadwaJ improvements. This six-inch line shall extend from the existing Sanchez
Channel Bridge east to the other end of the new roadway alignment near Beach
Road. Initially the line shall be connected to the City water main and serve as
the service connection for irrigation. This line and the irrigation system shall
convert to a recycled water line once it becomes available. These improvements
shall be done at the property owner's cost and shall be completed in concurrence
with the roadway improvements.
I. The project developer shall implement and maintain an appropriate
Transportation Demand Management measures in accordance with the San
Mateo County Congestion Plan to reduce the number of trips generated by this
project.
m. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be submitted by the project developer
for review by the City Engineer at the time of applying for a building permit.
n. The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent
storm water pollution during and after the construction. In addition, the project
developer shall provide all documentation relating to compliance with the
Regional Municipal Permit from the State of California Water Resources Board.
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 300 Airport Boulevard
o. It is possible that this project may require approvals and permits from the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, and the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The applicant must provide written
records of contacting the above agencies demonstrating that a permit has been
obtained or is not required.
p. All street improvements plans shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. These improvements include but are not limited to sanitary sewer
mains and laterals; water mains and services; storm drain mains and inlets;
street structural sections, soils report, etc. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations
are required for all designs associated with the new road alignment. The road
structural section shall be designed to a traffic index of minimum 12.0 and shall
withstand vertical displacement due to natural subsurface settlement. The
structural section shall be designed for a 20 -year life based on recommendations
of a professional geotechnical engineer and accompanying soils report.
q. The project developer shall perform necessary engineering studies to determine
the required capacity and improvements to the system to be approved by the City
Engineer. At the City's discretion, the sanitary sewer improvements shall be
routed along Airport Boulevard to an existing pump station, thence along Airport
Boulevard to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The sanitary sewer system
improvements shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the fully built -
out conditions of the project and adjacent properties.
r. The project shall abandon the existing potable water main located within existing
alignment of Airport Boulevard from Fisherman's Park to Beach Road. The
project shall evaluate the existing condition of the water main. If necessary and
at the City's discretion, the project shall design and construct a new potable
water main system along the newly proposed Airport Boulevard from Beach
Road to the Sanchez Channel as well as the replace the existing potable water
main segment from Sanchez Channel to Fisherman's Park.
s. The project shall install purple piping in buildings for future reclaimed water use
in building applications.
12. that demolition or removal of any existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
13,
that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
14. Exterior lighting for the project would be designed to meet the requirements of
Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in
commercial or residential areas), the California Energy Commission, and the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America for illumination levels. Compliance with these
performance standards would minimize the dispersion of light in a manner that reduces
the glow or aurora effect to acceptable and allowable levels. In addition, the project area
already contains numerous sources of exterior lighting, and is not adjacent to uses that
would be sensitive to light spillover.
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 300 Airport Boulevard
15, that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
16. that the overall height of the buildings as measured from the top of curb at Airport
Boulevard (+ 14.5' elevation) shall be no taller than the following heights: Buildings B1
and B2, 97.0', Building B3, 129.0', Building B4, 144.0', Parking Structure, 67.5', and
Amenities Building, 49.0'; building heights shall be surveyed at the framing of each floor
and at the installation of the parapet screen and shall be reported to the Building Division
as each floor is framed and accepted by the City Engineer before framing of the
subsequent floor or roof commences. The entire building height of each structure shall
be surveyed to confirm conformance with the approved plans and conditions of approval
before scheduling the final framing inspection. If the building does not conform at any
point in the construction process, it shall be made to conform before construction
continues and any further city inspections shall be scheduled (Building Division);
17. that the applicant shall pay the required Bayfront Development Fee based on the square
footage of the buildings and the current rate adjusted for inflation, the total fee due is
calculated to be $1,695,070.00. Per the development agreement, one-half of the fee is
due at the time of issuance of the first City Building Permit for construction of a building,
and one-half is due before the final framing inspection is scheduled, for each
Development Phase. The fee due shall be offset by the actual costs incurred by
Developer in designing, preparing, installing and constructing (a) the realignment and
widening of Airport Boulevard but limited to the customary and ordinary costs for such
improvements without special pedestrian treatments, and (b) the Sanchez Channel
bridge widening as outlined in the Development Agreement (Planning Division);
18, that the applicant shall pay the required public facilities impact fees based on the square
footage of the buildings, and that the Parks and Recreation fee ($131,924.00) and the
Storm Drain Fee ($549,939.00) shall be waived, the total remaining fee due shall be
$1,102,179.00. The remaining fees shall be payable by development phase, and shall
be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the first building permit for
construction of each building as follows: Building B1: $209,802.00, Building B2:
$209,802.00, Building B3: $293,722.80, Building 64, $335,683.20, and Amenities
Center: $53,169.00 (Planning Division);
19. that the property owner shall be responsible to see that small delivery
trucks or vans
making periodic deliveries are on-site only during office hours; no trucks, recreation
vehicles or other vehicles shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the
day or overnight, and no parking shall be leased to tenants or any other users for any
purpose;
20,
that the
property owner shall comply
with the Transportation Demand
Management
Program
prepared by Fehr and Peers
for 350 Beach Road, LLC dated
April 6, 2011
including
the following measures:
a. Secure Bicycle Storage: Secure, indoor bicycle storage for up to 26 bicycles
shall be provided in a lobby or garage level room within each of the four office
buildings. In addition, bicycle racks for up to 50 bicycles will be located outside
of Buildings #1 or #4.
10
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
b. Showers and Changing Rooms: Shower facilities with changing rooms shall
be provided throughout the site, with access available to all employees. Shower
facilities (two men's and two women's) and changing rooms (one men's and one
women's) shall be provided in each of the four office buildings, the amenities
center shall include 12 showers and two changing rooms.
c. Shuttle Service: Coordinate with the Peninsula Commuter Alliance to add two
stops within the project site to the existing commuter shuttle from the Millbrae
Intermodal Station. The shuttle provides 10 -minute headways during peak
periods.
d. Carpool Parking: Provide 15 preferential parking spaces for carpools at each of
the four office buildings.
e. Vanpool Parking: Provide two preferential parking spaces for vanpools at each
of the four office buildings.
f. Commute Assistance Center:
1) Provide an on-site one-stop shopping for transit and commute
alternatives information.
2) Provide a part-time on-site TDM coordinator available to assist building
tenants with trip planning.
g. Employees' Surveys: The TDM coordinator shall develop and administer two
surveys per year to examine TDM program participation and best practices.
h. Video Conferencing Centers: One video conferencing center shall be installed
at each office building for use by the tenants of the facility.
i. On -Site Amenities/Accommodations: On-site amenities, including banking,
retail, delivery dry cleaning, exercise facilities, child care center, delivery
pharmacy and food service shall be provided at the project site to encourage
people to stay on site during the work day;
j. On -Site Bicycles for Employee Use: Bicycles shall be provided at each office
building. Employees will have access to bicycles during breaks for personal or
business use.
k. Child Care Services: Child care center service shall be provided on site;
I. Guaranteed Ride Home Program: Employees will have access to the
Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program administered by the Peninsula
Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) for emergencies. The program provides
vouchers for taxicabs or rental cars for this purpose.
m. Transportation Action Plan: The TDM coordinator shall work with the Alliance
to create a Transportation Action Plan for each tenant.
n. Transportation Management Association: If the office park has multiple
tenants, each tenant shall provide a representative to form a Transportation
Management Association and be a liaison to the TDM Coordinator.
o. Coordination of Transportation Demand Management Programs: The TDM
coordinator shall coordinate with other TDM programs with existing
developments/employers in the surrounding area.
11
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
p. Subsidy for Transit Tickets: Employers shall offer subsidies to employees to
compensate them for the cost of transit tickets.
q. Electric Vehicle Stations: The applicant shall provide plug-in stations for
electric vehicles.
House
Car
for Employee
Use: Each
building will provide employees with
access
to a
"house car" for use
during the
day
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
21. that prior td scheduling the framing inspection, the project. architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
22. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
23. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Mitigation Measures from Environmental Impact Report:
Measures Applicable to 300 Airport Boulevard Project as well as future development of
fhe 350 Airport Boulevard site:
24. Amphlett Ponlar Intersection: The City of San Mateo is considering a range of potential
improvements at the Amphlett Boulevard /Poplar Avenue intersection to provide sufficient
capacity for existing and future traffic volume. However, a specific improvement project
has not been identified at this time. The Project Sponsor, and any future project sponsor
for development of the 350 Airport Boulevard site, shall negotiate an agreement with the
City of San Mateo to make a fair share contribution toward the cost of improvements at
this intersection for each project's respective impacts (Transportation, Planning, Public
Works, City of San Mateo);
25. Implement Recommended Dust Control Measures. To reduce particulate matter
emissions during Project excavation and construction phases, the Project contractors)
shall comply with the dust control strategies developed by BAAQMD. The Project
Sponsor shall include in all construction contracts the following requirements or
measures:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
anA
unpaved access roads) shall be watered fwo times per day,
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
12
EXHIBIT D —CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 300A ortBoulevard
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Air Quality; (Planning and
Building Divisions);
26. Construction Equipment Emissions Minimization. To reduce the potential impacts
resulting from Project construction activities, the Project Sponsor shall include in contract
specifications a requirement for the following measures:
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutt
ing equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes;
• The Project shall develop a construction plan demonstrating that the off-road
equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction Project (i.e.,
owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a Project wide fleet -
average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the
most recent CARB fleet average (as specified in California Code of Regulations
Article 4.8, Section 2449 General Requirements for In -Use Off -Road Diesel -
Fueled Fleets). Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late
model engines, low -emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit
technology, after -treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters,
and/or other options as such become available;
• All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with
Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM;
• Use of Interim Tier 4, if applicable, or equivalent equipment for all uses where
such equipment is available;
• Use of Tier 3 equipment with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or
alternative fuel vehicles for applications where Tier 4 Interim engines are not
available;
• Prohibition of diesel generators for construction purposes where feasible
alternative sources of power are available;
13
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
All construction equipment shall be maintained in proper working condition in
accordance with manufacturer's specifications;
Diesel -powered construction equipment shall comply with BAAQMD
requirements or meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 EPA/CARB standards; and
To the extent feasible, the existing electricity infrastructure surrounding the
construction sites shall be used rather than electrical generators powered by
internal combustion engines. (Air Quality, Planning and Building Divisions)
27. Application of Low-VOC Coatings. The Project Sponsor shall use low VOC (i. e., ROG)
coatings beyond the local requirements as per the BAAQMD Guideline (i.e., Regulation
8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings) (Air Quality, Planning and Building Divisions);
28. Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Noise. The following
BMPs shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the
Project contractor.
a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise
receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following
measures:
i. Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around
particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site;
ii. Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit
transmission of noise to sensitive receptors;
Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the
community, and
iv Minimize backing movements of equipment.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible.
c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically -powered tools.
Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other
quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall
be used whenever feasible.
d. Prohibit unnecessary
idling of internal combustion engines.
e. Select routes for movement of
construction-related vehicles and equipment in
conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Division so that noise -sensitive
areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible.
f. The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" for
construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding
to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The
coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint
and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. (Noise,
Planning and Building Divisions);
29. Notify Nearby Businesses of Construction Activities that Could Affect Vibration -Sensitive
Equipment. The Project Sponsor shall provide notification to adjacent property owners
14
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
and occupants, prior to the start of construction, informing them of the estimated start
date and duration of vibration -generating construction activities during site preparation,
grading, and pile driving, if required. This notification shall include information warning
about the potential for impacts related to vibration -sensitive equipment. The Project
Sponsor shall identify a phone number for the property owners and occupants to call if
they have vibration -sensitive equipment on their site. (Noise, Planning and Building
Divisions);
30. Implement Construction BMPs to Reduce Construction Vibration. The Project Sponsor
shall implement the following measures during construction of all Project components:
• To the extent feasible,
construction activities that could
generate high vibration levels
at any identified vibration -sensitive locations shall be
scheduled
during times that
would have the least
impact on nearby land uses.
This could
include restricting
construction activities
in the areas of potential impact
to the early
and late hours of
the work day, such as
from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. Monday
to Friday.
• Stationary sources, such as construction staging areas and temporary generators,
shall be located as far from nearby vibration -sensitive receptors as possible.
Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site
where vibration -sensitive equipment is located.
• Avoid pile driving when possible within 100 feet of an existing structure. (Noise,
Planning and Building Divisions);
31. Implement Alternative Pile Driving Methods. The Project Sponsor shall use alternative
pile driving methods (e.g., drilled or steel piles) for piles driven in proximity to existing
vibration receptors such that vibration levels at vibration -sensitive equipment shall not
exceed 65 VdB. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions);
32. Bird Nest Pre -Construction Survey. The Project Sponsors) shall retain a qualified
biologist to conduct preconstruction breeding -season surveys (approximately March 15
through August 30) of the Project Site and immediate vicinity during the same calendar
year that construction is planned to begin, in consultation with the CDFG as discussed
below.
If phased construction procedures are planned for the Project, the results of the above
survey shall be valid only for the season when it is conducted. A report shall be
submitted to CDFG, following the completion of the bird nesting survey that includes, at
a minimum, the following information:
• A description of methodology including dates of field visits, the names of survey
personnel with resumes, and a list of references cited and persons contacted.
• A map showing the location(s) of any bird nests observed on the Project Site.
If the above survey does not identify any nesting bird species on the Project Site,
no
further mitigation would be required. However, should any active bird nests be located
on the Project Site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. (Biological
Resources, Planning Division);
15
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
33. Bird Nest Buffer zone. The Project Sponsor(s), in consultation with CDFG, shall delay
construction in the vicinity of active bird nest sites located on or adjacent to the Project
Site during the breeding season (approximately March 15 through August 30) while the
nest is occupied with adults and/or young. If active nests are identified, construction
activities should not occur within 500 ft of the nest. A qualified biologist shall monitor the
active nest until the young have fledged, until the biologist determines that the nest is no
longer active, or if it is reasonable that construction activities are not disturbing nesting
behaviors. The buffer zone shall be delineated by highly visible temporary construction
fencing. (Biological Resources, Planning and Building Divisions);
34. In order to reduce significant impacts to the City's wastewater conveyance and treatment
system associated with the Proiect, the Proiect Sponsor shall adhere to either of the two
following mitigation measures:
a. Upgrade Pump Capacity at the_Existinq 399 Rollins Road Pump Station and
Reduce Inflow and Infiltration within the Wastewater System. The Project
Sponsor(s) shall contribute fair -share funds toward the upgrade of the 399 RRPS
capacity, or equivalent project to increase capacity in the system, to
accommodate the increased PWWF that would result from implementation of the
Project. Additionally, the Project Sponsor(s) shall rehabilitate the existing
wastewater system, where necessary, to reduce inflow and infiltration that
contributes to PWWFs at the WWTP in an amount concomitant with increases in
flows contributed by the 300 Airport Boulevard Project.
b. Upgrade to the Existing Airport Boulevard Conveyance System Variant to Rollins
Road Pump Station Upgrade. The Project Sponsor(s) shall coordinate with the
City of Burlingame Public Works Department to upgrade the capacity of the City's
wastewater conveyance and treatment system to accommodate the increased
PWWF that would result from implementation of development of the 300 and 350
Airport Boulevard Sites. Such measures could include, as necessary, installation
of a new pump station within public right of way or other area near the Sanchez
Channel Bridge on the Project Site, upgrade the capacity of the existing Airport
Boulevard Pump Station, extension of wastewater lines across Sanchez
Channel, via attachment to the Sanchez Channel Bridge, to tie into existing
wastewater lines under Airport Boulevard west of the Project Site, and
increasing, as required, the capacity of existing gravity lines between the Project
Site and the Airport Boulevard Pump Station and existing force main between the
Airport Boulevard Pump Station and the WWTP. The Project Sponsor shall
construct the necessary improvements to serve the Project Site and additional
properties along Airport Boulevard that would connect to this sewer line.
(Utilities, Public Works Department);
MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE 300 AIRPORT BLVD,
PROJECT
35,
Reduce Risk of Exposure During Construction. If the childcare center is operational
during the construction of Phase 2 of the Project, one of the following shall be
implemented:
A. A Health Risk Assessment is conducted prior to commencement of construction
of Phase 11 that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the BAAQMD, that impacts
to the children at the childcare center are less than significant during Phase II
construction or specific subphases of Phase 11 construction; or
16
EXHIBIT D— CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 300 Airport Boulevard
B. Implement the following building design and operational restrictions.
1. The childcare center building shall be designed such that the air intake
would be located at the far eastern edge of the building with the air intake
facing east.
2. A MERV 15 or higher rated filter shall be installed and operated for at
least the duration of construction activities. The MERV 15 or higher rated
filters have the potential to remove up to 85 percent of particles of 2.5
microns or greater thereby reducing interior levels of pollutants.
3. All outdoor activities at the childcare center shall be suspended while
construction activities are occurring.
If implementation of this Mitigation Measure is infeasible, then the childcare center would
be prohibited from operating during Phase 11 construction. (Air Quality, Building and
Planning Divisions);
36. Maintenance and Testing of Generators. As part of the conditions of operation for the
17
onsite back-up generators, all diesel emissions associated with the maintenance and
testing of the generators should be conducted at such times as the daycare center is not
in operation, particularly nights and weekends. (Air Quality, Building and Planning
Divisions);
37.
Implementation of MERV 15 Filters. The Project Sponsor shall consider implementing
MERV 15 or higher rated filters for the amenities building. This would further reduce
exposure of daycare students to emissions from US 101. The MERV 15 or higher rated
filters have the potential to remove up to 85 percent of PM2.5 and would reduce risk
while students were inside the building. (Air Quality, Building and Planning Divisions);
38.
Incorporate GHG Reduction Measures for Maintenance Activities, The Project Sponsor
shall provide infrastructure for the use of electric landscape equipment during
landscaping activities, where feasible. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks
Department);
39.
Incorporate Trees and Vegetation into Project Design. Trees and other shade structures
shall be incorporated into the Site Plan to maximize summer shade and to minimize
winter shade. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department);
40.
Renewable Energy System. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall offset 10 percent of
project electricity demand through implementation of onsite renewable energy systems
or through investment in offsite alternative energy systems. (Climate Change, Planning
and Building Divisions);
41,
Drought Tolerant Landscaping. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall reduce irngafion-
related water demand by a minimum of 10 percent through the implementation of
drought tolerant landscaping. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks
Department);
42,
Cool Roof Material. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall incorporate cool -roof
materials into project design to reduce electricity demand associated with building
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) by a minimum of 7 percent. (Climate
Change, Planning and Building Divisions);
17
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
43. Water Conservation Measures. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement
immediate water conservation measures to reduce building water demand by 33
percent. Building water demand shall ultimately be reduced by 50 percent when the
City's recycled water system is implemented. (Climate Change, Planning and Building
Divisions);
44. Energy Efficiency beyond Title 24 Standards. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall
reduce building energy demand beyond the 2005 Title 24 Standards by 26 percent.
(Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions);
45. Operation Solid Waste Reduction. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement a
solid waste reduction program to reduce operational solid waste by a minimum of 10
percent. (Climate Change, Planning Division);
46. Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles and Local Building Materials. In accordance with
BAAQMD BMPs, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate into the construction fleet a
minimum of 15 percent of construction vehicles and equipment operated by alternative
fuels. Further, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a minimum of 10 percent of building
materials are locally sourced, where feasible. (Climate Change, Planning and Building
Divisions);
47. Conduct a Wetland Delineation. The Project Sponsor shall retain a qualified biologist to
conduct a wetland delineation of the Project Site. This delineation shall be submitted to
the Corps for verification prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Project. If
the Corps determines that the features in the Project Site are not jurisdictional, then no
further mitigation would be required. (Biological Resources, Planning and Building
Divisions);
48. Obtain Applicable Permits and Certifications. If the Corps determines that these
features are jurisdictional, then the Project Sponsor must obtain a CWA Section 404
permit from the Corps, and a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the
RWQCB prior to issuance of any grading permits for the Project. A requirement of the
permits will be compensation such that there is no net loss of wetlands. This
compensation requirement can be satisfied through avoidance, onsite and/or offsite
construction and preservation of wetlands or by purchase of mitigation credits at an
approved mitigation bank. At certified mitigation banks, the Corps typically requires a
minimum 1:1 ratio, but may require higher ratios for certain wetland types. (Biological
Resources, Planning and Building Divisions);
49. Provide Flood _Protection up to the 100 -Year Flood Event plus Sea Level Rise for
Underground Structures. To protect underground structures from sea level rise flood
risks, prior to approving grading and/or building permits the City shall ensure that the
project design incorporates its floodplain development requirements into all applicable
project features using a flood elevation of at least 7.lfeet. All below -ground structures,
including storm drains, sewers, equipment facilities, and others, shall be flood proofed
and designed to withstand hydrostatic forces and buoyancy from water surface
elevations up to 7.1 feet in elevation. Certain portions of the shoreline open space may
not be protected at the ultimate level of flooding, given proposed heights. However,
developed areas of the Project would be protected. For the shoreline areas, an adaptive
strategy would be developed to address end -of -century conditions. (Hydrology, Building
Division and Public Works Department);
fiE?
EXHIBIT D— CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
50. Provide Adeauate Storm Flow Convevance Canacity for Sea Level Rise Conditions. To
ensure that the storm drain system conveyance capacity is not constricted by sea level
rise at the outlets, the Project Sponsor shall design the storm drain system to adequately
convey stormwater runoff at outlet water surface elevations equivalent to the 100 -year
flood event base elevation plus sea level rise of 55 inches (water surface elevation of
11.6 feet at the outlet). Prior to receiving a grading permit, the City shall review project
designs and studies for adequacy of storm flow conveyance with an outlet surface water
elevation of 11.6 feet and in accordance with City design standards. The City shall
prepare Conditions of Approval, where necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are
met. The Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City Conditions of Approval into
project designs, prior to receiving a grading permit. (Hydrology, Public Works
Department);
51. Provide Protection of Shoreline and Flood Protection Features from Hvdrodvnamic
Forces from Sea Level Rise Conditions. Prior to receiving a grading permit, in order to
ensure that the shoreline and flood protection features associated with the proposed
project provide protection under sea level rise hydrodynamic and/or hydrostatic
conditions, the Project Sponsor shall prepare engineering studies to identify expected
hydrodynamic forces for under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up)
and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet and hydrostatic forces from a water
surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high wafer plus 55 -inch sea level rise). For the
shoreline areas, an adaptive strategy would be implemented to address end -of -century
conditions.
The Project Sponsor shall design shoreline and flood protection features that could
accommodate hydrodynamic forces from sea level rise conditions along wherever flood
protection features are identified under Mitigation Measure HY-7.1 and at shoreline
protection features for stability and integrity under storm surge conditions (at least 2
percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The Project
Sponsor shall also design flood protection features for protection against hydrostatic
forces from a water surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55 -inch
sea level rise). The City shall review designs and associated studies for conformance
with City requirements and adequacy of design measures to withstand hydrodynamic
and hydrostatic forces associated with the design criteria.
The Project Sponsor shall also design erosion protection along the shoreline set -back
area for protection under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a
base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The City shall review designs and associated
studies for adequacy in protecting the shoreline set -back area under these conditions.
The City Public Works Department shall prepare
necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are met.
Conditions of Approval, where
the Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City
into project designs.
Prior to receiving a grading permit,
and BCDC Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD SITE
52. Implement TDM Program as part of 350 Airport Boulevard Project. These measures
could include: secure bicycle storage, showers and changing rooms, shuttle service,
preferential parking for carpoolers, preferential parking for vanpoolers, commute
assistance center, employees' surveys, video conferencing centers, on-site amenities
accommodations, on-site bicycles for employees, child care services, guaranteed ride
home program, transportation action plan, transportation management association, and
coordination of TDM programs (Air Quality, Planning Division);
53. Implement energy efficiency measures with 350 Airport Boulevard Project. These
measures could include: LEED certification or to exceed energy efficiency beyond Title
24 requirements which would further aid in reducing stationary source emissions (Air
Quality, Planning and Building Divisions);
54. Incorporate GHG Reduction Measures for Maintenance Activities. The Project Sponsor
shall provide infrastructure for the use of electric landscape equipment during
landscaping activities, where feasible. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks
Department);
55. Incorporate Trees and Vegetation into Project Design. Trees and other shade structures
shall be incorporated into the Site Plan to maximize summer shade and to minimize
winter shade. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department);
56. Renewable Energv System. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall offset 10 percent of
project electricity demand through implementation of onsite renewable energy systems
or through investment in offsite alternative energy systems. (Climate Change, Planning
and Building Divisions);
57. Drought Tolerant Landscaping. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall reduce irrigation -
related water demand by a minimum of 10 percent through the implementation of
drought tolerant landscaping. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks
Department),
58. Cool Roof Material. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall incorporate cool -roof
materials into project design to reduce electricity demand associated with building
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) by a minimum of 7 percent. (Climate
Change, Planning and Building Divisions);
59. Water Conservation Measures, The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement
immediate water conservation measures to reduce building water demand by 33
percent. Building water demand shall ultimately be reduced by 50 percent when the
City's recycled water system is implemented. (Climate Change, Planning and Building
Divisions);
60, Energy
Efficiency beyond Title 24 Standards. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall
reduce building energy demand beyond the 2005 Title 24 Standards by 26 percent.
(Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions);
20
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 300 Airport Boulevard
61, Operation Solid Waste Reduction. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement a
solid waste reduction program to reduce operational solid waste by a minimum of 10
percent. (Climate Change, Planning Division);
62. Implement a TDM program. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that future development
of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site implement a TDM program similar to that described for
the 300 Airport Boulevard Project, to reduce transportation -related GHG emissions.
(Climate Change, Planning Division and Traffic Engineer);
63, Pursue LEED Certification. Future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site shall
seek LEED Gold certification or equivalent for development per the recommendations of
the City's Green Building Ordinance. The Project Sponsor shall submit draft LEED (or
equivalent) checklists to the City Sustainability Coordinator for review and consultation.
(Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions);
64. Placement or Screening of HVAC Mechanical Equipment. All HVAC mechanical
equipment shall be located more than 60 feet from the nearest property line.
Alternatively, HVAC mechanical equipment may be installed in a noise enclosure
sufficient to reduce ground -level noise levels at the nearest property boundary to 70 dBA
CNEL orless. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions);
65. Provide Flood Protection up to the 100 -Year Flood Event plus Sea Level Rise for
Underground Structures. To protect underground structures from sea level rise flood
risks, prior to approving grading and/or building permits the City shall ensure that the
project design incorporates its floodplain development requirements into all applicable
project features using a flood elevation of at least 7.lfeet. All below -ground structures,
including storm drains, sewers, equipment facilities, and others, shall be flood proofed
and designed to withstand hydrostatic forces and buoyancy from water surface
elevations up to 7.1 feet in elevation. Certain portions of the shoreline open space may
not be protected at the ultimate level of flooding, given proposed heights. However,
developed areas of the Project would be protected. For the shoreline areas, an adaptive
strategy would be developed to address end -of -century conditions. (Hydrology, Building
Division and Public Works Department);
66. Provide Adequate Storm Flow Conveyance Capacity for Sea Level Rise Conditions. To
ensure that the storm drain system conveyance capacity is not constricted by sea level
rise at the outlets, the Project Sponsor shall design the storm drain system to adequately
convey stormwater runoff at outlet water surface elevations equivalent to the 100 -year
flood event base elevation plus sea level rise of 55 inches (water surface elevation of
11.6 feet at the outlet). Prior to receiving a grading permit, the City shall review project
designs and studies for adequacy of storm flow conveyance with an outlet surface water
elevation of 11.6 feet and in accordance with City design standards. The City shall
prepare Conditions of Approval, where necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are
met. The Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City Conditions of Approval into
project designs, prior to receiving a grading permit. (Hydrology, Public Works
Department);
67. Provide Protection of Shoreline and Flood Protection Features from Hvdrodvnamic
Forces from Sea Level Rise Conditions. Prior to receiving a grading permit, in order to
ensure that the shoreline and flood protection features associated with the proposed
project provide protection under sea level rise hydrodynamic and/or hydrostatic
21
EXHIBIT D — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
300 Airport Boulevard
conditions, the Project Sponsor shall prepare engineering studies to identify expected
hydrodynamic forces for under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up)
and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet and hydrostatic forces from a water
surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55 -inch sea level rise). For the
shoreline areas, an adaptive strategy would be implemented to address end -of -century
conditions.
The Project Sponsor shall design shoreline and flood protection features that could
accommodate hydrodynamic forces from sea level rise conditions along wherever flood
protection features are identified under Mitigation Measure HY-7.1 and at shoreline
protection features for stability and integrity under storm surge conditions (at least 2
percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The Project
Sponsor shall also design flood protection features for protection against hydrostatic
forces from a water surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55 -inch
sea level rise). The City shall review designs and associated studies for conformance
with City requirements and adequacy of design measures to withstand hydrodynamic
and hydrostatic forces associated with the design criteria.
The Project Sponsor shall also design erosion protection along the shoreline set -back
area for protection under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a
base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The City shall review designs and associated
studies for adequacy in protecting the shoreline set -back area under these conditions.
The Cify Public Works Department shall prepare Conditions of Approval, where
necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are met. Prior to receiving a grading permit,
tPie Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City and BCDC Conditions of Approval
into project designs. (Hydrology, Public Works Department);
68. Provide Flood Protection up to the 100 -Year Flood Event plus Sea Level Rise forAbove-
Ground Structures. To protect structures and people from sea level rise risks at the 350
Airport Boulevard Site, prior to approving grading permits, the City shall ensure project
design incorporates its floodplain development requirements for a flood depth of the
identified 100 -year flood hazard water surface elevation plus a 4.6 -foot (55 -inch) rise in
sea level. At a minimum, the Project Site shall be graded to over 10 feet above msl and
the finished floor elevation of all building finished floors shall be constructed to 14.5 feet
(i.e., 2.9 feet above the 11.6 -foot potential flood elevation), or as otherwise determined
as grading plans are developed. (Hydrology, Public Works Department); and
69. Future Wind Tunnel Analysis. To reduce potential impacts associated with future
development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site, a wind funnel analysis shall be
conducted in order to ensure that future development of the Site is designed in a way to
minimize wind shadow effects at surrounding windsurfing areas. (Wind and Recreation,
Planning Division).
22