Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2002.11.07NOTICE `- B URLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION NO VEMBER 7, 2002 5:30 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM A 501 PRIMROSE ROAD B URLINGAME, CA A GENDA I. ROLL CALL H. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 MEETING III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. FROM THE FLOOR (At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter. The Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits the Commission from acting on a matter which is not on the agenda Comments are limited to three minutes.) IV. OLD BUSINESS VL NEW BUSINESS A. Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Update B. Burlingame Waterfront Park Discussion VH. REPORTS A. Park Superintendent B. Chairperson C. Commissioners Beautification Commission - FYI October 10, 2002 B URLINGAME BA YFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions & Goals Doubletree Hotel 835 Airport Boulevard Burlingame, CA Tuesday, October 22"d 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. Open to the Public For further information checkout the Burlingame Website @ www Burlingame. org under "Planning Department" or call (650) 558-7250. OR BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN GOALS AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES EXISTING GOALS The goals for the Bayfront in the existing Specific Area Plan evolved from the assumptions that development of the Bayfront in general and the Anza Area in particular should emphasize those uses which best promote public access and use of the shoreline; that new development should be consistent with the capabilities of the transportation and utility systems to provide an acceptable level of service to development in the waterfront area and the remaining portion of the City on the west side of US 101; and that Bayfront development should produce the maximum revenue to cost ratio benefit to the City of Burlingame. The present goals in the Bayfront Specific Area Plan are as follows: Goal (A): Development shall be consistent with the capacity of the adjacent road system. Goal (B): A specific plan should be selected which maximizes public access to the shoreline. Goal (C): Development should yield a high revenue -to -cost ratio. Goal (D): Guidelines and regulations should be adopted which will insure good quality development. Goal (E): Development should be visually attractive, pleasing both to those who work and visit the area, and also to those who use the area for recreation. Goal (F): Land uses in the Bayfront should be environmentally consistent with, and supportive of, Burlingame's main function as a residential community. Goal (G): Land uses in the bayfront should reflect the special locational value of the area: proximity to regional freeway and to the San Francisco International Airport. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Following are the development policies presently outlined in the Specific Area Plan. Policies are meant to expand on the goals and offer more specific guidance for future development of the area. The policies are implemented through the zoning and other regulations and the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development which establish specific development standards. (1): Reserve sites closest to the shoreline for land uses which draw a large number of visitors (i.e., hotels and restaurants). (2): Provide a continuous network of attractive and safe pedestrian and bicycle access along the shoreline and through the interior of the Anza Area. (3): Encourage implementation of the Burlingame zoning ordinance requirement for a 25- foot-wide shoreline strip, consistent with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requirements for the provision of public access to the shoreline. (4): Establish a desirable level of service for transportation facilities: a balance between �- traffic volumes and road capacities. (5): Identify appropriate sites for developments which generate high volumes of traffic at peak hours. '1 (6): Identify improvements to increase road capacities to serve the uses proposed in the Specific Area Plan. (7): Create a fiscal mechanism for sharing the costs of transportation improvements by private developers. (8): Encourage low intensity development or no development if transportation facilities are not available for higher intensity land uses. (9): Establish a high priority for development of hotels and restaurants which would generate substantial revenues to the City from room and sales taxes. (10): Actively encourage major restaurant chains to locate in the area. Establish site standards for attractive public improvements to accompany hotel and restaurant construction. (11): Reserve prime hotel and restaurant sites and preserve them from early development for other land uses through the Specific Area, Plan land use designations. (12): The design of developments must be coordinated to protect the visual attractiveness of the area and create a harmonious visual environment consistent with the image of the Burlingame community. (13): Establish height and setback regulations for new developments. (14): Encourage site designs that improve the appearance of parking areas. (15): Encourage intensive landscaping. (16): Provide view corridors for views of the Bay and the Anza Lagoon both from within and outside the area. (17): Maintain existing buildings in present uses until redevelopment is feasible. (18): Improve some streets to improve traffic flow in the area and to accommodate anticipated traffic generated from future development. (19): Allow interim low intensity land uses on available sites until regional demand for high intensity uses grows. Project name: Burlingame Waterfront Park Size of Project: approx. 40 acres Partners: Audobon Society /State Lands Commission Contact person: John Webb 650-342- 7240 BURLINGAME WATERFRONT PARK PROPOSAL The project proposes construction of a water sports oriented recreational park and facility on the lands known as the State Lands Commission Parcel. We want to improve the structural integrity, the functionality and safety of the existing man- made rip -rap revetment features where possibleandreplace them where necessary. Realignment and sculpting of new revisedP6orelme with natural materials will enhance the ecology of the area. Ramps and stairways for bay access will be featured, focal points. We want to promote educational understanding of the area from an historical, ecological and functional perspective. We need to improve access to the area from South Airport boulevard and the incorporation of the Bay Trail is paramount to the parks success. We want to incorporate windsurfing and kayaking launching areas, and a facility for the instruction and rental of windsurfing, kayaking and crewing crafts. We want to include in the facility an historical library dating back to the clam and oyster gathering Indian tribes of the pre -white man era. 9t c'tTIC:-i.9� The recreational boat house/historical !Vpoff building will be built in the area that will create no adverse wind conditions so as to maintain the integrity of the windsurfing in the area. The landscaping will be of shoreline, marshland Itype plantings where possible, to create the feeling of coastal serenity. This will be a rest point for weary Bay -Trail riders, a respite for City dwellers, and a major benefit to the water recreationally oriented members of the Bay Area. CHANNEL AND LAGOON ENHANCEMENTS We want to change the flow pattern of the existing channel so that it meanders. This will increase the length of the channel and effectively dissipate the force of the streams energy over a longer distance than in a straight channel. introduction: We, as private citizens of the City of Burlingame, propose to establish the lands and waterways known as "The State Lands Commission" as a Regional Park. We would like the emphasis of the park to be dedicated to water sports on the Bay side and wetlands habitat on the area known as the Sanchez Creek Lagoon. We believe the location of this Park is integral as a buffer zone between the Commercial Properties of the Anza development area and the S.F. Airport, on the North and the Coyote Point Parkway System and its affiliated windsurfing waters of the bay that are located on the South side of the Property. description of problem: The City of Burlingame is in desperate need of open space. There is no public access to the water of the S.F. Bay within the City Limits. This is due to the land fill on the Anza Development Area in the 1960's. During the last four decades we have seen what little open space that we had dwindle due the Airports expansion. The expansion carries with it the expansion of spur businesses such as parking lots, car rental yards, and hotels. Buriingame is one of the oldest cities on peninsula and did not envision the need for open space when originally designing this development. The State of California did have a vision for the Bayfront area. They did not believe the developers left enough open space, so they took back some of the lands and waterways. This was one of the original mitigation efforts ever considered by the State. Currently, due to supposed financial restraints, the State Lands Commission, wants to lease the land so that a developer can turn this parcel into a hotel, development. bicycle and pedestrian access! bility:Enhancing opportunities for the public to access the bay shore of S.F. Bay became a priority in 1965 with the passage of the McAteefPetris Act. Establishment of the BCDC signalled staate recognition of the Bays importance and a governmental commitment to enhancing opportunities for public access to this extraordinary natural resource. We hope you can help us in determining the future of these lands. We believe your group can recognize our needs and help us turn this park into a reality. The S.F. Bay Trail will be travelling adjacent to the park, running in a north -south direction. $200,000 dollars has already been set aside for the construction of this. Cal -Trans has a bicycle/pedestrian overpass across hwy. 101 on their agenda. This will tie the park project in with the neighborhoods of Burlingame and Hillsborough and San Mateo as well as Millbrae. Burlingame has spent over 10 million encapsulating their dumps and building a sea wall and golf driving range on the lands to the west and north of the property. The finalization of a Bayfront greenbelt would be established with the creation of this parkway. Professional consultation: �� ACE %^� %�<<f' sEt,�„✓�' a fact finding consultation by a Landscape Architecture firm familiar with wetland and coastal mitigation projects. We are looking to construct the park as part of a complete ecosystem restoration project. We want to improve the natural communities and the marine life they support. We would like to incorporate this project into the National Estuary Program and implement ecosystem -based management plans that preserve the integrity and diversity of the overall tapestry that defines it. Exhihit #1 I ® UJL TOI CAUSEWAY Hri.bane Dee.-,, "de . - - - m.Ieltu l.. tl.M-6 a" ~n%. Ile..el.u.ldl.b b.d..a.nelw I N. t." V In ary.r1.1 U11M - �' _ IrAINNI wrwWb eNMRM.N M 10nld YII...IbN.N n..d for aq r.ub Is drily www . BRISBANE AOIIATIC yy"� {tt fP�ov...al y7. BRUNO .tl A RpbI.I PerC �r 2 n, • \� ovum POKY V6 O ur R EPA.IW nrrlm ww de..I.P.IIeI.drM 9.L - . - P-k Soer ON My be n..d.& . CR e wutb San :'rancrsco - Pr wd .Ins Pre.N. Publb eeaa. 1. .. h b.d..RMon.. Poolbb P" ed At". San d:uno /AN FRANCUQO AMVORT . Fwow egenelen bne a" eMy a cbr need I. Mewl by.0-1 WP. .Y.e.w eWdy. K..P n.-" .PPte.Ir.Ild &M-0.w.. h.. R..1 W W11.bI1e..11d NwpWbb u..a rK dd v and rblrp - Millbrae - COYOTE PONT PARK . BAYSIDEPARK _. EIQt.IM b.eeA .Ild nlnlna R.Idn l.Seen.. ap.n.r.l.r. S.III. BE Iedy b. BURUNGAME - coroah- P.ePer.Pn "Pbn.nd d—lWi. p W—to,—wh.W hldud. '•T �' candrequ. pubeG eOq.. b B.y .:.I..IP P-- SomeNmeyMn..ded. 3ur!Ingame : ` .Ibb ses&bOW '.. "^ „ Po. LEGEND AIRPORT WATERFRONT PARK, BEACH TIDAL MARSH t EXISTING PROPOSED Flu p s fISHINO PIER e ,RECREATIONAL FERRY LAUNCHING RAMP 0 COMMERCIAL RECREATION CR SCENIC DRIVE FREEWAY RAILROAD ---�+-- COMMISSION POLICY: PRINTED IN SOLD TYPE COMMISSION SUGGESTION: PRINTED IN lTAUCS I s o u.t nOgr.I r S 0 KlO14n[R 1 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Callander Associates SAN MATEO • - Phpr.pr.oi.eP/en.rlddewbpnw. .----_----- - Pmor.mlerw.twhontempn.s@eq . eteralerrt.d rocn..on- S— h.—y be n..d.d - :•OstP.r City San M.aceu • FOSTER Cm Pre.lde condn l s Pubft be.cture, MW wn d Pw%& s cR Plan Map 9 Northern San Mateo County 07 -57- BCDC Bay Plan Burlingame Landfill Closure VISIONS AND GOALS OFTHE BURLINGAME WATERFRONT PARK The following nine goals are broad, general statements pertaining to the Waterfront Park, as we envision it. These goals are inclusive of the goals and policies of the City of Burlingames General Plan and the revised Anza Development's B.C.D.C. and Burlingame guidelines as amended in January of 1982. Goal #1 The Waterfront Park contains important city-wide resources and, as a whole, should provide accessible outdoor recreation and education opportunities for all residents of the City of Burlingame. Educational opportunities should build upon historical, ecological and functional perspectives. Goal #2 Theorientation of the Waterfront Park should direct attention to the San Francisco Bay and the qualities of timelessness that a tidal environment imparts. Goal #3 The physical image of the Waterfront Park should emphasize the natural and open space qualities of the S.F. Bay and its margins. It should also develop focal points, gateways, and major corridors in such a way that the Waterfront Park shows a distinctive City image that showcases Burlingame as the water sports and nature conservation cityof San Mateo County. Goal #4 The Waterfront Park should become a destination for those wishing to have an open space experience, but not so developed that the shoreline becomes crowded. Goal #5 The Water front Park should be developed and managed in a way that enhances water quality, plant and animal habitat conditions, and open space and natural resource values while promoting water and energy conservation and minimizing environmental impacts. �... Goal #6 Creation of an estuarine bird sanctuary north of the Anza over -pass on the Sanchez Creek Lagoon and further creation and enhancement of this wetland feature. Goal #7 Development of the Waterfront Park should be carried out such that it will coincide with a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian circulation network Residents are encouraged to use alternatives to automobile travel as a means of accessing the shoreline. Goal #8 Improvements to the Waterfront Park area should be designed and constructed to improve structural integrity, function, and safety of the existing man-made features. Improvements must be, cost - effective, and recognize the need for efficiency in long-term maintenance and operations of the Park and its waterways. Goal #9 Development and management of the Waterfront Park should provide safe public use opportunities and not preclude emergency access, maintenance access for public utilities, or future projects that would protect the community from unreasonable risk to life and property cased by flood hazards. L RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM VEGETATION WETLANDS WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PUBLIC AND PET ACCESS 1.) GENERALIZED PLANNING PROCESS 2.) PROJECT AREA 3.) ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 4.) EMERGENCY ACCESS POINTS 5.) PUBLIC CONVENIENCE FACILITIES 6.) LIGHTING 7.) TELEPHONES 8.) TURF AREAS (MEADOWS) 9.) SERVICE AREAS 10.) INTERPRETIVE PROGRAM 11.) EXISTING AND PROPOSED WETLAND AREAS/ 12.) MASTER PLANT LIST 13.) RIP -RAP REVETMENT 14.) GRADING 3 all $5U,000 ... e� A o �' ®�•, °�4A INSTALL SIGNALS $50,000 �°�` �' y d ADD 2ND LEFT TURN "O a LANE TO FREEWAY ON RAMP - ADD 2ND LEFT TURN LANE TO BAYSHORE HIGHWAY $20,000 \C Doe go eou 0 000 90 coo IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED LETTERS COST A $ 50,000 B 50,000 C 20,000 D 490,000 E 900,000 F 500,000 $2,010,000 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FEES @ 40% : $800,000 00000eoo Area subject to SITE DEVELOPMENT FEES H i 1L, 1L, S B CJ f3 A y S A 1- ON*RAMPS 0000TO FREEI AY AT WIDEN AIRPORT °O �, peon HUMBOLDT/HOWARD BLVD. TO 4 LANES $490,000 q�es�o@' ". AN'00.000 _ �PIOTE 'm e .* ° a try` .10A1P- 3 F 2 J NOTE 41ttrvs�7-m®j� *00iy u o SS TO FREEWAY $900,000 FRfCVAY Nx. k; 0 iD EXHIBIT "B" TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMrFjffy> \ya Vx /:.�\/( `' :L• -. Kam. NOTES: 1. Bayshore/Airport Blvd. inters ef: n -CITY `6F. $URLINGAME signals will be funded by Sheraton SAN MATEO COUNTY and are not included in this total. CALIFORNIA 2. Improvements to the north side of OWWWA:JAXUAn,8.st the Coyote interchange are in San Mateo and are not included. ; r! ""I, 01 \, r . MANIC �GA1j vlirppr Book /C w rdC. ''1 repo*.ed, lohr e&,on /o / fan eoy h1af.. MiLlor? nCI�PZ 6-ea z4 Euc4l hm, GrrrG 6i� of eurll-n94111-16 Nor44, Not 7� 4tWe, c U N-.... L 2.4.3.2 City of Burlingame General Plan The City of Burlingame's adopted General Plan contains policy recommendations to guide the future of the community, including the use, development and conservation of the city's resources. These policies are summarized on the Plan Diagram and are described fully in each of the Plan's Elements. The Plan Diagram highlights the following: 1. A "proposed major arterial" street following the alignment of Airport.Boulevard along the bayshore (where it currently is a two-lane street) and connecting with the "existingr' major arterial" portion of Airport Boulevard (to the ' east). 2. A "community park" extending inland from the "proposed major arterial" to the U. S. 101 freeway right-of-way ani including the existing baseball diamond, sewage treatmen- plant (also designated on the Plan Diagram), sanitary landfill, and the "inner" lagoon. 3. A "system of walks and bicycle paths" to provide public access and outdoor recreation along the Bay shoreline. Circulation Element. The Circulation Element proposes a system of major arterials to include "Bayshore Highway and its extensions (Airport Boulevard) through the Anza Pacific Development for major north -south movements." The Element states: 1. The relationship of this route to Burlingame's Bayside Park is unfortunate but, with existing conditions, there -- does not seem to be any practical solution which would avoid separating the park from the Bay. 2. Special care will be needed in designing this street. The portion abutting the city park should be located outboard of the present bulkhead to avoid reducing the park area. 3. Particular concern should be given to visual quality, provision of pedestrian crossing, and minimizing the impF-_ct J of industrial traffic on the recreational use of the park. and waterfront. j Land Use Element. The Land Use Element discusses the future j park's proximity to the Bay and its relationship to the proposes arterial road along the bayshore. It states: 1. An easement should be acquired to provide for public walks along the Bay side of (Bayside Park). In addition, specific provision should be made for a pedestrian crossing of the arterial road proposed along the bayfront between the City's park and waters of the Bay. J 33 2. Where this road adjoins the park, it should be kept at the lowest possible elevation to minimize the effect of traffic on the park. Waterfront Element. The Waterfront Element established goals t-) increase public access to the Bay, improve the visual and functional quality of the shoreline, and protect tidelands. It ( specifically -calls for the preparation of a more detailed plan [*or I the City's waterfront lands to include: 1. A shoreline drive to connect Burlingame's Bayside Park with Coyote Park. , ( 2. Paths for walking and cycling along the water's edge. ' 1 3. A safe, pleasant pedestrian crossing of (Airport Boulevard) separating Bayside Park from the Bay. Open Space Element. The Open Space Element makes recommendations for the following related areas: [ 1. Develop Bayside Park as a major public open space link between the land mass and the open waters of the Bay anci. to provide for outdoor recreation. 2. Retain the Inner" Lagoon as open space as part of Bayside Park in order to preserve its significance as a natural resource and to provide for outdoor recreation. The lagoon is an integral part of the visual corridor and c�ln contribute to the enhancement of marine and aquatic life.. L3. Improve the visual quality of the shoreline north of Airport Boulevard and develop a system of walks and bicycle paths for outdoor recreation and public access to i the Bay and lagoons. The diagrammatic summary of the Open Space Element also shows Airport Boulevard east of Bayside Park as a general plan space corridor providing "right-of-way and adjacent front -yards" for contiguous properties. Conservation Element. The Conservation Element concentrates on - the vegetation and wildlife resources of bayfront lands and discusses "areas of change affecting natural resources" -- encompassing developed, and undeveloped properties adjacent to tre Bay. One of these areas includes the wastewater treatment plant and sanitary landfill site to be incorporated into the City's proposed 100 acre aquatic Bayside Park. The Conservation Element C specifically notes that traffic capacity is severely limited in r 34 2. BAY -TRAIL a.) Where property line meets the Bay's edge, ABOVE HIGH -TIDE WATER LINE construct according to spec sheet attached a concrete curb, and decomposed granite jogging shoulder five -feet wide. Inland from and adjacent to the jogging shoulder you will construct a 12-foot-wide continuous concrete walkway/biketrail with a centerline Stripe, and a curb on the interior to provide a keylock for the concrete. See attached spec sheet. b.) At intervals of 200 ft. or at least three six-foot benches per development will be installed of concrete or kiln -dried redwood. c.) A fifty -foot wide bermed and landscaped area will interface between the trail and the beginning of the developments landscaped areas. This Greenbelt will be a public access area combining turf, picnic areas and natural shoreline type plantings. This area must be accessible through each development for the Public. d.) Parking must be provided for the public so as to easily access through the landscaped areas of the developer to reach the area known as the Greenbelt, and the S.F.Bay. V M concrete Curb f�►`.. - � ��'lt , - i ten', �� HAbitat. - - .` d'•L ,. �..+�« .. Access Control Fence-' 5eal Point at roe of Slope Centerline Stripe- 4^ yellow _ I 6tripc; Continuous on curvee concrete Cum 2% cross slope - +• flush fordralnageflush-- - graded graded shouldecomposed ��— g�{der • granite jogging minimum shoulder clearance for San Francisco Bay Trail shrubs, signs. Bayfront Nature Area and Seal Point Park or other obstructions Habitat Area Access Control Fend at too of slope Large Boiitders: atT , top of rip-mp slope Centerline Stripe: 4' yellow and around bench areas compacted native soil San Francisco Bay Trail Seal Slough and Bay Marshes b 4 L HABITAT ENHANCEMENTS Preservation of the existing trees, and natural vegetation, on the higher grounds, enlarging the existing non - tidal marshes by excavating toan elevation that will support seasonal ponding. A depth of 1-3 ft. with marsh -vegetation around the edges, with mounding from cut material to treat an undulating natural surface, with a wind-swept Monterey or Japanese style of landscaping. Sea -bird habitat restoration will occur on the Sanchez Creeks Northern Lagoon. The lagoons northernmost elongation will be excavated and tied back into the Bay on the Eastern side so that the lagoon can flush naturally with the tides. This will enlarge the habitat area and cleanse the storm runoff waters on daily basis. All excavated material will be used on site for berming and in the creation of further habitat areas north of the existing lagoon. SILTING BASINS Burlingames current drainage system has two outfalls into the Sanchez Creek Lagoon. One is called Sanchez Creek. The other is called the Arroyo Seco creek. The Lagoon acts as a buffer zone to the Bay for the controlling of unwanted constituents and contaminants. Our proposal has a plan for implementation of silt basins where the creeks enter the lagoon. See attached drawings. ADDENDUM 1. BURLINGAME SHORELINE PROPERTIES a.) WHERE THERE EXISTS RIP- RAP REVETMENT OF CONCRETE, ASPHALT OR ANY OTHER MAN -MADE MATERIAL THE FOLLOWING MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO BUILDING ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. EXCAVATION OF FILL MATERIAL ORIGINALLY PLACED BEHIND REVETMENT TO ENABLE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SEA WALL OR SUITABLY ENGINEERED QUARRYSTONE REVETMENT. THE INSTALLATION OF SAID QUARRYSTONE WILL CONSIST OF PLACEMENT OVER A LEACHATE BARRIER SO AS TO PREVENT ANY FUTURE SCOURING OF THE MATERIAL BEHIND THE NEW WALL b.) SCULPTING INWARD TO CREATE SHORELINE AMENITIES IS ALLOWED AND PREFERRED, WITH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL IN PRE -DESIGN STAGES OF SUBMITTALS. WIDENING OF THE EXISTING BAYSHORE CHANNEL LEVEE AND REALLIGNMENT AND EXPANSION OF THE THREE EXISTING PARALLEL FEATURES IS HIGHLY ENCOURAGED, AND COULD ONLY ADD TO THE VALUE OF SAID PROJECT. 1.) The Bay Trail 2.) The Nature Trail 3.) The Drainage system and associated wetland landscaped areas. c.) REMOVAL FROM THE SITE OF ALL EXISTING BROKEN ASPHALT, CONCRETE AND MAN — MADE MATERIALS SUCH AS STEEL REBAR THAT HAD BEEN USED IN THE EXISTING REVETMENT. \.- d.) NEW REVETMENT MUST BE DESIGNED IN ACCORD WITH THE SITE'S SOIL CONDITIONS SO THAT IT WILL NOT RAPIDLY SETTLE INTO THE UNDERLYING SUB-STRATE, AND CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED SO THAT COMPONENT PIECES INTERLOCK WITH A MINIMUM OF VOIDS. E.) FOR EVERY THREE -HUNDRED LINEAL FEET OF BAY'S EDGE OR AT LEAST ONE AT EACH NEW DEVELOPMENT, A SET OF CONCRETE STAIRS FOURTEEN- FOOT- WIDE AND EACH WITH FOURTEEN -INCH STEPS WILL BE BUILT LEADING TO THE BAY WATER. THIS WILL DOUBLE AS A SEATING AREA FOR WEARY WALKERS, JOGGERS AND BICYCLISTS, AND AS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS AND EGRESS FOR WINDSURFERS. L SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 30 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco 94102 557 - 3686 December 30, 1981 TO: All Commissioners and Alternates FROM: Michael B. Wilmar, Executive Director SUBJECT: REVISED PUBLIC ACCESS GUIDELINES FOR THE ANZA AREA, BURLINGAME (For Commission consideration on January 7, 1982) Sumary The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached public access guidelines. They have been revised slightly in response to Design Review Board and Commission comments as presented by the staff at the public hearing on December 17, 1981: (1) the first two sentences of Section "A" Were revised so they are not so ponderous; (2) landscaping is required to be com- patible with the Bay edge environment; (3) a note was added to Section "B-7" stating that virtually all fill for public access will be pile -supported; and (4) a note was added to Exhibit "B" stating that no part of the restaurant is to be on fill and the building must be designed so it is not perceived as an a.. obstacle to public access. The staff has not recommended changing the language in the guidelines concerning the possible bridge across Sanchez Creek Lagoon connecting Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard as was suggested by several Commissioners. The City of Burlingame believes that the guidelines must be adopted in their entirety (although the City is willing to consider changes in language). As the staff believes that effective implementation of the guidelines requires the cooperation of the City, and that the guidelines represent a reasonable compromise, the staff has not proposed any changes to this section. The guidelines allow the construction of a two lane, pile -supported bridge if the City can demonstrate such things as: 1. there are no upland. alternatives to handling the traffic; 2. public access is maximized by such measures as retaining and improving the eucalyptus grove next to Highway 101 for public access; and _ 3. environmental impacts are minimized including demonstrating that the on and off ramps will be safe and mitigation is provided for unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. -2 - C Under these limitations, the staff believes that the impacts of the bridge will be minimized and the public access benefits of the guidelines can be realized with the cooperation of the City. The staff believes these benefits outweigh any detriment to the Bay caused by .the fill. Furthermore, the staff does not believe this sets a precedent that requires the Commission to approve fill for bridges whenever someone wants to develop an area that has limited accessibility without such fill. Whose decisions would be made on the basis of, among other things, whether the public benefits of the project outweigh the detriments. Such a determination would involve so many different factors that the staff believes they could be easily distinguished from the situation in the Anza area. Procedure Formally, these guidelines could be adopted by a majority of those Commissioners present at the Commission meeting. However, because the guidelines are intended to serve as a basis for making permit decisions, the staff recommends that the Commission require a majority of the Commissioners to adopt them. Staff Recc=endation The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution: The Commission hereby adopts the attached guidelines to use in evaluating maximum feasible public access consistent with the project in making permit decisions in the Anza area. To achieve the implementation of these guidelines, the Commission directs the staff to continue working cooperatively with the City of Burlingame. In adopting these guidelines, the Coaa;ission finds that Section "G" should not be construed to establish a precedent for authorizing fill for traffic improvements desired because of traffic congestion or limited accessibility created or allowed by poor planning. Each such case will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis to determine its consistency with the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan. 9 PUBLIC ACCESS GUIDELINES FOR ANZA AREA, BURLINGAIE ' A. Use of Guidelines These guidelines are intended to be general in nature and, therefore, it is'expected that individual developments will vary somewhat from the specific numbers included in these guidelines. However, any reduction in the amount cr widths of public access or other amenities should not be accepted unless there is a corresponding and offsetting improvement in public access to the Bay through some other aspect of the design not contemplated by these guidelines because of their general nature. Moreover, as these guidelines only establish: the relationship of public access among the various parcels, they should not be considered as the maximum requirement. Individual permit applications must still be evaluated on a case -by -case basis to determine whether the public access proposed is the maximum feasible for that specific site and use. B. General 1. Public access should be continuous along the shoreline and paths and other improvements should be coordinated between developments. 2. Buildings and improvements should be designed to encourage use of the adjacent public access areas by the public. 3. Parking and service facilities should be integrated with �.. any development they serve, located so as not to interfere with or detract from public access to and along the shoreline, and landscaped to minimize visual impacts. u. Landscaping around buildings and in public access areas should be compatible with the Bay edge environment and similar to or compatible with the existing landscaping in the area. 5. The usable portion of the public access area, as measured from the top of the bank, should be a minimum of 40 feet wide. Where buildings taller than 40 feet are proposed, the minimum width of the usable public access area between the building itself and the top of the bank should be increased.to the height of the most prominent part of the building as viewed from the shoreline. 6. As used in these guidelines, "public access area" means available exclusively for public access to and along the shoreline, and landscaping consistent with such use. 7. With the possible exception of the pile -supported direct connection between Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard over Sanchez Creek Lagoon (see Section G), no other traffic RPvi ova , •, �-,,. ice. -2- improvements to serve the Anza area involving Bay fill should be authorized. Minor fill to improve shoreline -j appearance or public access, however, may be authorized. Virtually all such fill will be pile -supported. C. Bay Proper 1. Development within each of the three blocks of the presently undeveloped lots along the shoreline of the Bay proper should be coordinated in terms of design, public access to and along the shoreline, view corridors, uses, and traffic circulation in a.manner similar to that shown on Exhibits B ,and C. The height of development in the block of lots immediately west of Bayfront Channel should be only one and two or two and one-half stories to provide variety from the taller development along the rest of the shoreline and to conform to the height of existing development in that area. 2. Major public access areas should be provided next to Fisherman's Park, on both corners of the entrance to Bayfront Channel, and on the peninsula between the Bay proper and Anza Lagoon as shown on Exhibit A. 3. Along the shoreline of the Bay proper, the public access area should aver -age a minimum of 75 feet in width as measured from the line of highest tidal action. 4. Any exceptions to the minimum widths of public access areas shall be allowed only if the design of the building and adjacent public access is such that the public is encouraged to make greater use of the shoreline and other substantial public access areas are provided to offset the reduction in the minimum width, such as is shown on Exhibit B. D. Bavfront Channel 1. Major public access areas should be located at the corners of Bayfront Channel and the Bay proper and at the corner of Bayfront Channel and Sanchez Creek Lagoon, as shown on Exhibit A. 2. Public access along both sides of the Channel should average a minimum of 6.5 feet in width. Where lots are narrow, the average can be calculated over more than one parcel if the public access on the other parcel has been guaranteed. 3. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge should be provided across Bayfront Channel where it meets the Bay. The existing bridge across Bayfront Channel at its intersection with Sanchez Creek lagoon should be retained for public access. E. Sanchez Creek Lagoon Area 1. A major public access area should be located at the corner of Sanchez Creek Lagoon and Bayfront Channel, as shown on Exhibit A. 2. A major public access area and view corridor should be provided on State Parcel One and include approximately 50 feet of each of the adjacent parcels between Sanchez Creek Lagoon and Airport Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit A. Within the 50-foot-wide setback adjacent to State Parcel One, parking may be authorized on the 20 feet farthest from State Parcel One provided it is adequately screened by landscaping. 3. Public access should average 65 feet in Width along the remainder of the entire shoreline of Sanchez Creek Lagoon as measured from the line of highest tidal action. 4. Building heights along Sanchez Creek Lagoon should progress from a maximum of five stories above the elevation of existing curb grade at each end of the Lagoon to a maximum of two stories adjacent to State Parcel One at the center of the Lagoon. Taller buildings far from the shoreline at the eastern end of Sanchez Creek Lagoon are appropriate. 5. Development along the shoreline of the Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be coordinated in terms of design, public access to and along the shoreline, view corridors, uses and traffic circulation. 6. Public access connections from Airport Boulevard to the Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be provided every 200 to 400 feet to encourage public use and awareness of the access along the Lagoon. These areas should provide a direct physical and visual connection to the public access along the Lagoon, be landscaped, and be free of service or parking uses that can detract from the purpose of the connections. Adjacent buildings should be designed to �,. complement the connection. 7. Development along Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be designed and located to avoid long expanses of building mass. Building masses should be varied, and separations between buildings should be coordinated with separations in existing buildings in the -area, to reduce the visual impact of the development from Highway 101. -4 - F. Anza Lagoon The last vacant parcel with shoreline frontage only on Anza Lagoon may be developed with high density uses provided most of the shoreline band is devoted to public access and any tall buildings are sited away from the southern -most portion of the Lagoon as shown on Exhibit A. G. Brid,-e Connection from Hizhwav 101 Any direct connection between Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard over Sanchez Creek Lagoon should not be authorized unless it has all of the, following characteristics f -- �j� ty�'�1 -"�� � 'S_tU4A-Q-!S 1. There is no feasible upland alternative30-)G(,kAtc\p' 2. Fill is minimized by use of a pile -supported bridge structure in a location that minimizes the amount of fill with no more than two lanes and a pedestrian and bicycle pathway. 3. Maximum feasible public access is provided by such measures as: a. Retention and improvement of the eucalyptus grove along Highway 101 for public access, provided that M+ improvements at the grove, such as parking,i should minimize impacts to the grove and maximize public' use of the grove and shoreline (these improvements need not be extensive as most use will likely be by fishermen and highway travelers); b. Linking the eucalyptus grove along Highway 101 with public access around the rest of the Anza area and integrating such access with consistent development of the City's proposed park on the landfill site north of Sanchez Creek Lagoon, provided that public access connections to the marsh at the western end of Sanchez Creek Lagoon should not take place unless they are coordinated with the City's development of the park and only in a manner that protects the marsh from intrusion; and c. Provision of inland public parking connected to public access around the rest of the Anza area. 4. The environmental impacts of the overcrossing should be minimized by: a. Locating any on or off traffic lanes near Highway 101 to preserve the trees in the eucalyptus grove L and retain a large portion of the grove between the traffic lanes and Sanchez Creek Lagoon for public access; REFERENCES Harvey and Stanley. 1985. Burlingame Airport Boulevard Rehabilitation - Shellfish Impacts. (Consultants Report for Nichols -Berman, San Francisco, California and used in project EIR). January 1985. Hopkins, D.R. htlas of the distribution and abundances of common benthic species in San Francisco Bay, California. U. S. Geol. Surv. Water Res. Invest. Rept. 86-4003. Nichols, F. A review of benthic faunal surveys in San Francisco Bay. U. S. Geol. Surv. Circular 677. Western Ecological Services Company (WESCO) and Callander Associates. 1985. Wetlands Assessment and Enhancement Opportunities Evaluation for the Sanchez Creek Marsh. (Consultants report prepared for the City of Burlingame). November 198.5. -51- IOC 9C Storm Drain Outlet Spill Containment Basin Emergent Marsh Vegetation Storm Water el Low -Flow Wat Line San Francl5co Bay / Bay Trail 5iltin Basin 5ubmerged Silt Separator / Berm: to Separate channel water at low flow perlodei Storm Water 5iltina Basin Bayfront Nature Area Draft: Preliminary Master Plan August 11, 1999 This Arawinq Is conceptual and for plannlr.g and permit processlry purposes ony rrogram wormaton, kale, location of arms, and other information shown are &.11)Mt to haW dalustion and mo&ficatbn 100 95 90