HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - PC - 138-2000 I RESOLUTION NO. 138
2 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DETERMINING THAT OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT OUTWEIGH
3 THE SIGNIFICANT, UNAVOIDABLE, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT OF 488,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE
4 AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND THAT THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED WITH
THESE IMPACTS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE
5 GENERAL PLAN
ZONED C-4 — APN: 026-350-070 AND 026-350-090
6 OWNER AND APPLICANT: GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS
7
8 RESOLVED by the PLANNING COMMISSION of the CITY of BURLINGAME that:
9 WHEREAS, the applicant seeks to build a four-building office project of approximately
10 488,000 square feet at 301 Airport Boulevard, which is currently a movie drive-in site; and
11 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of
12 Burlingame as lead agency for the project, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and on
13 January 10, 2000, following public hearing, the Planning Commission in Commission Resolution No.
14 16-2000 determined that the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR (dated September 14, 1998), the
15 Recirculated Draft EIR(dated January 21, 1999), the Response to Comments Document (dated April
16 15, 1999), and the Addendum/Supplement to the Response to Comments Document (dated
17 November 12, 1999), was complete pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15090 (Title 14, Chapter
18 13 of the California Code of Regulations); and
19 WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR identified six (6)
20 significant and unavoidable environmental impacts; and
21 WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and Resolution No. 16-2000, the
22 Commission could not complete certification of the Final EIR and approve or authorize approval of
23 the proposed project until the Commission made findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
24 15091 and a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093; and
25 WHEREAS, the applicant revised the project following the January 10, 2000, determination;
26 and
27 WHEREAS, the City reviewed the revision (dated February 11, 2000) pursuant to CEQA;
28 and
1 WHEREAS,on March 27,2000,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed study meeting
2 to ask questions of City staff;and
3 WHEREAS,on May 3,2000,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
4 on the nature of the findings and statement of overriding considerations applicable to the project,and
5 WHEREAS,the Commission received and considered all oral and written comments made
6 on the proposed project to the close of the public hearing on May 3,2000;and
7 WHEREAS, it appears that the project as revised following the January 10, 2000,
8 determination does not create any additional adverse environmental impacts nor does it make any
9 identified environmental impacts more significant nor does it interfere or alter the mitigation measures
10 identified in the Final EIR,and therefore,the project as revised following the January 10, 2000,
11 determination is within the scope and analysis of the Final EIR;and
12 WHEREAS, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate to the Commission that the
13 applicant has no further feasible steps to further reduce the identified, significant, unavoidable
14 environmental impacts of the proposed project and that there are overriding considerations that
15 outweigh those impacts making them"acceptable;"and
16 WHEREAS,the findings contained in Exhibit A hereto show that there are insufficient
17 considerations to outweigh the identified, significant, unavoidable environmental impacts of the
18 proposed project;and
19 WHEREAS,the findings contained in Exhibit A hereto further show that while the project
20 meets the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code and the design guidelines of the Bayfront
21 Guidelines,the overall project and its effects are inconsistent with and would frustrate goals and
22 objectives of the Burlingame General Plan;and
23 WHEREAS,further concerns of the community and the Commission can be found in the
24 actual discussion in the record of these proceedings;and
25 WHEREAS,these determinations make unnecessary any further findings on the infeasibility
26 of further mitigation to further reduce the identified,unavoidable,significant environmental impacts
27 without revisions to the proposed project,
28
2
I NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows:
2 1. The proposed project with the unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts identified in the
3 Final EIR is not consistent with goals and objectives of the Burlingame General Plan.
4 2. There are insufficient benefits of the project to outweigh the unavoidable, significant,
5 adverse environmental impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
6 3. A copy of this resolution shall be provided to the Building Official, the Director of Public
7 Works, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission., as well as any other responsible
8 agencies.
9 This decision is appealable to the City Council pursuant to the Burlingame Municipal Code
10 and CEQA. Anyone wishing to challenge the decision on this Final EIR in a court of competent
11 jurisdiction must first file such an appeal to the City Council and following the decision of the Council
12 must file any action challenging the decision on the Final EIR in a court of competent jurisdiction
13 within the time limits set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and the provisions of the
14 CEQA Guidelines as adopted by the State of California (Title 4, Chapter 3 of the California Code of
15 Regulations).
16 This Resolution was adopted by the following vote of the City of Burlingame Planning
17 Commission at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 8 2000:
18 AYES: BOJUES , DEAL , KEIGHRAN , VISTICA
19 NOES: NONE
ABSENT: DREILING , LUZURIAGA
20 ABSTAINING: O S T E R L I N G
21
/s
22 Cdnunission cretary
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
I EXHIBIT A
2 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT AT 301 AIRPORT
3
4 I. Regarding Overriding Considerations
5 A. The proposed project will not create opportunities to work near where persons live. The size and
6 scale of the project make it probable that large corporate tenants or owners will occupy the
7 buildings making long-distance commuting even more likely.
8 B. The project site is a key Bayfront parcel, and the proposed project fails to sufficiently incorporate
9 the necessary elements to make it a focus of community activities, such as cafes, stores, plazas,
10 and inviting access, and not just a set of office buildings. An example of such a community-
I 1 oriented project is Levi Strauss Headquarters in San Francisco. These elements could reduce
12 traffic impacts from the project and the cumulative effect of traffic from the area.
13 C. The proposed project does not possess a sophisticated phasing plan that would allow the owner,
14 the Cities of Burlingame and San Mateo, and the community to evaluate at each appropriate
15 phase how the traffic, parking, and other aspects of the development are actually affecting the
16 community and meeting the predictions and goals established by the Final EIR, the mitigation
17 monitoring plan, transportation system management, and the owners, so that adjustments or
18 corrections could be made at each phase.
19 D. It has not been possible to evaluate the additional conditions proposed by the applicant in the two
20 weeks leading up to the May 3, 2000, hearing as to potential effectiveness, difficulty of
21 implementation and ongoing operation, cost to taxpayers and neighboring property owners, and
22 consistency with other programs.
23 E. The additional revenue that this project will generate as an economic benefit to the City does not
24 counterbalance the effects and expenses of the negative impacts of the project or its associated
25 costs.
26 F. The proposed project does not offer the creativity in design and amenities that would
27 counterbalance the identified, significant environmental impacts nor does it propose sufficient
28 programs or plans that would reduce the traffic impact and housing imbalance.
I G. The proposed project is not consistent with the scale of development of the area and
2 neighborhood with regard to floor area ratio.
3 H. There do not appear to be any technological or legal benefits from the proposed project.
4 I. The proposed benefits of the project are focused on the people who would occupy the project
5 site and not on those who live and work in the surrounding community.
6 1 The applicant has not reached agreement with the City of San Mateo on the steps necessary and
7 acceptable to San Mateo to address the Poplar Avenue/Humboldt Street/Amphlett Boulevard
8 traffic impact.
9 K. The proposed project has not been justified by an analysis showing how reductions in size might
10 still make the project profitable while appropriately reducing impacts. No analysis of levels of
11 these thresholds has been provided.
12 L. The impact of the proposed project on air quality may not be reduced by alternative
13 transportation methods and systems,because trip reduction cannot be guaranteed.
14 M. Accepting the applicant's additions to the mitigations/conditions at face value,the net effect of
15 the proposed project would still be detrimental to the community.
16
17 II. Regarding Consistency with General Plan
18 A. A goal of the Burlingame General Plan is to assure that Burlingame will be a"well-rounded"city
19 with residences,schools,business,industry,and space and facilities for social,recreational and
20 cultural activities. An implementing objective is to encourage the establishment of businesses,
21 professional offices,and institutions to serve residents. This proposed project would not appear
22 to serve residents.
23 B. A goal of the Burlingame General Plan is to maintain and strengthen local sources ofrevenue,and
24 an implementing objective is to enhance land values and economic opportunity by providing
25 efficient connections between functional parts of the City and good access to land to permit
26 development of uses appropriate in type and intensity without undue congestion. The proposed
27 project does not serve this objective as shown by the significant,adverse impacts identified in the
28 Final EIR.
I C. A goal of the Burlingame General Plan is to enhance the local economy and the prospects for
2 economic well being for all residents, and implementing objectives are to:
3 i. Improve the functional efficiency and safety of the circulation system.
4 ii. Minimize disruptive effects of vehicular movement on the community.
5 iii. Improve the functional efficiency, character and quality of the Central and other business
6 districts.
7 As documented in the Final EIR, the proposed project does not serve these objectives.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, REVISED PROJECT, AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters / Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq. ft.) (488,000 sq. ft.)I (488,000 sq. ft.)
Key Parameters
Daily Trip Generation2 (Full 5,497 4,484 4,484
Project)
AM Peak-Hour Trips (Full 815 660 660
Project)
PM Peak-Hour Trips (Full 793 626 626
Project)
Daily Trip Generation 1,544 1,924 1,544
(Phase 1)
AM Peak-Hour Trips 218 274 218
(Phase 1)
PM Peak-Hour Trips (Phase 1) 216 261 216
Parking Demand 1,776 1,362 1,362
Proposed Parking Supply 2,123 1,6266 1,627
Code-Required Parking 2,121 1,626 1,626
Supply
Site Access Four driveways (Main (full access) One (full access) driveway on north frontage of One (full access) driveway on north frontage of
driveway, plus second (right turn in/out) site; emergency access to Beach Road (south site; emergency access to Beach Road (south
driveway, on north frontage of site ; frontage of site). frontage of site).
Secondary (full access) driveway, plus
second (right turn in/out) driveway, on east
frontage of site.
Bicycle Access/Circulation Class II Bike Lane on proiect side of Class II Bike Lanes on both sides of Airport Class II Bike Lanes on both sides of Airport
Airport Boulevard along frontage of site. Boulevard along frontage of site. Boulevard along frontage of site.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final FIR 3 GSA 1980241
March 15, 2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, REVISED PROJECT, AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
B. Traffic,Circulation and
Parkin
Impaacts/Mitigation Measures
1. The proposed project would Significant and Unavoidable impact(at Same as Original Project.? The level of impact Versus Original Project: Same Impact. The
increase traffic volumes at Phase 2)to existing LOS F condition at the under buildout conditions would be less due to level of impact under buildout conditions would
intersections in the project intersection of Poplar Avenue—U.S. 101 the reduced trip generation,but the larger be less due to the reduced trip generation. The
area. Southbound Ramps/North Amphlett Road. Phase 1 would cause the significant impact to level of impact under Phase 1 conditions would
occur earlier than for the original project, be the same,affecting the timing of
affecting the timing of implementation of the implementation of the mitigation measure(see
mitigation measure(see Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure B.1).
B.1).
Versus Revised Project: Same Impact. The
level of impact under buildout conditions would
be the same. The level of impact under Phase 1
conditions would be less due to the reduced trip
generation,and the significant impact would
occur later than the revised project,affecting the
timing of implementation of the mitigation
measure(see Mitigation Measure B.1).
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 4 PSA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
Mitigation Measure B./ The City of San Mateo shall install The City of San Mateo shall install regulatory The City of San Mateo shall install regulatory
regulatory signs,to be funded by the signs,to be funded by the project applicant, signs,to be funded by the project applicant,prior
project applicant,prior to occupancy of prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the project,at to occupancy of Phase 2 of the project,at the
Phase 2 of the project,at the intersection of the intersection of Poplar Avenue—U.S. 101 intersection of Poplar Avenue—U.S. 101
Poplar Avenue—U.S. 101 Southbound Southbound Ramps/North Amphlett Road to Southbound Ramps/North Amphlett Road to
Ramps/North Amphlett Road to restrict restrict vehicle movements to and from North restrict vehicle movements to and from North
vehicle movements to and from North Amphlett Road north of Poplar Avenue to Amphlett Road north of Poplar Avenue to
Amphlett Road north of Poplar Avenue to right-turns in and out only during the a.m. peak right-turns in and out only during the a.m. peak
right-turns in and out only during the a.m. hour and the p.m.peak hour. If monitoring of hour and the p.m.peak hour. If monitoring of
peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. If traffic conditions reveals that installation of the traffic conditions reveals that installation of the
monitoring of traffic conditions reveals that regulatory signs does not successfully achieve regulatory signs does not successfully achieve
installation of the regulatory signs does not mitigation of the impact to a less than mitigation of the impact to a less than significant
successfully achieve mitigation of the significant level,then the City of San Mateo level,then the City of San Mateo shall install a
impact to a less than significant level,then shall install a raised channelizing island,to be raised channelizing island,to be funded by the
the City of San Mateo shall install a raised funded by the project applicant. Because the project applicant. Because the mitigation
channelizing island,to be funded by the mitigation measure is not within the authority measure is not within the authority of the City of
project applicant. Because the mitigation of the City of Burlingame to implement,the Burlingame to implement,the impact is
measure is not within the authority of the impact is considered to remain significant. considered to remain significant.
City of Burlingame to implement,the
impact is considered to remain significant.
3. The proposed project would Significant and Unavoidable impact at the The Significant and Unavoidable impact would Versus Original Project: Same Impact,at same
increase traffic volumes on southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp to Broadway occur at Phase 2 of the Revised Project,same Phase 2. The level of impact under buildout
freeway ramps in the project (in the a.m.peak hour);traffic operations as with the original project. The level of conditions would be about 20 percent less due to
area. would degrade to an unacceptable level impact under buildout conditions of the the reduced trip generation,although the impact
(LOS F)at Phase 2 of the project. Revised Project would be about 20 percent less still would be significant.
than with buildout of the original project due to
the reduced trip generation,although the Versus Revised Project: Same Impact,at same
impact still would be significant. Phase 2. The level of impact under buildout
conditions would be the same due to the equal
trip generation.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 5 ESA/980241
March 15.2000
ADDENDUM TO TIIE FINAL EIR.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)l (488,000 sq.ft.)
Mitigation Measure B.3 The project applicant(and any future Same as Original Project. Same as Original and Revised Projects.
property owner)shall require building
tenants,as part of lease agreements,to Note: Caltrans is currently preparing a Project Note: Caltrans is currently preparing a Project
participate in a Transportation Demand Study Report to evaluate the benefits of adding Study Report to evaluate the benefits of adding
Management(TDM)program operated by auxiliary lanes along U.S. 101,including in the auxiliary lanes along U.S. 101,including in the
the property-owner in order to reduce the section between Millbrae Avenue and Third section between Millbrae Avenue and Third
number of project-generated vehicle trips. ' Avenue. The primary purpose of auxiliary Avenue. The primary purpose of auxiliary lanes
lanes is to ease the transition of cars entering is to ease the transition of cars entering and
and exiting the freeway. Construction of a exiting the freeway. Construction of a
southbound auxiliary lane between the southbound auxiliary lane between the Millbrae
Millbrae Avenue on-ramp and the Broadway Avenue on-ramp and the Broadway off-ramp
off-ramp would improve the traffic operations would improve the traffic operations and is
and is likely to reduce the above-described likely to reduce the above-described impact to a
impact to a less than significant level.4 less than significant level.4 However,because
However,because the mitigation measure is the mitigation measure is not within the authority
not within the authority of the City of of the City of Burlingame to implement,the
Burlingame to implement,the impact is impact is considered significant.
considered significant.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 6 ESA/980241
March 15.2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE I (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
10. The proposed project would Significant and Unavoidable cumulative Same as Original Project for Poplar Avenue— Versus Original Project: Same Impact for Poplar
contribute to cumulative impact at the intersection of Poplar U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/North Amphlett Avenue—U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/North
traffic increases at Avenue—U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/ Road. The Revised Project's contribution to Amphlett Road. The contribution to the
intersections in the project North Amphlett Road. the cumulative impact would be about three to cumulative impact would be about three to four
area. four seconds of delay per vehicle less than the seconds of delay per vehicle less due to the
original project due to the reduced trip reduced trip generation.
generation.
Versus Revised Project: Same Impact for Poplar
Avenue—U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/North
Amphlett Road. The contribution to the
cumulative impact would be the same due to the
equal trip generation.
Significant and Unavoidable cumulative Less Than Significant cumulative impact at Versus Original Project: Less Than Significant
impact at the intersection of North North Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 cumulative impact at North Bayshore
Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Northbound Off-Ramp The cumulative p.m. Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp
Off-Ramp during the p.m.peak hour(based peak-hour v/c ratio=0.82 with the Revised The cumulative p.m.peak-hour v/c ratio=0.82
on City of San Mateo's level of service Project is less than the City of San Mateo's is less than the City of San Mateo's threshold of
threshold of significance [i.e.,LOS D, threshold of significance(v/c=0.85). The significance(v/c=0.85). The cumulative
v/c ratio=0.85]). cumulative v/c ratio would be 0.87 with the v/c ratio would be 0.87 with the original project.
original project.
Versus Revised Project: Less Than Significant
cumulative impact at North Bayshore
Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp
The cumulative p.m.peak-hour v/c ratio=0.82
is less than the City of San Mateo's threshold of
significance(v/c=0.85),and is the same as with
the Revised Project.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 7 ESA/980241
March 15.2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)l (488,000 sq.ft.)
Mitigation Measure B.10a Implement Mitigation Measure B.1 Same as Original Project;cumulatively Same as Original and Revised Projects;
(installation of regulatory signs;monitoring significant at the intersection of Poplar cumulatively significant at the intersection of
of traffic conditions,etc.)at the intersection Avenue—U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/North Poplar Avenue—U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/
of Poplar Avenue—U.S. 101 Southbound Amphlett Road. Because the mitigation North Amphlett Road. Because the mitigation
Ramps/North Amphlett Road. Because measure is not within the authority of the City measure is not within the authority of the City of
the mitigation measure is not within the of Burlingame to implement,the impact is Burlingame to implement,the impact is
authority of the City of Burlingame to considered to remain significant. considered to remain significant.
implement,the impact is considered to
remain significant.
Mitigation Measure B.10b Prior to occupancy of Phase 6[buildout]of None Required at the intersection of North Versus Original Project: None Required at the
the project,the project applicant shall Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound intersection of North Bayshore Boulevard/
contribute a fair share toward realignment Off-Ramp;less than significant cumulative U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp;less than
of the three separate intersections that impact with the Revised Project. significant cumulative impact with the Revised
comprise the intersection of North Revised Project.
Bayshore Boulevard and U.S. 101
Northbound Off-Ramp into one signalized Versus Revised Project: Same conclusion(None
"T"intersection,with the off-ramp and Required at the intersection of North Bayshore
North Bayshore forming the top of the"T", Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp;
and an added left-turn lane for traffic less than significant cumulative impact with the
traveling from Airport Boulevard or Coyote Revised Revised Project).
Point Drive to southbound North Bayshore
Boulevard.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final ETR 8 ESA/980241
March IS,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR .
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)t (488,000 sq.ft.)
11. The proposed project would Significant cumulative impact on three Significant cumulative impact on two freeway Versus Original Project: Significant cumulative
contribute to cumulative freeway segments(from Millbrae Avenue segments(from Millbrae Avenue to Broadway; impact on two freeway segments(from Millbrae
traffic increases on the U.S. to Broadway;from Broadway to Anza and from Broadway to Anza Boulevard); Avenue to Broadway;and from Broadway to
101 freeway. Boulevard;and from Peninsula Avenue to traffic operations would degrade to an Anza Boulevard);traffic operations would
Poplar Avenue);traffic operations would unacceptable level (LOS F). degrade to an unacceptable level (LOS F).
degrade to an unacceptable level (LOS F).
Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
Mitigation Measure B.II Caltrans is currently preparing a Project Same as Original Project;cumulatively Versus Original Project: Same Mitigation
Study Report to evaluate the benefits of significant,but on two,not three,freeway Measure;cumulatively significant,but on two,
adding auxiliary lanes along U.S. 101 segments. Traffic flow on these freeway not three,freeway segments. Traffic flow on
between Marsh Road in Menlo Park and segments would be helped by the addition of these freeway segments would be helped by the
Grand Avenue in South San Francisco auxiliary lanes by Caltrans. See Footnote 4 for addition of auxiliary lanes by Caltrans. See
(auxiliary lanes from Marsh Road to discussion of the auxiliary lanes project. Footnote 4 for discussion of the auxiliary lanes
Hillsdale Boulevard are currently under However,because the mitigation measure is project. However,because the mitigation
construction). The primary purpose of not within the authority of the City of measure is not within the authority of the City of
auxiliary lanes is to ease the transition of Burlingame to implement,the impact is Burlingame to implement,the impact is
cars entering and exiting the freeway,thus considered to remain significant. considered to remain significant.
improving traffic flow on the freeway.4
However,because the mitigation measure Versus Revised Project: Same Mitigation
is not within the authority of the City of Measure;cumulatively significant on same
Burlingame to implement,the impact is number of freeway segments. Because the
considered significant. mitigation measure is not within the authority of
the City of Burlingame to implement,the impact
is considered to remain significant.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 9 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)l (488,000 sq.ft.)
12. The proposed project would Significant and Unavoidable cumulative Same as Original Project Versus Original Pr iect: Same Impact.
contribute to cumulative impact at the northbound Anza Boulevard
traffic increases on U.S. 101 off-ramp(in the p.m.peak hour),and the
rVersus Revised Project: Same Impact.
amps. southbound Broadway off-ramp,
southbound Poplar Avenue on-ramp and
northbound Peninsula Avenue off-ramp(in
both peak hours).
Mitigation Measure B.12 Implement Mitigation Measures B.3 Same as Original Project. See Footnote 4 for Same as Original and Revised Projects. See
(participation in a Transportation Demand discussion of auxiliary lanes to reduce this Footnote 4 for discussion of auxiliary lanes to
Management program) impact. Because the mitigation measure is not reduce this impact. Because the mitigation
within the authority of the City of Burlingame measure is not within the authority of the City of
to implement,the impact is considered Burlingame to implement,the impact is
significant. considered significant.
C. Air Quality
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
4. The proposed project would Significant and Unavoidable cumulative Significant and Unavoidable cumulative Versus Original Project: Significant and
contribute to cumulative impact on air quality,because vehicle trip impact on air quality. However,the project's Unavoidable cumulative impact on air quality.
mobile-source emissions. emissions of cumulative projects together contribution to cumulative mobile-source However,the project's contribution to
with those of the proposed project would emissions would be approximately 18 percent cumulative mobile-source emissions would be
exceed 80 pounds per day for ROG,NOx, less than the original project. approximately 18 percent less than the original
and PM-10. project.
Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 10 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR .
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
Mitigation Measure G4 a: Implement transit measures to Same as Original Project;Significant Same as Original and Revised Projects;
encourage use of public transit to the Unavoidable Significant Unavoidable
project site.
b: Provide bicycle parking for
employees.
c: Applicant shall explore the feasibility
of extending local"Free Bee"or other
shuttle service to the project site,and
shall participate financially in any
such shuttle service determined to be
feasible.
d: Implement all traffic circulation
improvements identified in Section
IIID.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR I I ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
SIGNIFICANT BUT MITIGABLE
B. Traffic,Circulation and
Parking
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
4. The proposed project would Significant impact due to poor(LOS F) Significant impact due to poor(LOS F)level of Versus Original Project: Significant impact due
generate turning movements level of service at the intersection of service at the intersection of Airport Boulevard to poor(LOS F)level of service at the
between Airport Boulevard Airport Boulevard and the full-access and the(only)full-access driveway on the intersection of Airport Boulevard and the(only)
and the site. driveway on the north side during the p.m. north side during the p.m. peak hour. Average full-access driveway on the north side during the
peak hour. The full-access driveway on the intersection delay would be about 33 seconds p.m.peak hour. Average intersection delay
east side is projected to operate at LOS A. per vehicle for the Revised Project,versus would be about 33 seconds per vehicle for the
about 73 seconds per vehicle for the original Revised Revised Project, versus about
project. 73 seconds per vehicle for the original project.
Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
Mitigation Measure B.4 The project applicant shall design and The project applicant shall design and install a Same as Revised Project. The project applicant
install a traffic signal at the intersection of traffic signal at the intersection of Airport shall design and install a traffic signal at the
Airport Boulevard and the full-access Boulevard and the full-access driveway on the intersection of Airport Boulevard and the
driveway on the north side of the project north side of the project site prior to occupancy full-access driveway on the north side of the
site prior to occupancy of Phase 6 of the of Phase 1 of the project. The traffic signal project site prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the
project. The traffic signal plan is subject to plan is subject to review and approval by the project. The traffic signal plan is subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer City Engineer of Burlingame. Upon review and approval by the City Engineer of
of Burlingame. Upon acceptance of the acceptance of the traffic signal installation by Burlingame. Upon acceptance of the traffic.
traffic signal installation by the Burlingame the Burlingame City Council,the City shall be signal installation by the Burlingame City
City Council,the City shall be responsible responsible for the maintenance of the traffic Council,the City shall be responsible for the
for the maintenance of the traffic signal. signal. Less than significant after mitigation. maintenance of the traffic signal. Less than
Less than significant after mitigation. significant after mitigation.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 12 ESA/980241
March IS,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters 1 Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)t (488,000 sq.ft.)
13. Cumulative traffic increases in Cumulatively significant increase in delays Cumulatively significant increase in delays for Versus Original Project: Cumulatively
the project area would for left turns out of the project site at the left turns out of project site at the intersection significant increase in delays for left turns out of
exacerbate delays at the north driveway during the p.m.peak hour. of Airport Boulevard and the(only)full-access project site at the intersection of Airport
intersection of Airport The east driveway would continue to driveway on the north side during the p.m. Boulevard and the(only)full-access driveway on
Boulevard and the project operate at LOS A. peak hour. the north side during the p.m. peak hour.
site's north full-access
driveway. Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
Mitigation Measure B.13 Implement Mitigation Measure B.4(install Same as Original Project;less than significant Same as Original and Revised Projects; less than
traffic signal) after mitigation. significant after mitigation.
14. The proposed project would Cumulative significant(doubling) increase Cumulative significant(more than doubling) Versus Original Project: Cumulative significant
contribute to cumulative in the projected number of accidents on the increase in the projected number of accidents (more than doubling) increase in the projected
increases on Airport curve. on the curve. number of accidents on the curve.
Boulevard,which would affect
traffic safety at the 90-degree Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
curve at Fisherman's Park.
Mitigation Measure B.14 The City shall reconstruct Airport Same as Original Project. Due to the higher Versus Original Project: Same Mitigation
Boulevard,at Fisherman's Park,to increase level of project traffic on the curve under the Measure. Due to the higher level of project
the radius of the 90-degree curve to up to Revised Project(about 1,680 vehicles per hour traffic on the curve under the Revised Revised
300 feet, The project applicant shall [vph]) versus the original project(about Project(about 1,680 vehicles per hour[vph])
contribute its fair share of the cost of this 1,100 vph),the project applicant shall versus the original project(about 1,100 vph),the
improvement. Less than significant after contribute a greater share of the cost of this project applicant shall contribute a greater share
mitigation. improvement. Less than significant after of the cost of this improvement. Less than
mitigation. significant after mitigation.
Versus Revised Project: Same Mitigation
Measure. Same share of the cost of this
improvement. Less than significant after
mitigation.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 13 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
C. Air Quality
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
1. Fugitive dust generated by Significant construction emissions without Although less overall construction would occur Versus Original Project: Although less overall
construction activities would implementation of construction emission- under the Revised Project compared to the construction would occur under the Revised
be substantial and would control measures. original project,construction emissions would Revised Project compared to the original project,
contribute to intermittent similarly be considered significant. construction emissions would similarly be
ambient respirable particulate
matter concentrations that considered significant.
would violate state PM-10
standards. Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
Mitigation Measure C.1 Implement a construction dust-abatement Same as Original Project;Less Than Same as Original and Revised Projects;Less
program. Significant after mitigation. Than Significant after mitigation.
D. Noise
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
1. Construction activities would Significant. Construction noise would be Although less overall construction would occur Versus Original Project: Although less overall
intermittently and temporarily generated during all of the proposed under the Revised Project compared to the construction would occur under the Revised
generate noise levels above construction phases,but the initial phase of original project;construction noise impacts Revised Project compared to the original project,
existing ambient levels in the construction would be more extensive due would be similarly significant. construction noise impacts would be similarly
project vicinity. to site grading and preparation, including significant.
pile driving.
Versus Revised Pr eect: Same Impact.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 14 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)t (488,000 sq.ft.)
Mitigation Measure D.1 a: To reduce construction noise effects, Same as Original Project;except for Mitigation Same as Original Project;except for Mitigation
the applicant shall require construction Measure D.le,revised as follows: Measure D.le,below,and same as Revised
contractors to limit noisy construction Project:
activities to less noise-sensitive times e: To the degree feasible,piles for all phases
of the day and week(e.g.,7:00 a.m.to of construction shall be pre-drilled to e: To the degree feasible,piles for all phases of
6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday; reduce the duration of pile driving activity construction shall be pre-drilled to reduce the
9:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Saturday;none and vibration caused by pile driving. duration of pile driving activity and vibration
on Sunday and holidays). caused by pile driving.
b: The applicant shall require contractors Less Than Significant after Mitigation Less Than Significant after Mitigation
to muffle all equipment used on the
project and to maintain it in good
operating condition. All internal
combustion engine-driven equipment
shall be fitted with intake and exhaust
mufflers that are in good condition.
This measure should result in all non-
impact tools generating a maximum
noise level of no more than 85 dBA
when measured at a distance of 50
feet.
c: Applicant shall require contractors to
turn off powered construction
equipment when not in use.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final ETR 15 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)I (488,000 sq.ft.)
d: To reduce the noise effects of pile
driving,applicant shall require
construction contractors to limit pile
driving activities to the least noise-
sensitive times of the day and week
(e.g.,9:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday
through Friday,and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m.,Saturday;none on Sundays and
holidays).
e: To the degree feasible,piles for all
phases of construction shall be pre-
drilled to reduce the duration of pile
driving activity.
3: The project would constitute a Potentially Significant without Same as Original Project;continues to be Versus Original Project: Same as Original
commercial land use in an area incorporation of appropriate materials into Potentially Significant. Project;continues to be Potentially Significant.
where noise levels would building design.
exceed the normally Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
acceptable planning criteria
for such uses.
Mitigation Measure D.3 Project design shall meet an interior noise Same as Original Project;Less Than Same as Original and Revised Projects;Less
standard of 45 CNEL,as required by the Significant after Mitigation Than Significant after Mitigation
general plan.
SCH NoA8041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 16 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO TIIE FINAL EIR-
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)
E. Visual Ouality,Light,and
Glare
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
2. The project would result in Significant. The overall height and bulk of View blockage of San Bruno Mountain and the Versus Original Project: View blockage of San
obstruction of views of San the buildings would result in additional San Bruno Hills,would be similar to the Bruno Mountain and the San Bruno Hills, would
Bruno Mountain and the San view blockage of San Bruno Mountain and original project;and would continue to be be similar to the original project; and would
Bruno hills as seen from the San Bruno hills Significant. The impacts of the Revised continue to be Significant. The impacts of the
northbound U.S. 101 and the Project on other views to and through the site Revised Revised Project on other views to and
Coyote Point Recreation Area would be similar to,or less than,those of the through the site would be similar to,or less than,
beach. original project because the smaller Revised those of the original project because the smaller
Project would generally permit greater visual Revised Project would generally permit greater
access through the site. visual access through the site.
Versus Revised Project: The gross square
footage of the Revised Revised Project is
identical to the Revised Project,however, it is
shorter than the Revised Project(65 feet to top of
parapet for Revised Revised Project,compared
to 83.28 feet to top of parapet for Revised
Project),but would consist of an additional
building(total of four)than the Revised Project
(total of three). Resultant impacts of the Revised
Revised Project would be similar to the Revised
Project.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 17 ESA 1980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR'
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
Mitigation Measure E.2 a: In order to compensate for the loss of Same as Original Project;Less Than Same as Original and Revised Projects;Less
views of San Bruno Mountain and the Significant after Mitigation Than Significant after Mitigation
San Bruno hills,the project shall
include the following: (Proposed as
Part of the Project)
• a designed landscape perimeter
along the public frontages of the
project site(i.e.,along Airport
Boulevard and the Sanchez
Channel);
• public pedestrian and bicycle
access through the landscaped
perimeter of the site;
• removal of existing movie screens
and other dilapidated on-site
structures;and
• implementation of an active
maintenance program for project
landscaping,buildings,and
parking areas, including unused
areas designated for future phases
of the project.
b: Applicant shall provide and maintain
suitable perimeter screening and
ground surface treatments,acceptable
to the City Planner,for all areas
retained for future phases of
development.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 18 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL OR-
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)I (488,000 sq.ft.)
F. Hydrology and Water
ualit
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
2. Flooding could occur at the Significant. Seepage of water through the Same as Original Project Versus Original Project: Same as Original
project site due to seepage permeable fill bordering the channel along Project;continues to be Significant.
through the levees from the the western edge of the site could occur
Sanchez Channel and bay,or during periods of high tide and could result Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
from overtopping of levees. in flooding at the site. The first floors of
project buildings would be constructed
above the surface parking level;and
therefore,the occupied portions of the
buildings would not be subject to flooding.
Mitigation Measure F.2 a: As required by the City,the elevation Same as Original Project;Less Than Same as Original and Revised Projects;Less
of the first finished floor of all new Significant after Mitigation Than Significant after Mitigation
structures shall be a minimum of+10
feet above MSL. No storage or other
occupied area shall be constructed
below+10 feet above MSL.
b: The fill bordering Sanchez Channel
shall be reinforced and a low
permeability barrier installed to
prevent seepage from the channel onto
the project site.
c: A qualified engineer shall inspect the
area along eastern border of the site,
on the Airport Boulevard frontage,to
determine the advisability of installing
a low-permeability barrier,similar to
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 19 ESA/980241
March 15.2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR .
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)
that along the west side of the site. If
determined advisable by the engineer,
the applicant shall submit to the City
Engineer for review design plans and
specifications for such a barrier on the
eastern edge of the site,and shall
implement such plans as directed by
the City Engineer.
d: In addition to Mitigation Measures
F.2.a and F.2.b,the following
measures shall be incorporated into
project design to reduce the potential
impacts of flooding:
• Tide gates shall be installed in the
storm drain system to prevent high
water from back-flowing into the
site during flood periods.
• Adequate drainage,and pump
facilities,including a sound-baffled
backup power supply,shall be
provided in the parking area to
prevent ponding.
• Storm drainage facilities shall be
designed to accommodate any
future settlement of the site,and
levees and other fill along the site
perimeter.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 20 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR'
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)t (488,000 sq.ft.)
• A flood contingency plan shall be
developed to provide guidelines for
management of vehicles in the
event of flooding of the lower
parking level.
3. Increased intensity of urban Significant. Increased vehicular use and Same as Original Project. However,since the Versus Original Project: Same as Original
uses at the site could result in increased use of landscape chemicals could Revised Project would result in less parking Project. However,since the Revised Project
degradation of surface water degrade the quality of runoff leaving the area than the original project,the potential would result in less parking area than the original
runoff water quality. site compared to existing conditions. adverse water quality impacts associated with project,the potential adverse water quality
parking lot runoff would be reduced compared impacts associated with parking lot runoff would
to the original project. be reduced compared to the original project.
Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
Mitigation Measure F.3 Parking lot runoff shall be filtered to Same as Original Project;Less Than Same as Original and Revised Projects;Less
remove oil and grease prior to Significant after Mitigation Than Significant after Mitigation
discharge.
b: Runoff from landscaped areas shall be
directed into the on-site project storm
drain system.
4. Project construction could Significant. Grading and construction Same as Original Project Versus Original Project: Same as Original
result in an increase in the activities could contribute to local soil Project.
level of sediment,oil,and erosion and an increase in sediment loads
grease in runoff from the site. of runoff leaving the site. Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 21 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters I Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
Mitigation Measure F.4 To reduce the potential for increased Mitigation Measure F.4 revised as follows: Same as Original Project;except for Mitigation
contamination of surface flows from the Measure F.4,below,and same as Revised
project,prepare and implement a Storm To reduce the potential for increased Project:
Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) contamination of surface flows from the
for the construction phase of the project. project,prepare and implement a Storm Water To reduce the potential for increased
The SWPPP shall be submitted for review Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)for the contamination of surface flows from the project,
to the City of Burlingame and San Mateo construction phase of the project. The SWPPP prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution
County and shall be approved prior to shall be submitted for review to the City of Prevention Plan(SWPPP)for the construction
construction. Burlingame and San Mateo County and shall phase of the project. The SWPPP shall be
be approved prior to issuance of a grading submitted for review to the City of Burlingame
permit. and San Mateo County and shall be approved
prior to issuance of a grading permit.
G. Sanitary Sewer
Imaacts/MitiQation Measures
2. Under cumulative conditions, Significant. Taking into account Significant. However,required upgrades to the Versus Original Project: Significant. However,
the project would contribute to cumulative development,the capacities of study sanitary sewer system would be less than required upgrades to the study sanitary sewer
the need for municipal all study sanitary sewer components would the original project. As under the original system would be less than the original project.
sanitary sewer improvements. be exceeded,including the 431 Rollins project,the eight-inch main upstream and As under the original project,the eight-inch main
Pump Station,the 12-inch main connecting downstream of the 431 Rollins Pump Station upstream and downstream of the 431 Rollins
the project site to the sewer main in Rollins would need to be upgraded to 10-inch diameter. Pump Station would need to be upgraded to 10-
Road,and the main upstream and The 431 Rollins Pump Station would need to be inch diameter. The 431 Rollins Pump Station
downstream of the 431 Rollins Pump upgraded to approximately 610 gallons per would need to be upgraded to approximately
Station. minute(less than the 650 gpm upgrade needed 610 gallons per minute(less than the 650 gpm
under the original project). No upgrades would upgrade needed under the original project). No
be required for the 12-inch main between the upgrades would be required for the 12-inch main
project site and Rollins Road. between the project site and Rollins Road.
Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 22 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
Mitigation Measure G.2 As determined necessary by the City As determined necessary by the City through As determined necessary by the City through
through monitoring of cumulative monitoring of cumulative wastewater flows at monitoring of cumulative wastewater flows at
wastewater flows at the 431 Rollins Pump the 431 Rollins Pump Station,the applicant the 431 Rollins Pump Station,the applicant shall
Station,the applicant shall contribute its shall contribute its fair share to 1)upgrade the contribute its fair share to 1)upgrade the 431
fair share to 1)upgrade the 431 Rollins 431 Rollins Pump Station from peak capacity Rollins Pump Station from peak capacity of 600
Pump Station from peak capacity of of 600 gpm to a peak capacity of 610 gpm, gpm to a peak capacity of 610 gpm,2)upgrade
600 gpm to a peak capacity of 650 gpm 2)upgrade 925 linear feet of the sanitary sewer 925 linear feet of the sanitary sewer line located
(750 gpm if Alternative 3 is approved),2) line located upstream of the 431 Rollins Pump upstream of the 431 Rollins Pump Station to 10-
upgrade the 12-inch main connecting the Station to 10-inch diameter and 3)upgrade 350 inch diameter and 3)upgrade 350 linear feet of
project site to the main in Rollins Road to linear feet of the sanitary sewer main located the sanitary sewer main located downstream of
15-inch diameter,3)upgrade 925 linear feet downstream of pump to 10-inch diameter. pump to 10-inch diameter.
of the sanitary sewer line located upstream
of the 431 Rollins Pump Station to 12-inch Less Than Significant After Mitigation Less Than Significant After Mitigation
diameter and 4)upgrade 350 linear feet of
the sanitary sewer main located
downstream of pump to 12-inch diameter.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 23 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)t (488,000 sq.ft.)
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
B. Traffic,Circulation and
Parkin
IA. The proposed project would Less Than Significant Impact The Revised Project would add less traffic; Versus Original Project: The Revised Revised
increase traffic volumes on i.e.,about 650 vehicles per day(vpd)to North Project would add less traffic;i.e.,about
residential streets in the Humboldt Avenue and about 336 vpd to North 650 vehicles per day(vpd)to North Humboldt
project area. Bayshore Boulevard,versus about 800 vpd and Avenue and about 336 vpd to North Bayshore
410 vpd,respectively,with the original project. Boulevard,versus about 800 vpd and 410 vpd,
The impact would continue to be less than respectively,with the original project. The
significant. impact would continue to be less than
significant.
Versus Revised Project: Same Conclusion.
2. The proposed project would Less Than Significant Impact The Revised Project would add less than Versus Original Project: The Revised Revised
increase traffic volumes on traffic;i.e.,up to about 225 vehicles per hour Project would add less than traffic; i.e., up to
freeway segments in the (vph)to study freeway segments during peak about 225 vehicles per hour(vph) to study
project area. traffic hours,versus about 280 vph with the freeway segments during peak traffic hours,
original project. The impact would continue to versus about 280 vph with the original project.
be less than significant. The impact would continue to be less than
significant.
Versus Revised Project: Same Conclusion.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 24 ESA/980241
March 15.2000
ADDENDUM TO TILE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
5. The proposed project would Significant impact because parking stalls Less than Significant impact. At the project Versus Original Protect: Less than Significant
generate on-site circulation near the northwest and southeast driveways entrance to Airport Boulevard,the parking impact. At the project entrance to Airport
within the project parking would create vehicle circulation conflicts circulation aisles would be isolated from the Boulevard,the parking circulation aisles would
areas. (with potential traffic safety implications) main project driveway so as not to interfere be isolated from the main project driveway so as
between vehicles backing out of these with queued outbound vehicles. not to interfere with queued outbound vehicles.
spaces(blocking the driveways) and
vehicles exiting the parking area(queuing
back from these driveways,and preventing Versus Revised Project: Same Conclusion.
vehicles from backing out of their spaces).
Mitigation Measure B.5 The project applicant shall design the None Required. Versus Original Project: None Required.
layout of parking stalls to reduce conflicts
between vehicles exiting via the northwest
Versus Revised Project: Same Conclusion.
and southeast driveways and vehicles
backing out of the stalls near the driveways.
6. The proposed project would Less Than Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact. On the basis of Versus Original Project: Same Conclusion.
generate demand for parking typical ITE parking demand rates,the
spaces. estimated peak parking demand for the Revised Versus Revised Project: Same Conclusions
Project would be about 1,362 parked vehicles. regarding the sufficiency of the on-site supply to
The parking supply should exceed the peak accommodate projected parking demand and to
parking demand by approximately 10 percent meet the City's Code required number of parking
to account for the difficulty in finding the last spaces. The Revised Revised Project would
few available spaces,and the recommended provide the same number of on-site parking
supply is about 1,498 spaces. The proposed spaces as the Revised Project,but the dimensions
supply of 1,626 on-site parking spaces would of those spaces would meet the City's Code
be sufficient to accommodate the projected
parking demand. requirements,whereas the Revised Project's
proposed use of unistall (smaller)spaces would
The City of Burlingame parking code require a variance to Code requirements
requirements for an office use is one parking regarding space dimensions.
stall per 300 sq. ft.of gross floor area. The
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 25 ESA/980241
March 15.2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)t (488,000 sq.ft.)
Code requirement for the Revised Project
would be 1,626 stalls,and the on-site parking
supply would meet the City's code
requirement.
7. The proposed project would Significant impact because the project Less Than Significant Impact. The Revised Versus Original Project: Less Than Significant
have an effect on bicycle and would construct a Class II bike lane along Project would construct a Class II bike lane on Impact. The Revised Revised Project would
pedestrian access to facilities the two frontages of the project site,but not the site side of Airport Boulevard along the construct a Class II bike lane on the site side of
in the area. on the north side of Airport Boulevard two frontages of the project site,and on the Airport Boulevard along the two frontages of the
opposite the project site,and increased north side of Airport Boulevard between project site,and on the north side of Airport
traffic generated by the project would affect Fisherman's Park and Sanchez Channel. Boulevard between Fisherman's Park and
the safety of bicyclists traveling on the Sanchez Channel.
north side of Airport Boulevard without a
designated Class II bike lane. Versus Revised Project: Same Conclusion.
Mitigation Measure B.7 The project applicant shall construct None required(the project applicant now Versus Original Project: None required(the
Class II bike lanes,as needed,so that proposes that the original project's Mitigation project applicant now proposes that the original
Class II bike lanes exist on both sides of Measure B.7 as part of the Revised Project.) project's Mitigation Measure B.7 as part of the
Airport Boulevard along the project site. Revised Revised Project.)
Versus Revised Project: Same Conclusion.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 26 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR'
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)t (488,000 sq.ft.)
8. The proposed project would Less Than Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact. The Versus Original Project: Less Than Significant
increase traffic volumes on consolidation of access driveways into one Impact. The consolidation of access driveways
Airport Boulevard,which driveway under the Revised Project would into one driveway under the Revised Revised
could affect traffic safety,at increase project traffic volumes on the curve by Project would increase project traffic volumes on
the 90-degree curve at about 580 vehicles per day(vpd)above that the curve by about 580 vehicles per day(vpd)
Fisherman's Park. projected for the original project(an increase above that projected for the original project(an
from about 1,100 vpd to about 1,680 vpd), increase from about 1,100 vpd to about
yielding a potential increase in the number of 1,680 vpd),yielding a potential increase in the
accidents on the curve of about 0.51 accidents number of accidents on the curve of about 0.51
per year(versus about 0.34 accidents per year accidents per year(versus about 0.34 accidents
with the original project). The impact would per year with the original project). The impact
continue to be considered less than significant. would continue to be considered less than
significant.
Versus Revised Project: Same Impact.
9. Construction activity Less Than Significant Impact Same as Original Project;Less Than Versus Original Project: Same Conclusion.
associated with the proposed Significant Impact
project would temporarily Versus Revised Proiect: Same Conclusion.
increase traffic volumes on
roadways in the project area.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 27 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)t (488,000 sq.ft.)
C. Air Ouality
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
2. The project would result in Less Than Significant Less Than Significant. The Revised Project Versus Original Project: Less Than Significant.
increased emissions of criteria would generate approximately 18 percent less The Revised Project would generate
pollutants from vehicular emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicular approximately 18 percent less emissions of
traffic to and from the project traffic than the original project. criteria pollutants from vehicular traffic than the
site. The increase in original project.
emissions would not exceed
BAAQMD significance
criteria for daily emissions of Versus Revised Project: Same impact.
NOx,ROG,or respirable
particulate matter.
3. Mobile emissions generated Less Than Significant Less Than Significant. The Revised Project Versus Original Project: Less Than Significant.
by project traffic would would generate approximately 18 percent less The Revised Project would generate
increase CO concentrations at CO concentrations from mobile emissions than approximately 18 percent less emissions of
intersections in the project the original project. criteria pollutants from vehicular traffic than the
vicinity. original project.
Versus Revised Project: Same impact.
D. Noise
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
2. Project-generated traffic Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Versus Original Project: Same as Original
would generate noise that Than Significant. Project;continues to be Less Than Significant.
would affect nearby sensitive
noise receptors. Versus Revised Project: Same impact.
28 ESA/980241
SCH No.98041109 1301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL F,IR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
4. The project,together with Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Versus Original Project: Same as Original
cumulative development in the Than Significant. Project;continues to be Less Than Significant.
Bayfront area,would
contribute to an increase in Versus Revised Project: Same impact.
ambient noise levels as a result
of motor vehicle traffic.
E. Visual Quality,Light,and
Glare
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
1. The proposed project would Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Versus Original Project: Same as Original
alter the visual character of the Than Significant. Project;continues to be Less Than Significant.
site.
Versus Revised Project: Same impact.
3. The proposed project would Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Versus Original Project: Same as Original
potentially cause sun glare off Than Significant. Project;continues to be Less Than Significant.
the east-facing building
facades for northbound U.S. Versus Revised Project: Same impact.
101 motorists during early
morning hours in summer
months.
4. Project-related construction Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Versus Original Project: Same as Original
activities would be visible Than Significant. Project;continues to be Less Than Significant.
from surrounding areas during
the construction period. Versus Revised Project: Same impact.
29 ESA/980241
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR
March I5,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)t (488,000 sq.ft.)
5. The proposed project,together Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Versus Original Project: Same as Original
with other reasonably Than Significant. Project;continues to be Less Than Significant.
foreseeable development in
the project area,may have a
Versus Revised Project: Same impact.
cumulative impact on visual
quality.
F. Hydrology and Water
Quality
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
1. The proposed project could Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Versus Original Project: Same as Original
alter the rate and amount of Than Significant. Project;continues to be Less Than Significant.
runoff from the site.
Versus Revised Project: Same impact.
G. Sanitary Sewer
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
1. Under Existing Plus Project Significant. Due to the size and shallow Less Than Significant. Total projected Versus Original Project: Less Than Significant.
conditions,the project would slope the eight-inch mains upstream and wastewater flows would be at approximately Total projected wastewater flows would be at
result in the need for downstream of the 431 Rollins Pump 23 percent less than the original project. No approximately 23 percent less than the original
municipal sanitary sewer Station,these eight-inch mains would need upgrades to the study sanitary sewer project. No upgrades to the study sanitary sewer
improvements. to be upgraded prior to construction of components would be required under Existing components would be required under Existing
Building E(Phase 6)to accommodate the Plus Project conditions. Plus Project conditions.
estimated peak wet weather sewage flows.
Versus Revised Project: Same impact.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 30 FSA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)
Mitigation Measure G.1 Prior to completion of Building E(Phase 6) None Required. None Required.
of the project,the developer shall: 1)
upgrade approximately 925 linear feet of
the eight-inch sewer line located upstream
of the 431 Rollins Road Pump Station to
10-inch diameter;and 2)upgrade
approximately 350 linear feet of eight-inch
main located downstream of pump station
to 10-inch diameter.
3. Under Existing Plus Project Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Same as Original and Revised Projects;
conditions,the project would Than Significant. continues to be Less Than Significant.
increase wastewater flows to,
and increase the need for
treatment of wastewater flows
at,the Burlingame Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
4. Under cumulative conditions, Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Same as Original and Revised Projects;
the project would contribute to Than Significant. continues to be Less Than Significant.
cumulative wastewater flows
to,and increase the need for
treatment of cumulative
wastewater flows at,the
Burlingame Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final ETR 31 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THF,FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)l (488,000 sq.ft.)
H. Population,Jobs,and
Housing
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
1. The project would not reduce Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Same as Original and Revised Projects;
the supply of land available Than Significant. continues to be Less Than Significant.
for residential development,
and thus would not conflict
with the policies and
objectives of the City of
Burlingame Housing Element.
I. Cultural Resources
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
1. The project would result in Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Same as Original and Revised Projects;
demolition of the Burlingame Than Significant. continues to be Less Than Significant.
Drive-in Theater,a potential
architectural resource.
2. Demolition of the Burlingame Less Than Significant Same as Original Project;continues to be Less Same as Original and Revised Projects;
Drive-in Theater would Than Significant. continues to be Less Than Significant.
constitute the loss of a
recreational resource.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 32 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS, IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT,REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)I (488,000 sq.ft.)
K. Wind and Recreation
Impacts/Mitigation Measures
1. The speed of winds passing Less Than Significant Less Than Significant. The shape and the Versus Original Project:
over the Project would be orientation of the buildings under the Revised Less Than Significant. The shape and the
reduced by the mass of the Project decrease the amount by which wind orientation of the buildings under the Revised
proposed group of five speeds would be reduced by the original Revised Project would decrease the amount by
buildings with roof heights 52 project. In some areas of the Bay east of the which wind speeds would be reduced by the
to 105 feet,and equipment and project site wind speeds would be increased. Original Project. In some areas of the Bay east of
mechanical shelters that would the project site wind speeds would be increased.
rise approximately 10 feet
above the roofs.
Versus Revised Project:
Less Than Significant. The lower roof heights of
the Revised Revised Project would further
diminish the amount by which wind speeds
would be reduced by the Revised Project. In
some areas of the Bay east of the project site
wind speeds would be increased.
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR 33 ESA/980241
March 15,2000
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
TABLE 1 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF KEY PARAMETERS,IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, REVISED PROJECT,AND THE REVISED REVISED PROJECT
Key Parameters/Impacts and Original Project Revised Project Revised Revised Project
Mitigations (636,400 sq.ft.) (488,000 sq.ft.)1 (488,000 sq.ft.)
2. The speed of winds passing Less Than Significant Less Than Significant. As was the case with Versus Original and Revised Projects:
over the Project combined the original project,introduction of the Less Than Significant. As with the Original and
with cumulative development cumulative development would be expected to the Revised Projects,the addition of cumulative
of the site at 300 Airport have a noticeable effect on the northernmost development(including 300 Airport Boulevard)
Boulevard would be reduced portion of the study area,where the would affect the northernmost portion of the
by the combined masses of the accelerations introduced by the project would study area,where the accelerations introduced by
two developments. be reduced. The cumulative development the Revised Revised Project would be reduced.
should have little effect on the winds in the Cumulative development would have little effect
southern portion of the study area,since that for west winds and,to a lesser degree,west-
area would be controlled by the project. northwest winds, in the southern portion of the
Reducing the mass and/or altering the shape or study area. Reducing the mass and/or altering
location of the cumulative development at 300 the shape or location of the cumulative future
Airport Boulevard could further diminish development at 300 Airport Boulevard could
potentially adverse effects on wind speed. further diminish potentially adverse effects on
wind speed.
Versus Revised Project:
Less Than Significant.The smaller wind effects
of the Revised Revised Project would increase
the relative magnitude of the potential
contribution of future cumulative development
(including 300 Airport Boulevard) to overall
wind speed reductions in the Bay east of the
project site.
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates,2000
34 ESA 1980241
SCH No.98041109/301 Airport Boulevard Final EIR
March l5,2000
ENDNOTES
t The Burlingame Zoning Code requires that all structures more than 30 inches above grade are included
in calculating the gross floor area. By this definition,the escalators and stairways between the ground
floor parking level and the elevated lobbies are included,and the gross floor area for the Revised Project
is 488,000 sq.ft. If the stairways and escalators had not been included,then the total floor area of the
three buildings would be 480,000 sq.ft. With respect to traffic impacts,the difference in trip generation
between the two floor areas is negligible,and the effect on judgments about impacts at study locations
(intersections,freeway segments and ramps,etc.)is de minimus(i.e.,impacts,and mitigation measures,
would be the same using either set of numbers). The project's parking impact would be less than
significant under either scenario because the projected parking demand would be fully accommodated
by the supply of on-site parking spaces. Documentation of transportation analysis summarized below is
provided in Appendix A of this report.
Z Although the square footage of the project's floor area would be reduced by about 23%,the percent
decrease in trip generation would be somewhat less. Compared to the original project,the revised
project would generate approximately 18 to 21%fewer trips. Changes in trip generation rates for office
buildings are inversely related to changes in the floor area. Based on extensive survey data on office
buildings,it has been established that at higher floor areas,total vehicle trips continue to increase,but
trips are generated at a lower rate(per square feet of building floor area)than at a lower level of floor
area. This inverse relationship(i.e.,increasing floor area and decreasing trip generation rate)exists for
various reasons. For example,service providers(e.g.,FedEx and mail deliveries)can make a reduced
number of trips to one site with a large building than to multiple sites with smaller buildings,and with
smaller office buildings,tenants generally are unrelated,and each office requires basic support staff
(e.g.receptionist,secretary)regardless of the number of employees. As the building size increases,the
ratio of support staff to other workers decreases,and more space might be devoted to equipment.
3 The level of impact under buildout conditions would be less due to the reduced trip generation from the
lesser square footage,but the larger Phase 1(162,000 gsf vs.122,000 gsf)would cause the significant
impact to occur earlier than for the original project,and implementation of the mitigation measure
would be required prior to Phase 1 of the Revised Project.
4 Caltrans is currently preparing a Project Study Report to evaluate the benefits of adding auxiliary lanes
along U.S.101,including in the section between Millbrae Avenue and Third Avenue. The primary
purpose of auxiliary lanes is to ease the transition of cars entering and exiting the freeway. Construction
of a southbound auxiliary lane between the Millbrae Avenue on-ramp and the Broadway off-ramp
would improve the traffic operations and is likely to reduce the above-described impact to a less than
significant level. According to the Draft 1998 Regional Transportation Plan,which is a blueprint to
guide transportation investments in the San Francisco Bay Area,the total cost for constructing auxiliary
lanes between the Third Avenue interchange in San Mateo and the Grand Avenue interchange in South
San Francisco,is$101.2 million. About$55.7 million of the cost has been committed by the San Mateo
County Transportation Authority through the Measure A sales tax program(to which the City of
Burlingame contributes). The remaining funding is expected to come from other regional discretionary
funding sources. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC)has given high priority to the
auxiliary lanes by including this project on the list of"Track 1"projects. About$6.5 billion dollars of
Track l funds are available for capital investments in transportation improvements in the San Francisco
Bay Area. In deciding which projects would be eligible for Track I funding,MTC gave priority to
maintaining the existing transportation system and expanding the regional infrastructure to keep pace
with increasing population and employment. In addition,Track 1 funds supplement funding already
committed by local sources(e.g.,Measure A funds)to improving the region's transportation system,
such as the U.S.101 auxiliary lane project in San Mateo County. Another indication of the high
probability that this project will be constructed is that the Third Avenue to Grand Avenue auxiliary lane
project is the continuation of providing auxiliary lanes between most interchanges along U.S.101 in
San Mateo County;the Marsh Road to Hillsdale Boulevard auxiliary lanes are currently being
constructed. With completion of the Third Avenue to Grand Avenue project,auxiliary lanes would be
provided between Marsh Road in Menlo Park and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco.