HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 085-20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16
17i
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FXA
Wtl
RESOLUTION N0.85-2000
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEH2) FOR
PHASED CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE COMPLEX
AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND APPROVING VARIANCES AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DAY CARE CENTER
ZONE C-4
PROPERTY OWER: GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS
APNS 026-350-070 AND 026-350-090
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that:
WHEREAS, Glenborough Partners applied for various planning approvals for development
of the property at 301 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, CA in 1998; and
CEQA AND REVIEW PROCESS
WHEREAS, as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-2000, which is attached
as Exhibit A and made a part of this resolution, that application was processed and amended over a
two-year period pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and City
zoning and planning laws; and
WHEREAS, as described in Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-2000, on January 10,
2000, the Planning Commission found that the Final Environmental Impact Report for development
of the property, consisting of the Draft EK the Recirculated Draft EIR, the Response to Comments
Document, and the Addendum/Supplement to the Response to Comments Document was complete
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15090; and
WHEREAS, following that determination, the applicant further revised the project in light
of the identification by the Final Environmental Impact Report of four (4) potentially significant,
unavoidable impacts, and the City prepared an additional Addendum to the Final Environmental
Impact Report dated March 16, 2000; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on May 3, 2000, the Planning Commission found on
May 8, 2000, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 138-2000, that the revisions made
by the applicant to the proposed development following January 10, 2000, did not create any
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
additional adverse environmental impacts nor did they make any identified environmental impacts
more significant nor did they interfere with or alter the mitigation measures identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report, so that the revisions were within the scope and analysis of the Final
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2000, hhe Planning Commission further found that the development
proposal presented at that time to the Commission presented insufficient considerations to outweigh
the identified, significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed development, and refused to complete
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also found that the proposed development was
inconsistent with the City's General Plan and what should be the planning policy for the Bayfront
area; and
I and
WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decisionto the City Council;
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2000, the City Council held a duly noticed study meeting at which
time the Council received public comment from all interested persons who wished to attend the
meeting; and
WHEREAS, following that study session, the applicant further revised the proposed
development to include a child care facility and additional mitigation measures as described below;
19 I and
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the City reviewed these revisions and measures pursuant to CEQA, and an
additional Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report dated June 21, 2000, documenting
the consistency of the revisions withthe environmental documents was prepared and presented to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2000, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Final
Environmental Impact Report and the proposed project at which time the City Council received all
testimony and documentation presented by all interested persons; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered thetestimony and documentation presented for
and at the study meeting on June 7, 2000, the testimony and documentation presented for and at the
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
public hearing on July 5, 2000, the record of proceedings before the Planning Commission, including
its numerous minutes and the documentation presented to the Commission, and the City staff reports
prepared for both the Commission and the Council regarding this proposed development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact
Report [hereinafter "Final EIR"] consisting of consisting of the Draft EIR (dated September 14,
1998), the Recirculated Draft EIR (dated January 21, 1999), the Response to Comments Document
(dated April 15, 1999), the Addendum/Supplement to the Response to Comments Document (dated
November 12, 1999), the additional Addendum to the Final EIR dated March 16, 2000,and the
additional Addendum to the Final EIR dated June 21, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and discussed the extensive documentation
submitted by the applicant, the general public, and the City of San Mateo, as well as the documents
comprising the Final EIR; and
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
WHEREAS, the Final EIR clearly outlines the proposed project, presents the issues involved
in the development of this property, analyzes all potentially significant environmental impacts, and
identifies appropriate mitigation measures and alternatives as required by CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations); and
WHEREAS, the extensive public participation in the development of this Final EIR has
provided valuable information and analysis; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies and analyzes four potentially significant and unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts that would probably occur from development ofthe Project as revised,
as outlined in Exhibit B to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, Table 1 attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C identifies and compares the
environmental effects of the project originally analyzed under the EIR and the project that was
considered by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Final FIR, consisting of the DEIR, the Recirculated DEIB, the Response
to Comments Document, the Addendum/ Supplement to the Response to Comments, the Addendum
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
dated March 16, 2000, and the Addendum dated June 21, 2000, provides the Council, the City, and
the public with sufficient and thorough information regarding the potentially significant environmental
impacts of both the original project and the project as now revised; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR has been prepared and considered in conformance with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines, with independent preparation by a City -retained consultant and application
of the independent comment and judgment of City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, certification of this Final EIR shall not in any way be construed or interpreted
as the adoption of a City policy, standard, or threshold for evaluating the effect of any other project
on ambient wind conditions on San Francisco Bay or elsewhere and shall not constitute precedent of
any kind for any evaluation or action on any other project wherever located; and
WHEREAS, the evaluation of effects of a specific project on ambient wind conditions both
under CEQA and the Burlingame Municipal Code shall be done on a specific -project basis, including
any relevant revisions to this project or any another project proposed for the property for which this
EIR was prepared; and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the potentially significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts identified by the Final Environmental Impact Report and the mitigation
measures proposed by both the City and the applicant; and
WHEREAS, mitigation of those potentially significant, unavoidable impacts is outside the
control of the City of Burlingame and the applicant and must therefore be deemed to be significant
and unavoidable, but the impacts can be largely mitigated by activities and agencies outside the
control of either the City or the applicant; and
WHEREAS, in addition, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to comply with the County -wide
Congestion Management Plan by implementing Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures that have recently been adopted as project standards for new projects by the City/County
Association of Governments in San Mateo County; and
rd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I"
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
W
WHEREAS, the mitigation measures over which the City and the applicant have control and
the development standards that will ensure that the significant benefits described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations will materialize are contained in the conditions of approval/mitigation
monitoring plan attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, with regard to the City of San Mateo (San Mateo), the traffic impacts projected
for Humboldt Street will not exceed the arterial designation for the street contained in the current San
Mateo General Plan, and the projected traffic impacts in San Mateo are not considered significant
under the indices used by the City of San Mateo itself to measure such impacts if the suggested
mitigation is undertaken by San Mateo; and
WHEREAS, nevertheless, San Mateo has requested that the applicant pay almost $700,000
to San Mateo in addition to the $200,000 that the Final EIR projects. as sufficient to mitigate traffic
impacts in San Mateo to less than significant levels; and
WHEREAS, the $700,000 in additional money requested by San Mateo is not attributable
to any particular project or traffic measure and is not related in any particular way to this proposed
development or traffic area, and it appears that imposition by Burlingame of payment ofthis money
to San Mateo is unjustified; and
WHEREAS, the findings regarding the potentially significant, unavoidable effects identified
in the Final EIR contained in. Exhibit D detail the analysis of those effects and their possible
mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit E hereto
weighs the benefits of the proposed development against the unavoidable environmental risks as
defined in CEQA, and
WHEREAS, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, these benefits make
the unavoidable environmental risks acceptable; and
REQUESTED VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
WHEREAS, in order to provide the key mitigation measure of a child care facility at or near
the proposed development, the applicant has proposed that a lot line adjustment or subdivision occur
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that would create a separate parcel on which the child care facility would be located; and
WHEREAS, this child care facility would then be built by the applicant, and both the
property and the facility would be deeded to one or more non-profit organizations to operate; and
WHEREAS, the creation of this mitigation measure and community asset requires that area
that could be devoted to parking on th6 development site would be devoted instead to a child care
facility; and
WHEREAS, the size of the area to be devoted to child care use must be weighed against the
optimal size of the facility for operation, the community necessity to serve children with special needs
as well as low-income and other children, the requirements for parking, access, and child care
standards, and limitations on overall size with relationship to the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the size, shape, and improvement plan for the property to be developed for child
care will make it feasible for the developer to donate the property to a non-profit agency that in turn
can economically operate the facility to benefit the entire community; and
WHEREAS, an increased percentage of compact parking spaces can be used in the reduced
office development acreage to provide the number of parking spaces for the office development
required by the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the large overall number of parking spaces (1600) in the office development
acreage will ensure that there will be sufficient choices between compact and regular parking spaces
for users of the property; and
WHEREAS, the height ofthe office buildings should not be increased to increase the parking
area because that might have an adverse effect on the wind enjoyed by the sailboarders at Coyote
Point; and
WHEREAS, because of office use, turnover of spaces during the day will be less than at a
retail or service use; and
WHEREAS, this higher percentage of compact spaces will not have any adverse impact on
the surrounding area or the property itself, and
WHEREAS, while the proposed child care facility will not meet the Design Guidelines for
Bayfront Development regarding lot coverage, front setback, view obstruction, landscaping in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
front setback, and parking area landscaping, it meets an essential community need in an area where
many existing commercial developments also do not meet similar Guideline requirements; and
WHEREAS, the remainder of the project meets or is better than the standards contained in
these Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the increased lot coverage for the child care facility will allow a low-rise
building to be built that will not affect Bay views from other properties, that accommodates seating
and patio areas for the users of the facility, that meets State child care standards, and that meets floor
elevations required for flood protection considerations; and
WHEREAS, there do not seem to be any views of San Francisco Bay affected by the
proposed child care facility; and
WHEREAS, the parking area for the child care facility is largely underground, which will
provide safe and secure access to the facility and reduce building height, but will not accommodate
any landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the open space areas to be used by the children at the proposed child care
facility provide play areas and landscaping and meet State requirements for the facility, even though
these areas will not fulfill the technical landscaping standards of the City; and
WHEREAS, these site considerations will allow the facility to effectively serve 100 children,
of which 15 or more may be children with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the proposed child care facility also intrudes into the required front setback
established by the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, this front -setback intrusion is consistent with other existing structures and uses
on Beach Road that are ten feet or closer to the property line; and
WHEREAS, this front -setback intrusion will allow the property to accommodate the outdoor
play areas and buffers necessary to meet the requirements of State law for such a facility and to
effectively develop a viable facility of this kind and size; and
WHEREAS, the child care facility propos6d will begin to address the needs of working
families who live or work in Burlingame; and
WHEREAS, access to the child care facility from Beach Road will allow separate
7
I underground parking for the facility, meet flood protection requirements, avoid travel across the
2 office project property, and better separate commercial and industrial traffic from the child care
3 facility; and
4 WHEREAS, the surrounding uses of the C-1 and O -M district are compatible with a child
5 care facility that will serve some of the needs of parents who work in those adjacent areas; and
6 WHEREAS, given these findings, it does not appear that the granting of the requested
7 variances or conditional use permits will have any detrimental or injurious effect on property or
8 improvements in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or convenience;
9 and
10 WHEREAS, given these findings, the proposed use will be consistent with the Burlingame
11 General Plan and the purposes of the Burlingame Zoning Code; and
12 WHEREAS, the proposed variance for an increase in the number of compact parking spaces
13 to be allowed on the office site will allow the property to be developed at a level similar to or less
14 than properties in the vicinity while providing the full number of parking spaces required and a
15 complete child care facility, and the alternative would be to unnecessarily eliminate the child care
16 facility or reduce the parking space count; and
17 WHEREAS, given these findings, the uses ofthe property will be either similar or compatible
18 with existing and potential uses in the vicinity; and
19
20 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
21 WHEREAS, the conditions of approval developed from the Final Environmental Impact
22 Report, the public testimony and concern expressed, and the needs of the community are contained
23 in Exhibit F hereto; and
24 WHEREAS, E; hibit F constitutes the mitigation monitoring plan required by CEQA; and
25 WHEREAS, in addition, these conditions of approval establish the standards for the
26 proposed development that provide many of the key benefits to the community to weigh against its
27 possible adverse effects and properly describe the measures to be taken to reduce and mitigate the
28 potential environmental impacts of the project; and
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the implementation of these conditions is essential to the certification of the
I Final EIR through the Statement of Overriding Considerations for without these conditions, the
Council would not make the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows:
1. The Final Environmental Report, consisting of the Draft EIR, the Recirculated Draft EIR,
the Response to Comments Document, the Addendum/ Supplement to the Response to Comments
Document, the additional Addendum dated March 16, 2000, and the additional Addendum dated June
21, 2000, is certified as complete pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15090.
2. The findings contained in this resolution and attached hereto as Exhibit C are adopted
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15 09 1.
3. The findings contained in this resolution and attached hereto as Exhibit D are adopted
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15092 and 15093.
4. The Final Environmental Impact Report as described in Paragraph 2 above was presented
to the City Council and it has been reviewed and considered prior to adopting this resolution.
5. The application for the following is approved:
a. Parking variance for providing 657 compact parking spaces (40%) where 322 compact
parking spaces (20%) are the maximum allowed on the site of the proposed office development.
b. Front setback variance for a 10'-0" front setback where 15'-0" is the minimum front setback
required for the property on which the child care facility is to be constructed.
c. The following conditional use permits to vary from the following design guidelines for
bayfront development for the child care facility:
i. 52.8% lot coverage (9500 SF) where 35% (6300 SF) is the maximum
allowed;
ii. 10' front setback where the front setback shall not be less than the 31' building
height and where the setback shall not be less than Y the apparent width of
the building (36');
iii. 63% view obstruction where 40% is the maximum view obstruction allowed;
a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
f
u
iv. 78.3% front setback landscaping (940 SF) where 80% (960 SF) is the
minimum landscaping required;
V. No parking area landscaping where 10% parking area landscaping is required.
6. The certification of the Final Environmental Report and the approval of the land use
variances and permits are subject to the mitigation monitoring plan and conditions of approval
contained in Exhibit F hereto.
7. The conditions of approval constitute the mitigation monitoring plan for development of
the proposed project.
Anyone wishing to challenge the certification of this Final Environmental Impact Report in
a court of competent jurisdiction must file any action challenging the decision with regard to the Final
Environmental Impact Report, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations, in a court of
competent jurisdiction within the time limits set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and
the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines as adopted by the State of California (Title 4, Chapter 3 of
the California Code of Regulations). Anyone wishing to challenge the decision with regard to any
other issue must file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction within ninety (90) days. Failure
to file an action within these time limits will result in the loss of the right to challenge the decision in
court.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City ofBurlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7th day of Augus t
_12000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Galligan, Janney, Coffey, O'Mahony
NOES: Spinelli
ABSENT: None
(�l/ ✓1 City Clerk
10
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
It
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 16-2000
RESOLUTION OF TUU PLANNING COpInIISSION OF THE CITI' OF BURLENGAALE
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR
PHASED CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE COMPLEX:
AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
ZONE C-4
PROPERTY OWNER: GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS
APNS 026-350-070 AND 026-350-090
RESOLVED by the PLANNING COMMISSION of the CITY of BURLINGAME that_
WHEREAS, Glenborough Partners applied for various planning approvals in I999; and .
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of
Burlingame conducted an Initial Study and determined that possibly significant, adverse
environmental impacts might result from the proposed project so a focused Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) analyzing those possible effects was needed; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, following dispatch of the Notice of Preparation of an EIR
regarding the project to the California Office of Planning & Research (OPR), OPR notified State
agencies of the preparation of the EIR and directed that they promptly make comments on the
proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the City retained an independent consultant to prepare an EIR; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 1998, as revised on September 15, 1998, following staff
review and comment on the Administrative Draft of the EIR, the City duly noticed the availabilityand
completion of the Draft EIR (DEIR) and the public comment period on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, a public comment period of forty-five (45) days was opened from September
14 to October 28, 1998, during which all written public comments were welcomed; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, this Planning Commission held a public
hearing oW ctober 14, 1998, to receive any oral or written comments that the public might wish to
offer on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the City received comments from the City
of San Mateo and various interested citizens that identified two possibly significant environmental
impacts that had not been directly addressed in the DEIR: traffic at five intersections in the City of
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22'
23
24
25
26
27
28
San Mateo and wind efl°ects on the Coyote Point windsurfing area; and
WHEREAS, in response to those Coll"" the. City consultant prepared asponses to each
of the continents made, and
WHEREAS, in response to the comments regarding San Mateo traffic concerns and
windsurfing effects, the City determined that the appropriate approach was to prepare a full analysis
of these two issues and prepare and circulate a recirculated DEIR presenting this analysis; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 1999, the City noticed the availability and completion of the
recirculated DEIR and the public comment period on the Recirculated DEIR; and
WHEREAS, the public comment period on the Recirculated DEIR was for 45 days from
January 21, 1999, to March 8, 1999, during which time all written comments were welcomed, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission held a noticed, public hearing during this public
comment period on February 22, 1999, to receive any oral or written comments on the Recirculated
DEIR; and
WHEREAS, the City's consultant prepared written responses to each of the comments
received during the public comment period on the recirculated DEIR; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 1999, the Response to Comments DocumentontheDEIRandthe
Recirculated DE1R was made available to the public; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission received testimony on the DEIN the Recirculated
DEIR, and the Response to Comments Document at duly noticed public hearings on April 26 and
May 10, 1999; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 1999, the Planning Commission studied the proposed project and
received public comments on the project; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 1999, following an extensive, duly noticed public hearing; this
Planning:Commission denied the project without prejudice without taking further action on or
certifying a Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission then conducted two duly noticed study sessiaas to
discuss concerns with the applicant and the public; and
WHEREAS, the applicant then redesigned the project by reducing its overall size and Sled
EX AIBITQ
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
a naw planning application (Re% ised Project); and
« HERE AS, the City then prepared an Addendurn/Supplement to the Response to Comments
Document to analyze the Revised Project as an additional alternative and made this Document
available to the public on November 12, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of the Revised Project contained in the Addendum/Supplementto
the Response to Comments Document demonstrated that recirculation of the Recirculated DEIR is
not appropriate because the Revised Project would lessen the severity of environmental impacts
identified in the DEIR and the Recirculated DEIR; there was no new information presented that
showed any new, significant environmental impacts would result from the Revised Project; and there
have been no other changes in the Revised Project or the surrounding circumstances nor new
information that indicates that any increased severity of environmental impacts from the Revised
Project or feasibility of any further mitigation measures that would reduced significant environmental
impacts identified in the DEIR and the Recirculated DEIR; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 1999, this Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
study session on the Final EIR (FEIR), consisting of the DEIP, the Recirculated DERI, the Response
to Comments Document, and the Addendum/ Supplement to the Response to Comments, and
received public testimony from both the public and the applicant on the Revised Project and theFElk
during that meeting; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 1999, this Planning Commission held apublic hearing on the
certification of the FEIR and received testimony from all interested persons regarding that
certification; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered and discussed the extensive
documentation submitted by the applicant, the general public, and the City of San Mateo, as well as
the docuapents comprising the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has also considered and discussed the extensive
testimony presented by the applicant, the general public, the City of San Mateo, the City consultants
who prepared the Final EK and City staff at the ten meetings that the Planning Commission has held
28 11 on this property in the past 15 months; and
EXHI IT -A
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NN'1{EREAS, the Final EIR clearh' presen[s [he issues involved in the development ofthis
propeny and identifies appropriate al[ernativcs as required by CEQA and the CEQAGuidelines (Title
14, Chapter 13 of tile California Code ofRe,aulations), and
WHEREAS, the extensive public participation in the development of this Final EIR. has
provided valuable information and analysis, and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies and analyzes six significant and unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts that would probably occur from development of the Revised Project, as
outlined in Exhibit A to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, Table 4 attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B identifies and compares the
environmental effects of the project originally analyzed under the EIR and the Revised Project that
was reviewed as an alternative; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, consisting of the DEIR, the Recirculated DESK the Response
to Comments Document, and the Addendum/ Supplement to the Response to Comments, provides
this Commission, the City, and the public with sufficient and thorough information regarding the
potential significant environmental impacts of both the original project and the Revised Project; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR has been prepared and considered in conformance with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines, with independent preparation by a City -retained consultant andapplicatiorr
of the independent comment and judgment of both City staff and this Commission; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission is the decision-making body forthisproposedpraject;
and the Planning Commission has considered this Final EIR in evaluating and reviewing both the
original project, the Revised Project, and public testimony and will continue to do so; and
WHEREAS, certification of this Final EIR shall not in any way be construed or interpreted
as the adoption of a City policy, standard, or threshold for evaluating the effect of any atherpnsject
on ambiept.v.'ind conditions on San Francisco Bay or elsewhere and shaII not constitute precedent of
any kind for any evaluation or action on any other project wherever located; and
WHEREAS, the evaluation of effects of a specific project on ambient wind conditionsboth
under CEQA and the Burlingame Municipal Code shall be done on a specific -project basis, including
any relevant revisions to the Revised Project or another project proposed forthe property forwhich
4
EXHIBITA
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this EIR was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the cenification of this Final EIR shall not in any wav bind or commit this
Commission or the. City to any particular course of action on the Revised Project itselfor any other
project, except to apply the Final EIR as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, in considering any approval of the Revised Project itself, the mitigation
measures and monitoring program required by the Final EIR as well as additional conditions pursuant
to the Burlingame Zoning Code shall be applied to the Revised Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes and affirms that before the RevisedProject
could be approved by the Commission, the .Commission would have to determine that there are
overriding concerns and benefits pursuantto CEQA Guidelines sections 15092 and 15093 withregard
to each unavoidable, significant adverse environmental impact as identified in Exhibit A, and this
consideration will occur if and when the Revised Project itself is presented for hearing and decision,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows:
1. The Final Environmental Report, consisting of the Draft EIR, the RecircuiatedDraff EII,
the Response to Comments Document, and the Addendum/ Supplement to the Response to
Comments Document, is certified as complete pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15090_
This decision is not subject to appeal until such time as a project that relies upon this F -mal
EIR is approved. The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the Revised Project
under. the Burlingame Municipal Code. The Commission's decision on a project on the property
together with its action on this Final EIR would be appealable to the City Council pursuant to the
Burlingame Municipal Code and CEQA. Anyone wishing to challenge the certification ofthisFEIR
in a courtrof:competent jurisdiction must first file such an appeal to the City Council and fb3owing
the decision of the Council must file any action challenging the decision on the Final EIR in aeourt
of competent jurisdiction within the time limits set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act
and the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines as adopted by the State of Califomia (Title 4, Chapter
3 of the California Code of Regulations).
EXHIBITA
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This Resolution was adopted by the following vote of the City of Burlingame Planning
Commission at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 10, 2000:
AYES: Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Vistica, and Luzuriaga
NOES: None
ABSENT: Keighran
EXHIBITA
EXHIBIT B
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT, UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impacts B.I atxd BIO: The proposed project would increase traffic volumes at
intersections in the project area (cumulatively significant at the
intersection of Poplar Avenue/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/North
Amphlett Road)
Impacts B.3 and B12: The proposed project would increase traffic volumes on freeway
ramps in the project area (southbound US 101 off -ramp to
Broadway in the a.m. peak hour)
ImpactB.11: The proposed project would contribute to cumulative traffic
increases on the U.S. 101 freeway (significant cumulative impact
on two freeway segments, from Millbrae to Broadway and from
Broadway to Anza Boulevard)
Impact C':4: The proposed project could contribute to cumulative mobile -source
emissions
EX IIBI1 B
f f
F
p"1
r -
�
o 0
O F
a
o 0
Q
a�
�U
�O
FA
v
u a
CVI
Z un
d tit
N O
7
CI
N
y
wax
co
Fq
�
-
Frn
WF
a
Qa
aA
VW]
W..
u ^
'
x>
a
o�
m b
CO
O v
Qa
OU
UW
ti
a
CL
�a
a
O
�
�
L
�
y
.=i v .'7.' .C`i
•x
'.0
d
F
E C
E
n
a
O
a
0.�
n'
EXHIBIT
-0
C
1-1
C U
— N
�
•.
J
of
_
U ,_
k4
U
� Fm
aW
pl
Ur* -°a
cl
>
U
m
O
y
tn
--
�aU
Go
�
1•a
oa1`n�
u
�. u' ❑
m a
ti (n
c
O
O
ca
Cl
O 04
n c
❑ n
C `e
�„]
O
N T.i O
V
G7 m
t -I Q
N 41 C cc a
m 0:
Q
�
o
0.
U
°c° cau
CO C6
c.c.0
dhcnQ
a'.ei .a a
v 'c a
c
v
d
- c E
C -
I
c
cOinU(i
V rnUO
u� c0
U
d
u
c
L Q
U
1-1
A7
/
/�\
)
k
}§\
\
\}a
.\
\\\\\\
»±a4z=
k
}§\
\
\}a
.\
EX H{b!ƒ \
m
O 1 Ur C C
E E
-
(T:
'D
J O
U n C✓
CO L d y
i.
L
O>
C4 CLU
v29
U D J L ..' n U n _ 'O y •C
_U
_
¢ E 2) 2 n E m
W
Q
E
U d
d o u o C J "^ T= c ,o p J�
r
u
d .per cq v� p j L+
— n o] a toEEE .L E
F
o
y 2
u OUO n
2-5
u
d
A
r
d Q
v T
'� ami C4
no.o 0 c�
dE
o E E c E v U 3 E v
G U
ai
.N
G. D .. O
n o o
[r
G
CnL' = y C U C
c a
E
6 O =O > y E 9 O O 0 n 2 4 N
.uu
•"� W
U N u -S.y dr y vUi n C
o
W C4
o :: o N E>. m p
QH[wCd
u OU
54
Q a O °� � v E 'q:a
"w
Mr'
c c h c p o
a c E =� 'C r c w
E
c v o rcj c ,°c L
L
N
W rq
d
e V O L y O T U o vO
O d
0 = ecus cs •�
E O
o o 0 E "y o 8 p
p
a E
c .. L u c r
`a 1 s
QQ
(n H
l] u
c G n E y 0
J 7 'O +r n U q "t U O
C C
E
H
y W U y C 0 >.
t C > O
U
t r. v. G d y`
O T 6 > z C C C O O
a•
p O
E
O r
� N¢
u N s = L S� d� y C d y
O r
��'"
?� 'v c❑ E t t
Epw
E
a
o
w
m
a_
a
E
_
a,
�
o
E e
c
G V
a
Y�
EXH1L
m
T
v
+
_ .�. Gil -
d c! 3 �
.. � .0 _ T ^
-_
❑ ._ •J
� _ -
LJ '�
O
C u:.
.�' Ll cG
O F y C
-\-J-
U> �4 -•
T T
C �^ U
C� C E
U
y
U
._
p❑
c po c
U
.�
hj' .O .�
U.E
E c N
N
N= d O
a
U L O N
y N N
O _❑
> O Y
h ca I
N L E
C. U Cp-fn
> c] L J
(n
Z co :! y Q .�
0.1
Q 3-
p
N
p y m
DO d C
••
s — bb
E
-0 ani
E >�" 3
c=? =�
c c
>, c u
c E
3 E
C
U
0>
C
_
c v
0
Ql
u
Bt
O
y' L O
C
y y d
y
E
a-aw
•G
L
H
U > 'n m
y
by q q
�Ki
y
,� C�
p
m •o
N .E
�
y .: U
u a 3 eua
u
a; v- o d o
'E
v �L•
E `u¢
_�
.L�..
N
F v
h
C
0 1
O %ten .E .�
s 3
y o
m
c d 5
o�
o N
u
a o
^
£ a u 8 0
>, •O
E
y
4 �
d
C
.0 eE`a
u6
� O O
a o
� d
�
aN
L
�
•00b
C� t
n
cCa .� �
(�
'L a7
;o
.o �i
c
C
o E-
... E 3 --,
O
u_
r
m u
c 0-
2
u 0 a •p
O .>'.
n
ow
am
y_ q
a u
"'.=
N
c u a a
u
> O
d
E
.29
E
•-, o
_
n>
e
E
a= E
g
<
c y
_
n
Es€
E e
P H
o
CL 3
�o
_
a
s u ` `ix
d ga
f., c z
c
Y G
E X H E
A
u ^
v
EX H I IT C
Q
° d
JJ
N O m
i_ .D
4
2
L Q
E
c n w
E''o
_ 5
E= Z s h 0
--1
ua°
C
o
n c t
n Evi E-om
v
uumo
>
>
c W h
J n _
—0.0
of E
0
>
E
c_ c 11 p c
c
-
E 6
c
v
EX H I IT C
Q
C y
JJ
N O m
i_ .D
4
2
L Q
E
c n w
E''o
_ 5
E= Z s h 0
--1
ua°
C
o
n c t
n Evi E-om
v
uumo
>
c W h
J n _
—0.0
v
EX H I IT C
Q
u ---:-
08 O8
¢Q
a :a
U �Li
UL...
E E o. o c
o
°: m
y
c ``
o o
E o
v�'un°Em °
>
E55
>
°ZZ
un.
.Z
I o
y u c
= o E r.
io. = eo E
t c
Q E •� c 0-a
=
o
Z r �
= o
v
E
T C
�
•� :v o a a �
� ° �
.c
cv-o� cu u
u� E 3
E o E
= ct
= toC4
y
eco oio
o aw E
c
61
•r .
�y'oa�o3
T °
'o -E
'nes
T
uV
m E2 r E g
o
N—`
n
o„ E o V
t
o-
Z
o•oo
o �Z
s°=,°
-C.
3yoj
O
W
tin
CL
¢
z m
mt..
0, 0
.,, o o a a ,_
w u o u
W Z_ Z :a
a. ca
o
1
\
m
ch
C
O
?
,
EXHIBIT C
r U = -
U
U >
E� u o E
c
L: P..� c c y on u co U o
A t12 a> c b0 `v u U °o o u o o d E
Q o
W
F� w
z ce3 E o v n E
OD
E i W i i p o ` 5= 60 v .J :o
—
4' (� C4 i a ti 3 s V t• .T. r;.
3OZ
3 =
Eo 0 O n o u s a
'2 -jn v aci ._ a>i c c
W CL
'F -m> a.°db .n �0_Em
InIS
lu/1 :J. O CA N N N nO •4 •� N.
U U C N �+'• N °
LL' w `I Q c aci 3o :0 3 3 E U u
0 0
c
Cc n h u s .c m o
c° v a o s
cn o v aoi o o o u
O Q •C� coz
E 16- E O�� u u N n W. n$ o Ea
0Q.. CY' a a, �>¢ v � C am u¢ `= n n c> > 3 c v
OF in
�i
0 5
3 3 > ei
d u 3 c
� c
3 'e
u C o C U
-
�
x = EXHIBITG
=l
*
(
\\)6
--
—
64
}
-
/
G=:!x§
_.
to
r4�
to
\
\\\\\
(
\\
E})
«/z;f
}7\
2\
!®!!°2.2
5 §2
_
]\E
. \
/r
f/§
to
��
§
§f\
\\)
}/()\\\
is
\\)
\
&.
}
./ /
— [/
Hiblƒ \
r
� U
J
70
l �
C
if
>> a "u�
u
>
a>
oEn-
c
W
o
o .o
U`,
o o=
u
'EtN
N U
4J
d
�E-
=
OO
T
G U
CU
rCa V
t=
_ „ E
U
O1
.>.y
E
72
�wA
W
wto
a x
r
Q
E u H 60
Py U
n'
u d aut o
u
au
E
'
v a
E
x O
i
wP:
CL,
E5 > ov
yti
zQ
oD
a E to
„
H
b
O
'O IX J t .J
N EU w
N
.+
o
;'moo no
E E
a o m
v
->
o
a o.E-cf,
o
c
Fly
t
N 0.
0.
N
O
.n
.rGpc
-t uv
0 F
-n E aEi 3 v n
d
O
C
O
O U J
-
r
m
EXHIBUTU
r
M4
u ^
u -o
.y o
N [C9
C •-
pj
aui 2�1 •E
� E
.c
o
O
u ig y
w
>
c E
C L
c
w 7
E U
e_Ei o
- 'A
a Q
aK
u
o u a
E E
E
O
w ti w�
.�-
u -o
U ^ U
:V
T
72
C5
h
>
>
C
o C
Q c L=
_ _
v
O � N
n
za_
OA
>>
=
G
J L U 5
F�
E
tin c �,
°
C7
o
p o o ¢> o 0
a
r..
-0
v
noo`t �o
•vim
son �
zF
O
� .
v v J s c
CUF
v o
t.vo
'
Q
U y U � �
SFW
t
z
..
w
c o
u.
�
as
���
F
O
�.• U
u '�
o u � � v`
> > c
Q
y w Cl T v
p
°
w
Q
a
[z
a>
N
(
d
>r 0.d
U
(r
C
N
n
U >
v O o
a
O
o
d
Eq
c °
.-.
U
Q
U
.-
G• yJ G N .
am
v
d=
��
�'
'IrEXHIBITG
r U U
C
O G
_
_
G
U G=
•- T V
U
n 4
J—
Ly
E
d-
u •- o o
`-' - u -� ' a U c Ca o ,amu,
c u- v h
c p o u
-
O
ON
n a �• ` e4 0 >n
n. a 'y 'r
N ee .., O L V
'iz
q O
N E V
v� n n %a W U E
> a fn
n u >• c0 v e
0 eta
o
wo
u
c o u
N O
Q N W. T J 0.l
.•CS .'��.
d
4 =�-p..-yam.. > C >� � :�
7•u >'C
L
L N
•o
d o o. w o o a
L
y
e)
-w
my
uyr asu._.�uof
n7E
m
o c c
d
> o °�
O
> c
t'a u u .°3
roo
.co
Lu
0
E JR
C yL.V CL ea •y �
V'C..
C
� C
N '•Veit •C T C :tr e4
n N a
m
C V
w
E
w
�L y j c.c'suJ
-vo
R`.
yv'o c u`
nyv
Cea�
?oM
v eo• a >j v c ''u
a¢
>s o•ei c�•`--"
ecoov'
._N>
'.-
��
no v cs
>,3c)
eeov
•"
O u rda E - c
•D
>' w.3 0
.""e°
o o E . h
.>
> E
E-
>
CQL
L C •q'� i y .�. U
p t 6
E y
C 5-
E
u u
G
N
to
uWC.
v
u u u
CV
CO
00
ad
M N
u
ZO
0 O.c
c
E e
o
o f >>
O. m> N n
V O
.Cq
O C U V N ^3j
dj
a _C.
T ++
aXi go= 'O
Z
E u CG u
c>
E
> >
aEi
a
U U G
Longi ED E
y _ 6
d O
S O U y
�y
U u NQy U c
• h
y � �
.O
E "
1 -
:s
•o O n O c
y
`0
0
n F
p y E
L O 6J
F�tooE•E
c
cc
V.
rn
u
4]
m
C
J
u—
d
�
E %
o
F O
ti
�m
T vc
G
EXHIBITC
�
�
u
_
u
C
oL ;,
C4
to E.0
F
,rY O
r
> U d y
�
U G
N
N [Yi ^11
U _
ylL O'
C
s
O v
3
u _
E o
'o
'h
O
-
�
4
v
O J v U
L
J o a o o
5
..
L O
y�i
d N
U
C
O
C in
O
• C Z
O u
j
`.
.RPM
O y
G
0
N
2 E
C
E
y
o.c
a o
ern
E73 o
v
L
awn
a.a
EN
-
>55.rz
N
3
°uao E
Tm
Q
❑. E3
EXHIBIT0
0
N
76
C4
v �.
V] O
�'� O O
R+ 'O C NN..
C
n
.'1. Ca
W
u
P4
co
r o
W
?
ZO0
..q
2 >
o c
o
u
r��••r�1 W
i1.a b
O� u p
U a
•°.
Li W
1v N
L C 0 3
aC ` ..
u a4
v
y
- 75
E-
C V E
aii o
c 3
oaw
09
•-+�C4
y �.�
E � F uv u
�.E
ud u'
in ii
O
N
O
�W
G4 G4
o H v
u c >oLT. �
ami
` �
od��b0
.
fl
Z
o^o=cc o
'� p i.
O
U C a 3 c_
9 a E E v
.Zr
~
c
`3c':L
iYr
u u u -0 >
pu OOV)
pW
�cc�h=
a
u
mo
a,
EXHIBITC
0
N
C
n
y
EXHIBITC
c�
~ EXHIBIT/
Jt\{
)(\
~ EXHIBIT/
"
o m
T
W
o�U
E
E
� a
o
o v
L >
al U
a
� o
0
Q
u^
v r:.
G y
_o
�7
•�
M
0 b
9
e
es
N
u
m
c
E
H
L
U
u
E "
L
� n
0. pQ
EXHIBIT O
U
N�—
N
u b vCi
� U O r7
o E
._
c t
;�
?❑`
0
o
C
c�
a.n G
u o.
v o
o d
01
u
�y
b�
a�
O
i
a
P
a` N
- o
OS
c
5
4
a
E
E e
L
m
kxHIBI_T.0
EXPaIQITC
of
r.
-3
0 0
>^ O d O O> U O
>o� n.FUs.ta[i
c C u
y v n = E
C L
>
, n y E a
—
.=
w q u F O E y c L
3
c
CJ 'J
wit- O ❑ w
.c to W 3 c a'
c u rn v v .b0 moi¢ n
_ C p d d O u y
7 V Qui � L ai
o p E y cto
o
�
c
Y
C
n C
p
o
4 C
t
C 1c, d
ya
c
O r
�
c c
Y
c
�
a
^
t
C 1c, d
ya
V
'J
'J
u
n V
C_
:r
J
U
We
u 2 u
E a9i a s c_ '� 4 u
y CtC^C��C "��s.Xa�OG.O Ld
E at d d L
u N E U U U C N C u N
E c c Yc`� c r
s a1 U E? a a
3 3
EXHIBITG
c�i
U
W
MI Q
W
�W
z�
OQ
FW
Cd.7
F�
Q E"'
bdz
°UF
U�0
waOA
.awp
awe
E�W
N..
�+ W
wO
004
z .a
Od
�z
d�
�O
O�
U E,
O
IMM
J
_f
1
'„ o
�
� •L
(a NN
C 'CJ
C C
C
0
J
d
u o
O
v>
c
•moi ra
.c
F, _
v °=
'o g
a
=O
ad
—
00
O U
y u
v�
C y rr C
O
C
o
o o
= 3 +sem
m— v s o
m c o u
n a
c
as
�.o'oc
u
au>i
eo `o
c°. E o
a s •�
E
.n m
u F"
U .n
z
co
-C .0 9
p C y
v N N
id O
SCD
NOpGO
0
M
Ma W L N N U C
C .nC G d +�
•w
L C T
d n
Y
rail
d .O CL ci O
U
61
OS
'O E
w
2=
w
_
S o
eCo ?: c ai C0
s u
u n E>
c
'E E3 c o
4
L.u.
.fl
c c
vu�oe
Doan•
•o
y a� t o
ami
�rU
_
E e
o�
c"scos o
~
O00
.i'.
m 6 BE V -)•O
G
T r
E
c` EXHIBIT.0
.fl v..
o aT
79
`c •— E
C T• .-. •.C. ... p EE G 3 0to M
cb L y 6 C_ •p 'O O N C
C =O > r��—W.-
.� v C = N U 0 C S N a) C
3.a >.o.or c �.6'� 2 n e v e 3 c c
U o r -ani n c a) 'x .�-.. ri t' •�� y 'E E c - o •- c _
�..2
d ato
i V -o
co
v L o a' cv u
V C_ O :J J Ti O W •J J C >
AHIBIT O
— a
C O
U
u E
C
+
�
E
�
N
m
m �
U
f
N u..
"" _t V O
d
•vi
�
w
•i
b y
C N
y
_ O u
�
o m
00 07
O a
v
�
a
v
n
O
N N
d
> wL 3 E .n
rn .
— a
C O
�
u E
.00
"O 'w
G
� m 0
�
G O u•y G'�
m
m �
•i �
"" _t V O
d
•vi
�
w
r
_ O u
�
o m
a
v
�
a
`n
> wL 3 E .n
rn .
v
u E
.00
"O 'w
G
� m 0
C uLOr
•O
m �
r
_
�
O
000
U N L
C 6 0 :p
o
v
• b
)
•LO
N m n
y .O d aEi 0 m
u •O
O
E N
C
E
m u
E °o u e c Y
`
`
...
Or
>>
N
y rJ
N >
Q 'O E, C
C= C
9
Y
O z
O U C
"a
h
V •r..
O. G1
J E
�
E a
� r
m'J �
C
VJ V' w
�
•n
e
4
F
a m
E c
�:i��
m
EX IBIT
,*
EXHIL
rt
C
U p C U
ii 3 0
r
D
p O E0
c
.J
va yam.` n
_ � G
O
o
E n� y� d
ami
o
u
N`
q
.O
o
0 o o U
O
V N'
a � vC/I G
W U)
C [n
c
3
P. +....m. c u
0
E
g
c
o�
v o u E ani o
L
a
w
cGJ
y 'h
a a
E m •� w oa.
e m
c
EXHIL
rt
ii 3 0
'�
c
d
N`
q
.O
o
f
V N'
a � vC/I G
c
3
P. +....m. c u
0
E
g
c
o�
v o u E ani o
L
a
cGJ
y 'h
a a
E m •� w oa.
e m
c
v
.`.n
v U
a CL.
n
C CO
C
O
6 O
O U as ❑�
•>
d U3 C
c
O
d n
C
:: u
p 0
y
C
o
O
v
q �. i
c.3 20
ou
a`)
F
oo F
EXHIL
rt
+,o`
--
C
•o V �. �.O
.� c= E 2 2 o 3
•> L� ti
S L � C� d N
C � �� pm,
�30o
E eu� cO'•E- vE O�
O 3¢ E w' 3 E cU E
-a c�i
aE]
) 6 al O N O
N
> D -O d
:y —•
O
GA
-
.G
C
x ' UL L j j'li
C C G a
W °'
u
3 3vrn dnaG d
=
•� �
A
o u
L
o
v ss•� � 3Fa o � yL
`ui
y
U
i
O J7 b y CV d n U
a
o
d o y O E v o� nz
3
�•�EuE_'� pp�uu
C c-
u a'
-• N _ G G
c RS u c w
c
U
u o
d
E
u y E E E E
t E E
o
u
as y z d
4
c
-aa0 C.a3Ati7N. �v
'on
O
E O
y> uCE
• u -a u •
a •� N
O
•'e y m E n'
E
c3.
a
'Q
N y
c � G
4
O O C• Q
u
4
u
u u n
ami ca
o E `u
u
3
4 Q
a
csu. ti
m
tu..
� y
C/3
Y �
E
CS
ri
EXHIBITC
tam
0
EXHIBITO
as y
n Ez0
w n •� .� m u '� o c t r1 cui E
y
o O o O > y
64-
0
:_
L E
`;i u rn o
c.iLc==Evco
u Oon <cs n`o�u c-� EI%1 v0.c. aE'E
u c y u C 0 O N _•1 L N N _C .-. N p�
Dana
00
N u O n d co d N C n C
E CD
Q£
co 0.o. ��,M n=o o•ata
FS
u
O
O
ar E v o
0 O 'a
C ep O c O J O u0 E
VS
Z E
O d u c c
L
a
Y
� .=`
v c� v
_ c c •o
au .c a '` [Y., m a o o_ c
F
'o r
cu c' o
y o u❑ •-. O a� y O 3
m
jy
U
y
nE E
•p ^
o
., a c
N C
n ca o n >+
G
0—
a 3 _'
O N =o
v
E
>` > OIM
ai E L `o_ al y r E
a
-
�
'y1
O C y n O .E
c G1 u
011 O N =` E
K
y 0 y n
C
v c v 'a en
y y o p 0 c N 0 3
m
E
Er UCOV
EXHIBITO
as y
n Ez0
w n •� .� m u '� o c t r1 cui E
y
o O o O > y
64-
0
:_
L E
`;i u rn o
c.iLc==Evco
u Oon <cs n`o�u c-� EI%1 v0.c. aE'E
u c y u C 0 O N _•1 L N N _C .-. N p�
Dana
00
N u O n d co d N C n C
E CD
Q£
co 0.o. ��,M n=o o•ata
FS
j$
)2
§
z
m�
/
\§]
\
--
_
(
—
32
%5
. -
f
)
e
)j
2E
§) \
}/
}\}\
\�\\
E\ H!S!ƒ O
)
_-
2\\\/\/\
L
}\\ \}
a»jg>g)/
)/}\/
.}/7f/73§
§
z
m�
/
\§]
\
--
_
(
—
32
%5
. -
f
)
e
)j
2E
§) \
}/
}\}\
\�\\
E\ H!S!ƒ O
)
§
z
m�
/
\§]
\
--
_
—
\
. -
f
)
e
§
§) \
}/
}\}\
E\ H!S!ƒ O
-.v-y-
'J
•O
U
T� .E C
eL.l Cl c U
C
F
�
O
�__
"O
^'JJ U C C
s c• c
L o0606
03._ os
o 0
O o.=_
a=
v
V
n a0 0 0
u
.°u� �`-' r �'-'
n-'
OL'
G
� t nL' C
N OOL N
N
a'�
> o
v
3> 3
¢ c
9
d m
v y
N++
O N
O u
4u' �
w
ag>,rEE
E'oa�,"
N > > O
¢O r3 O
.(qgo
C
H 7
C N p
60
t•.�..
G
dui".. bp�
a
y '�- U U
FE�EoL"]ny=i'oEc
m
T
•Jl R 'Jl Vl
..
C C N
-
w > C •G n
u as ea
o E 0
a
'w
a.r"
au_
0 3
t
w o
U3U L r3 C_
Y 3 0
00
O�
•rcp
a3 >— me
ma
E ^' ='� ;E U
= 5 E
> a u
E w
0.0
G
=
v =
YJ
3u�
3�Y
L
N 04 T9•
nL•, �.
u
`
O u Vl L -
'• O Ei
� o
a y 3 a0i
a v E vi
L
�
x
N EXHIBITG
u ^
u
v c
0 Y
y
3 `n
m
C
u v°
�
c
a�
u �
O L
�
O
N C eVs
U
V
v U L J 'J
..
u
O
a
o
'� O
O a
e?
> �o
m U
~
n
d
O v a>i
cu a c E o o n
W.22 o
a
O
p,c t rna x nu y
aw !>2
u ._y
o�U
o.�C4 yt
.oCD
N
cJ 9 V= eGi J w r0
C1
.VC
O
C W C O G N O a G0i w E
O 0 y" 03
y
cc F .'�. 3 :m 'O " d a c E
3
E Etw
u
EXHIBIT C
v c
0 Y
y
3 `n
m
d
u v°
�
c
a�
u �
O L
�
O
N C eVs
EXHIBIT C
V
:J
L-
o
o d
3
� •
ai
J
V >
2 'w .v
a yo
'u a
c
o
s1
..U°'., W° d
o d a
J
--s
� (.I
N r
C .... � T. p ...
y n O
Z � U
•pn'
C
•o �
n
r c
3 L
y
-J
Y
o y
ali E .c
"�
o
o d
3
� •
ai
° e
•y d� p 0 3
3
2 'w .v
a yo
'u a
c
o
s1
..U°'., W° d
o d a
cs
--s
� (.I
N r
C .... � T. p ...
y n O
•pn'
n
7 n >
y
u u
p c ?> >0 N:L3
•� w
•-• r
"�
w
3 s n �
o. w o
,� z
w
•O w
a c d
o d
3
� •
ai
e
L w
d O N
C
pc r
r
cs
--s
rz EXHIBITC
V
J
U U
J
V
E
E
y
`c
7
V
y
�
C
C
�.__¢
EXHIBI
c
Ir
N
N
— J
_
U T
u C
CIJ _•
�
..
_
i
U
p
CD � y
�3j U :J
N
E
U
•j U
C
ti
O
O _
N
0 4
U
L
O
0 0
E
,00
>rn >i
3'N
>
>U
>
Ea`. Waco v
c y v y
o
u E
o s u i c
c y E w
>
vD'- .> E d u ct
u
i
u
E
n ry.1 >wt -c s
00
`u
L C n
v
ti T pC �
E
E
y
`c
7
V
y
�
C
C
�.__¢
EXHIBI
c
Ir
N
N
L C n
v
ti T pC �
y
>LEoa`.
U cam
wTC
�.__¢
EXHIBI
c
Ir
O
U
�
G -O � _ O ❑ U
�- = J
� �
_
CL
C4
,p O' O•
70 v ... s
y G U =
u a
X300
Y
=_ate"_ �F=>,�
�a•�?�
_Fp>.y
v
a
v '~
y v •�+, •.�. > - r X ami
-M
.n v i
y n
x u
0 12
E
" E
E' c
yJ E n
Lo E=
$
L n O =
>
G
u
>U)
tsa
aN
t3
C
= O L
_
= O L
•C
C1
E
D vL• y
c u--,
:,
y
ou c u
[/ Ov
yO E
N O
C •O y
c N y: .-a
-
'O 9
y w U
+n CO :n u
-
�.
•O w
O v O. •L
•-J Q.L
•i
w
Lt
c
Q
> %V u
Cd o
'a v 0
v a�-'-',
G
GO
DO
v y n O
O•>.E
C y n 0
C4
00
'r
.c
12N p- .d. to
U
> F a u O
> F
u ^
1
L Q'
O
A O
C
C
cn
C
C
n
F
F
w
m
a
a
� p
4
C
O• -''-Q
U c N
a O�
CL
CO
E
0�Q9+T��
cv L
0
3 E ts
'-p O E
v. `O0-00
C C 3
C
E
CLO
uz
a
u •-
_
c` EXHIBITC
U "
U
�. cJ
v O O
—
a3go
w
�L
�
�
�
�
c➢ ¢J U
� ..
�
u
y =
Opp
.�. en
_T
ti=
L
G
r
on F
C
u �
-m o f
h
a
O
G
G
_
L
S
L
F
H
F
N
q
�
�
d
OL.
y
...
•�
y
Y
EM u �
�
lC
�
V
"J'
u
Vi R
E
�c�
m'u3cv"�
.�
a�
U
w
N
y C N
N>
N d c>
O
O>
0
._.
uy
OD V
...
E
u
ovo
r=
�
.0
'u
A m o
y►
C71
m
L=
F "m
P. ei0o
Z A
R`. 3 3
c'
P7
j
m
E
v
A E
`
N EX.H.i
BIT.
['�F�,
U
W
C
R
4
oo
U
c
o
N G
0
N a
V
R
c
c0
E u
U _
U C U
.' c
U fa)
O V
O g a
O
-P,
o
-a`a
E E_
E Aa 3
E
0
ta J ` - 0
E
Oa) a
•� — •O
a) C N O
m
O
3a� m ca-0td E
o a ,�
>
o r R
auiO
00.
o 0 en
o
u .n d R O
O C E R
wL �cn
.0 -
c
y.OL
c
y.N db0
a
�
C
.E
C y
" id .� y
O r a d
cd •oO O
O s a u s
�g C
O L °u
Q.
a
mEv
dEo
a`iE
> 3
> o.200-0)
> 3
00 u
.
u0—
N N O?
C In 'J L
C N
m O R O
C N S CJ
'� n• •° fd
.
a
a
H
a N
a
.000
=�
0
N
p
N
OC' >y E
a„
E
uE
o
> o
�
o
o rx
> w 3
oo
c
o
N G
0
N a
V
R
c
c0
E u
V O
U C U
.' c
U fa)
O V
O g a
O
-P,
o
-a`a
E E_
E Aa 3
E
0
ta J ` - 0
E
Oa) a
•� — •O
a) C N O
m
O
3a� m ca-0td E
o a ,�
>
o r R
auiO
00.
o 0 en
o
u .n d R O
O C E R
wL �cn
.0 -
c
y.OL
c
y.N db0
a
�
C
.E
C y
" id .� y
O r a d
cd •oO O
O s a u s
�g C
O L °u
Q.
a
mEv
dEo
a`iE
> 3
> o.200-0)
> 3
EXAIBITC
7
OG➢
Oc0
oCD
l%�
V
fn
F
F
F
N
a
N
i
N
a
m
�-
°'
0
ta J ` - 0
E
Oa) a
•� — •O
a) C N O
m
O
3a� m ca-0td E
o a ,�
>
o r R
a1 O Gm
O y L A G
C 0� N
U L b0 d
u .n d R O
O C E R
boo
O
O ^� •u
a) � a �
w U �� 0
O
R
Rww
Q.
um
Loa�uoo0
Haw... EE
EXAIBITC
7
I
3 0 z 3
c
m
y K 7 O O� bn
O R
•` a y G E O N L
cu U
av � $r`ts o63
•� t'n w � � � eo a� 3
'ems 0 aS •o Lie
h ,Len�vP,�
•-yEum a
[r
pjCod'�E
d on
o 3°
a X00
'd •O � U �
0r
ep l0 p p° � y O yp h
w o.'O _R
h
cEya o 7 W 6 O 'O j •C O
c x H�2 En �ou2E9
u El
u
Ulf BIT
E C
N
7
c
� c aii c
W
C
G. ,0
y
-
-
a
N p
17
.Ow
.00
'° 3�uLo
y y
W y
a m N bD G
�+o
'-❑
U2 0!3�
v
O
O Ez o
U—
K-
EP
E
CD
E04
I
3 0 z 3
c
m
y K 7 O O� bn
O R
•` a y G E O N L
cu U
av � $r`ts o63
•� t'n w � � � eo a� 3
'ems 0 aS •o Lie
h ,Len�vP,�
•-yEum a
[r
pjCod'�E
d on
o 3°
a X00
'd •O � U �
0r
ep l0 p p° � y O yp h
w o.'O _R
h
cEya o 7 W 6 O 'O j •C O
c x H�2 En �ou2E9
u El
u
Ulf BIT
E C
N
7
c
� c aii c
W
C
G. ,0
y
r,° 0
a
N p
U cJ y UC
.Ow
.00
'° 3�uLo
y y
W y
a m N bD G
�+o
'-❑
U2 0!3�
v
O
O Ez o
I
3 0 z 3
c
m
y K 7 O O� bn
O R
•` a y G E O N L
cu U
av � $r`ts o63
•� t'n w � � � eo a� 3
'ems 0 aS •o Lie
h ,Len�vP,�
•-yEum a
[r
pjCod'�E
d on
o 3°
a X00
'd •O � U �
0r
ep l0 p p° � y O yp h
w o.'O _R
h
cEya o 7 W 6 O 'O j •C O
c x H�2 En �ou2E9
u El
u
Ulf BIT
E C
N
7
9
W
m
9
N N
N N
0
N N
c
U
U
U
U
_
U
U
G
G
J
� J
a`
a`
`d maw
> C
C
mcN —O
coed
O�
0E
�F
�F
c
CNj
o g a^x uv
in
cn
U rn E
..
ams yL• o c
L
L
O
M O
o •�to .0.
N N
N N
0
N N
c
0 G O
0
0
U
BUJ
N
N
a`
a`
`d maw
mcN —O
coed
O�
0E
ttl cn
w [/)
0 G O
N O m
L n N H CO t
owi
`d maw
mcN —O
coed
O
o g a^x uv
in
cn
U rn E
..
ams yL• o c
L
L
o
�-• N t .y C
o •�to .0.
d
u
e R' A 3
..�
..l
tti
E-Z�
�8 3�
-0
0 3 0 o y
_ 3
wa3oW,,;
cY°3�3mro
w w p Y
W 0 va
°: G 0i
C G U T� y ti
f+l
EX,tjui�:L
7
7
y
m w
N
a
N
y
�
a
E
g
aVi o
�
a"i
N
13
.F
PC
V
G
C
W
7
0 O'
—• R
•d O
V
d
N
V
A
tA.l
v
EJ F O
(ya 0 0 V
1... N •ti
b
A .
Lit
y
d C
G C
C G
O
-bp V
c N
c r
a
c
oho
o�
..ba
N
-boa
o
d
o`
`
o„
A
off
O .� V
= .y0.. O
w O
u3 E-
_ rnF
rnH
I.A.
E c
O. E.O i L
o. en
V] U
H w 3 007
7
y
m w
N
a
N
y
�
a
E
g
aVi o
�
a"i
N
13
.F
PC
V
G
C
W
7
0 O'
—• R
•d O
V
d
N
V
A
tA.l
v
EJ F O
(ya 0 0 V
1... N •ti
b
A .
y
d C
G C
C G
O
-bp V
OO V
b➢ U
a
c
oho
o�
..ba
N
N.�
d
0..O = N > b0➢
A
off
O .� V
= .y0.. O
w O
u3 E-
_ rnF
rnH
u ^
m w
w y
U
m
d r
13
.F
fill
w m
V
r.
7
W
7
0 O'
—• R
o
W
y
�+
m
V
A
tA.l
v
EJ F O
(ya 0 0 V
1... N •ti
A .
t
F
F
=
o
3
PC
U
m
d r
13
.F
r.
7
G O W
0 0 'O CW
7
0 O'
—• R
!Q
c
W
y
�+
C> "T'
•O Ti > V A V 'fA
V
A
tA.l
v
EJ F O
(ya 0 0 V
1... N •ti
O-
=
o
3
a
c
m
0•� o 0 00
�= d S c� E
u
off c
d
0..O = N > b0➢
""
off
O .� V
= .y0.. O
w O
7 U "-=
I.A.
`"
O. E.O i L
o. en
H w 3 007
HvC] A
A A V
T w
ax
A
V
EXHIBiT`��
�
N
y
� o
0
C y
A �
U E H -
N
G ° N U
in a o a'o -u+
3 04 o
EsR„ w v c m ami
N c = m y
u o FL `-' 'v o o cO
p U
0 P4
wy�0 705
c9">
vNi °y a
R ° > G.t O
O m
.0
d
.53 E000 a�
aA. a.o Nyvou
� �=
d 09 m Ww 'C ds•
R 7
N •�y O
�
EXHIBITC
L;:
301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
488,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE PROJECT (REVISED REVISED PROJECT
WITH CHILD CARE FACILITY) SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND ALTERNATIVES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that should an agency choose to approve a project
for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects of the project, the agency shall
make one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. These findings shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Possible
findings are (CEQA Code Section 15091):
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR
(b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that if the Lead Agency finds that an alternative to
the project considered in the Environmental Impact Report is infeasible, the Lead Agency is required to explain
the specific reasons for rejecting the identified alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (3). An alternative
is considered feasible if it is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors, as well as
considerations for employment of highly trained workers (Public Resources Code Section 21081(c)_
Listed below are the significant effects identified in the EIR, the mitigation measures incorporated in the EIR to
reduce these effects and draft findings of overriding considerations and the findings for the selected alternative
for the Commission's consideration. Included by Reference are Draft EIR, 301 Airport Blvd., SCH 498041109,
September 14, 1998; Recirculated Draft EIR, January 21, 1999; Supplement/Addendum to the Response to
Comment Document on the 301 Airport Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, November 12, 1999; Addendum
to the Final EIR, March 16, 2000; and Addendum to the Final EIR, June 21, 2000,
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT - Increased traffic volumes at intersections:
Impact B.1: The proposed project would increase traffic volumes at intersections in the project area -
MITIGATION MEASURE
Mitigation Measure B.1: The City of San Mateo shall install regulatory signs, to be funded by the project
applicant, prior to occupancy of Phase 2 of the project, at the intersection of Poplar Avenue - U.S_ 101
Southbound Ramps/North Amphlett Road to restrict vehicle movements to and from North Amphlett
Road north of Poplar Avenue to right -turns in and out only during the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak
hour. If monitoring of traffic conditions reveals that installation of the regulatory signs does not
successfully achieve mitigation of the impact to a less than significant level, then the City of San Mateo
1 EXHIBIT9,t
Findings Regarding SignificatttEffects and Altet•ttatives 301 Airport Roulevard
shall install a raised channelizing island to be funded by the project applicant_ Because the mitigation
measure is not within the authority of the City of Burlingame to mitigate, the impact is considered to
remain significant.
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
The intersection of Poplar/Amphlett and the U.S. 101 on-ramp is already operating at a service level "17",
beyond its design capacity. The proposed mitigation wilt improve the Level of Service to B at this
intersection and offset the incremental increase in traffic at this intersection caused by this project.
Although the study shows that the impacts can be fully mitigated, the impact remains significant because
Burlingame cannot implement the roadway improvement in the City of San Mateo. A condition on the
project will require the developer to work with the City of San Mateo and participate in the resolution of
this impact. If the circulation problems at Amphlett/Poplar/US 101 are not improved by the City of San
Mateo, the continuation of the current situation will act as a "gate" and there may be less traffic through
the neighborhood than projected. Providing the Child Care Facility adjacent to the site will reduce traffics
and the child care facility will be completed with the first building. When looking at the morning traffic
counts in this area, it is interesting to note that there are more cars going north into Burlingame than cars
coming from Burlingame. The Peninsula overpass will be worked on as a part of the auxiliary lane
project; Burlingame has expressed to San Mateo support for whatever project they would prefer, this
project does not affect the size of the overpass at Peninsula. In addition, the projected costs of
interchange expansion is in the hundreds of millions of dollars with little availability of land. (See DEIR
9.14.98 pp. IIIB-7-B-18; Recirculated DEIR 1.12.99, pp. II -4-14; Supplement/Addendum DEIR
11.12.99. pp. 8-9, Table 4, Appendix A; Addendum to FEIR, 3.16.00, p. 5, Table 1)
2. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT - Increased traffic volumes on freeway ramps:
Impact A3: The proposed project would increase traffic volumes on freeway ramps in the project area
(southbound US 101 off -ramp to Broadway in the a.m. peak hour)
MITIGATION MEASURE
Mitigation Measure 8.3: The project applicant (and any future property owner) shall require building
tenants, as part of lease agreements, to participate in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program operated by the property owner in order to reduce the number of project -generated vehicle trips.
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
The capacity of U.S. 101 and its on -ramps is a region wide issue which must be addressed on a region -
wide basis with all contributing jurisdictions' participation. Caltrans is currently preparing aProject Study
Report to evaluate the benefits of adding auxiliary lanes along U.S. 101, including the section between
Millbrae Avenue and Third Avenue. The primary purpose of auxiliarylanes is to ease the transition of cars
entering and exiting the freeway to reduce slowing of traffic on 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 impact to a less than significant level. However,
because the mitigation measure is not within the authority of the City of Burlingame to implement, the
impact is considered significant. Implementation of the mitigation measure will reduce the impact to the
extent feasible. The level of impact under buildout conditions of the Revised Project would be about 20%
less than with buildout of the original project due to reduced trip generation, although the impact will still
be significant. BART will be extended to Millbrae soon and Caltrain frequency will be increased, the
shuttle buses provided by this project will help move people to work from these terminals and get people
2 EXMD1( U
Findings Regarding Significant Effects and Alternatives
301 Airport Bouleva d
out of their cars. The BART extension will change traffic patterns and usage. The developer is providing
a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program, the project will provide 6 shuttles and
a full-time TDM coordinator to effectively reduce traffic. Shuttles will also be available for use to address
other community needs, such as bringing children after school from the west side to the new fields on the
east side of the freeway. While Burlingame cannot build anew overpass at Broadway, the Transportation
Authority has hired a consultant to work with Caltrans, and they are looking at options for replacements
and/or repair of the Broadway interchange; this is the first step to getting the Broadway overpass fully
funded. (See DEIR 9.14.98 pp. III11.18-21, Supplement/Addendum DEIR 11.12.99 pp_ 8-9, Table,
Appendix A; Addendum FEIR, 3.16.00, p. 6)
3. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT - Cumulative traffic increases at intersections:
Impact B.10: The proposed project would contribute to cumulative traffic increases at intersections in
the project area. (cumulatively significant at the intersection of Poplar AvenuelU.S. 101 Southbound
Ramps/North Amphlett Road)
MITIGATION MEASURE
Implement Mitigation Measure No. B.1 (installation ofregulatory signs; monitoring oftraffic conditions,
etc. at the intersection of Poplar Avenue - U.S. 101 Ramps/North Amphlett Road) Roadway mitigations
studied at City of San Mateo's request would reduce LOS to B in a.m and p.m peak hours but because
the mitigation measure is not within the authority of the City of Burlingame to implement, the impact is
considered to remain significant. Conditions of approval would require applicant to work out a solution
to this impact with the City of San Mateo.
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
The intersection of Poplar/Amphlett and the U. S. 101 on-ramp is already operating at a service level "F",
beyond its design capacity. The proposed mitigation will offset to LOS B the incremental increase in
traffic at this intersection caused by this project. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measure is
within another agency's jurisdiction and this should be adopted and implemented by that agency. Given
the extent of the TDM program built into the proposal for the project, including a full-time TDM
coordinator, it is very likely that a 10% reduction in average daily trips will also be achieved.
(Recirculated DEIR pp. 11I-9; Supplement/Add., pp. 9-9 and Table 4; Addendum FEIR, 3.16.00, p. 7)
4. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT - Cumulative traffic increases on 101 Freeway:
Impact R 11: The proposed project would contribute to cumulative traffic increases on the U.S. 101
freeway. (significant cumulative impact on two freeway segments, from Millbrae to Broadway and from
Broadway to Anza Boulevard)
MITIGATION MEASURE
Mitigation Measure B. 11: Caltrans is currently preparing a Project Study Report to evaluate the benefits
of adding auxiliary lanes along U.S. 101 between Marsh Road in Menlo Park and Grand Avenue in South
San Francisco (auxiliary lanes from Marsh Road to Hillsdale Boulevard are currently under construction) -
The primary purpose of auxiliary lanes is to ease the transition of cars entering and exiting the freeway,
thus improving traffic flow on the freeway. However, because the mitigation measure is not within the
authority of the City of Burlingame to implement, the impact is considered significant.
E'HIBITO
Findings Regarding Sigttifrcrntt Effects and Alternatives 301 Airport Boulevard
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
This is a cumulative impact which may be mitigated when area -wide improvements to the freeway are
completed. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measure is within Caltrans's jurisdiction and no
within the control of the City of Burlingame; these improvements should be adopted and implemented
by that agency. The traffic issue on US 101 is a pre-existing condition and is a regional issue, created by
many communities along the corridor, and needs to be dealt with at the regional level. Traffic is an issue
we will always face, and we will not resolve the problem until all the cities work together with the State.
Burlingame is looking at the Broadway interchange with the State, the first phase of this study will look
at the grade separation at the railroad tracks; the applicant has done as much as it can, given the
jurisdictional constraints. (Draft EIR pp. III B.29-31; Supplement/Add. p. 8-9 and Table 4; Addendum
FEK 3.16.00, Table 1, p. 9)
5. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT - Cumulative traffic increases on U.S. 101 ramps:
Impact R 12: The proposed project would contribute to cumulative traffic increases on U.S. 101 ramps -
MITIGATION MEASURE
Implement Mitigation Measures B.3 (participation in a TDM program) andR11 (auxiliarylanes on U_S.
101)
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
The capacity of U.S. 101 and its on -ramps is a region wide issue which must be addressed on a region -
wide basis with all contributing jurisdictions' participation. The impact is considered to be significant and
unavoidable because improvements to US 101 is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Burlingame and
the City does not have the authority to implement improvements. (Recirculated Draft EHL pp. 111-9;
Supplement/Addendum, pp.8-9 and Table 4.; Addendum FEIR, 3.16.00, Table 1, p. 10)
6. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT - Cumulative mobile source emissions:
Impact C4: The proposed project could contribute to cumulative mobile -source emissions.
MITIGATION MEASURE
Mitigation Measure C 4.
a. Implement transit measures to encourage use of public transit to the project site.
b.. Provide short-term bicycle parking for employees.
C. Applicant shall explore the feasibility of extending local "FreeBee" 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 of the Environmental
Impact Report.
FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
This is an unavoidable impact on air quality. The mitigation measures will contribute to the reduction in
emissions from traffic generated by the site. Air quality is a region -wide issue and other changes
implemented by the air quality management district such as changes in vehicle emission standards will be
needed to meet air quality in the Bay Area region. All feasible mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project. The Revised Project's contribution to cumulative mobile source emissions
would be about 18% less than original project. The developer has addressed air quality issues better than
any other project in the county through its voluntary use of the C/CAG TDM requirements_ Given the
4 EX I!BI1 p
Findings Regarding Sigrnifncant Effects and Alternatives 301 Airport Boirlevarzf
extent of the TDM program built into the proposal for the project, including a hill -time TDM coordinator,
it is very likely that a 10% reduction in average daily trips will also be achieved. (DEIR pp. IILC I-13;
Supplement/Addendum p. 10 and Table 4; Addendum FEIR, 3.16.00, Table 1, p. 10, 11)
FINDINGSREGARDING FEASIBILITYOFALTERNATIVES THAT COULD MITIGATE
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
The Draft Environmental Impact Report and Recirculated Draft EIR for the proposed project, 636,000 GSF of
office space in five separate buildings ranging in height from 52 feet to 105 feet with at total of 2,123 on site
parking spaces, considered four alternatives for the site, two of which had sub -alternatives which were also
considered: Alternative 1, no project (1A, continuation of drive in theater use and 1B, available for development
under current land use regulations); Alternative 2, reduced office development consisting of 431,000 SF in three
buildings (evaluated for the purpose of phasing construction over time as 2A, 122,000 GSF of office in one
building and 2B, 244,000 GSF of office in two buildings); Alternative 3, office/hotel, 455,000 GSF of office in
three buildings and a 300 -room hotel in one 119 -foot tall building); and Alternative 4, a 488,000 SF office
complex in three buildings. The first three of these alternatives are evaluated in the DEIR (September 14, 1998),
and the fourth is evaluated in the Recirculated DEIR (January 21, 1999).
Table V.5 in the DEIR as amended in the Recirculated DEIR shows that, except for the no project alternative
which would not change the environment from the present, all of the alternatives considered except variation 2A
would have significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic and cumulative air quality. The extent of the impacts
of each alternative is affected by the proposed size of the office space or mixed office/hotel use provided. Since
all of the alternatives examine less office space and, even in the case of the officethotel alternatives fewer
structures on the site than the project, all alternatives considered would reduce the project's potentially significant
effects. Where significant and unavoidable effects remain, those effects would be reduced in rough proportionality
'to the reduction in the amount of square footage proposed.
Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative: Alternative 1 the no project alternative was not found viable because
the present land use, drive in theater, is not economically viable as can be seen by the failure to maintain it in
working order, its recent flooding and the minimal public use. Retaining this site in its current state, would result
in another proposal to develop it in conformance with its current zoning and current planning policy which would
allow up to a 636,000 GSF office complex, which could have a greater impact than the proposed construction
of Alternative 4 as modified (Revised Revised Project) or of a 1040 -room hotel which the current hotel market
could not support at this location, as indicated by lack of demand for this use at this time.
Alternative 2: The EIR found that Alternative 2 encompassing variants 2.1 and 2.2 was the alternative which
reduced the significant and unavoidable effects of development of the site to the lowest level. This alternative
included 3 office buildings totaling 431,000 GSF of office with on-site parking. Because the applicant was
requesting to build the project over time in phases, this alternative included two variants or subsets: 2A,
construction of only one of the proposed five office buildings and 2B, construction of only two of the proposed
five office buildings. This alternative at build out of the three buildings was best in terms of significant impacts
because while it would not eliminate the project's significant impacts on traffic and air quality, it would reduce
them measurably (see table V.5 in the DEIR and Recirculated DEIR). With this alternative the significant and
unavoidable impact at Airport/Coyote Point/US 101 would be reduced to less than significant. In all cases the
remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of Alternative 2 while reduced in size from those of the project are
at locations which are outside of Burlingame's jurisdiction.
Findings Regarding Significant Effecls rnrd Aheruatives 301 Airport Boulevard
The DEIR and Recirculated DEIR document, at the request of the City of San Mateo, included feasible
mitigations for the significant and unavoidable impacts caused by traffic from the project and from the
Alternatives. However, because these improvements are outside of the jurisdiction ofthe City of Burlingame and
they cannot be directly implemented by the city, they must be addressed as significant and unavoidable_ The
Recirculated DEIR did include, at the request of the City of San Mateo proposals developed by atraflic engineer
for resolving the significant and unavoidable impact of project traffic in San Mateo. The same is true of impacts
caused by the project and its alternatives on US 101 freeway segments, the south bound off ramps at Broadway
and the cumulative air quality effects. Mitigations to the effects caused by the project and cumulative
development including the project are being considered now under the leadership of the San Mateo County
Transportation Authority which is currently undertaking studies and an environmental assessment of
improvements which would reduce effects of traffic on the US 101 corridor. While these improvements canonly
be made by other jurisdictions, Burlingame is supporting their efforts.
Alternative 3 - Hotel/Office Proposal: Alternative 3 the hoteUoffice proposal would have placed 455,000 GSF
of office and a 300 room hotel on the site. While the market could possibly support both of these uses on the site,
the intensity of the development and the significant and unavoidable impacts would have been greater than for
Alternative 4. The one different attribute of Alternative 3 was the inclusion of hotel. Because ofthe importance
of transient occupancy tax to the city, a hotel development is more attractive than an office development whose
economic contribution is much more limited. However, as the local hotel managers have made clear, a healthy
hotel market is dependent to some extent on having local businesses which generate room rentals. Abasic facet
ofBurlingame's planning policy is to provide a "variety of opportunities in land" as a means to support a viable
local economy. In addition the proposed project site is the only remaining site in the Anza Area designated for
office. Implementation of the Specific Area Plan over the next ten to twenty years will see to the addition of
sufficient hotel rooms to keep up with future hotel room demand created by expansion of the businesses in the
region and of the San Francisco International Airport.
Environmentally Superior Alternative - Alternative 4 with Revisions: In the process of developing this
project, there was one environmental factor, which while not found to be significant and unavoidable in the
analysis of the project or its alternatives, was determined to be important to the local community: wind across
the adjacent waters of San Francisco Bay in Coyote Point Park. While the Alternative 2 reduced the unavoidable
effects ofthe project to the lowest possible level, it had a greater impact on the wind environment for board sailors
in the adjoining recreational area than Alternative 4, the 488,000 SF office alternative. Alternative 4 placed its
488,000 GSF of office space in three, uniform and more aerodynamically sensitive buildings. As a result this
alternative addressed and improved, the reductions caused by the development and all the alternatives inboth wind
velocity and turbulence. Alternative 2 was not as "friendly" to these two factors, as shown in the Recirculated
Draft EIR (January 21, 1999) or Supplement/Addendurn to the FEIR (November 12, 1999) because of both the
placement and shape of the structures on the site. So while Alternative 4 is 57,000 SF larger, and would have
about a 13 percent greater impact on the significant and unavoidable effects of the project, Alternative 4 became
the preferred alternative. It should be noted that like Alternative 2, Alternative 4 eliminates one significant and
unavoidable impact, the impact on the Coyote Point/Airport Blvd/US 101 intersection. All ofthe on- and off-site
improvements proposed with the project are included in Alternative 4.
As reviewed in the Recirculated DEIR Alternative 4 still had a number of exceptions to the Burlingame zoning
codes. Subsequent to certifying the DEIR the applicant revised Alternative 4 to include four shorter
aerodynamically designed buildings totaling 488,000 GSF which, by their placement on the site and shorter height,
had even less impact on the winds across the adjacent segment of San Francisco Bay in Coyote Point Park_ The
6 EXHIBITD
Findings Regarding Significmit Effects attd AItentali ves
301 Airport Boulevard
developer submitted extensive wind tunnel tests to document that this revision to Alternative 4 (the Revised
Revised Project) would have a lesser impact on the winds across the site due to the size and configuration and
placement of the structures on the site. This new design, unlike Alternative 4, was also fully compliant with
Burlingame's zoning regulations and Bayfront Design Guidelines, and therefore, is the alternative which best
implements the city's planning policies. Since this proposed project (Revised Revised Project) did not change any
other aspects of site development, including the roadway, public access and community facility improvements,
and was the same square footage as Alternative 4 it was determined that the Revised Revised Project would make
no change in the significant and unavoidable effects caused by Alternative 4. So although these impacts of
Alternative 4 were slightly greater than Alternative 2 which had the lowest impact, the added benefit of the
reduction in the effect on the winds in the adjacent recreational area and the full compliance with all planning
policy and code requirements make Alternative 4 and its revisions the environmentally superior alternative for
development of the site.
Findings for the Environmentally Superior Alternative: The city can support Alternative 4 as revised because
it while it reduces the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of development of the site by reducing
the density ofthe development from the 636,000 SF ofthe original project to 488,000 SF, the project is consistent
with the planning policy and objectives of the city as the last office project in the Anza Area. The need for more
local office space to support the city's hotel economic base has been documented by the local hotel managers_
In addition, the project will contribute substantially to the reconstruction of Airport Boulevard, the replacement
of the sewer collection system serving the site and the southeastern end of the city, provide a valuable link in the
shoreline pathway system along Sanchez Channel, enhance access for the entire Anza area to transportation
terminals on the west side of US 101 by contributing to a regular shuttle service for employees on this site and
east of US 101, improving access to Fisherman's Park and providing improved landscaping and bicycle access
along Airport Boulevard to reinforce the bay access improvements installed recently by the city.
Finally, all four of the significant and unavoidable effects remaining after the reduction of the size of the project
to 488,000 GSF are outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Burlingame. Three have immediate programs which
can be implemented to reduce the effects of the project. One is in the City of San Mateo and the environmental
document includes studies of ways in which this effect can be reduced to acceptable levels, should the City of San
Mateo determine that they wish to have the developer undertake the improvements. Two of the remaining
impacts are located in Caltrans jurisdiction and can be addressed by projects proposed by the San Mateo County
Transportation Authority. Currently, the Transportation Authority is seeking final funding and is in development
stages with Caltrans for the auxiliary lane project which will affect these two impacts: the Broadway off ramp
access and the freeway segment impacts. The final significant and unavoidable effect is a cumulative regional air
quality impact. The resolution of this cumulative, regional wide problem will require broad based work by the
BAAQMD which the city does support by requiring the development to institute and maintain aggressive TDM
requirements as required by BAAQMD, but whose solution resides with the BAAQMD and state's abilities to
affect long term automobile emission standards and is beyond Burlingame's jurisdiction.
f
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that in the event an agency chooses to approve
a project which includes significant and unavoidable impacts which can not be reduced to acceptable levels
the agency must adopt a written Statement of Overriding Considerations which identifies why the local
agency is willing to accept each significant unavoidable effect. The purpose of the statement of overriding
considerations is defined in CEQA Code Section 15093 (a and b):
(a) CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental
effects may be considered "acceptable ".
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result ht the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the frrial EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the speck reasons to support
its action based ori the frrial EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement
of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record
The statement of overriding considerations should be read in conjunction with the findings under Section
15091 and should be used in decision making to balance the benefits of the project against the unavoidable
environmental risks. CEQA also requires that the statement of overriding considerations be included in the
record of project approval and mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
Sienificant and Unavoidable Effects
The proposed Revised Revised Office Project with Child Care Facility (plans dated June 26, 2000) at 30I
Airport Boulevard in Burlingame has four environmental impacts which are significant and unavoidable and
cannot be reduced to levels acceptable to the community by mitigations which can be implemented by the
City of Burlingame. They are:
Impact B.1 & B.10: The proposed project would increase traffic volumes at intersections in the project
area - Poplar/Amphlett and the U.S. 101 on-ramp with project and in the cumulative future_
Impact 11.3 & B12: The proposed project would increase traffic volumes on freeway ramps in the project
area - Broadway southbound off -ramp am peak hour with the project and in the cumulative future -
Impact B.11: The proposed project would contribute to cumulative traffic increases on the U.S. I0I
freeway - significant impact on two segments from Millbrae to Broadway and from Broadway to Anza.
Boulevard.
Impact CA: The proposed project would contribute to cumulative mobile -source emissions -would exceed
80 pounds per day for ROG, NOx, and PM -10 from vehicle emissions.
MIKE
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Statement of Overridine Considerations
While the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) composed of the Draft EIR, Recirculated Draft EIR,
Supplement/Addendum to the Response to Comments Document (November 12, 1999), the Addendums
(March and June, 2000) for the proposed office project at 301 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, notes that
development of the project may result in the generation of significant traffic and air quality impacts, the City
Council hereby finds that, for -the reasons set forth below, that the economic, social and other considerations
of the project outweigh the unavoidable traffic and air quality impacts identified in the findings.
First, the project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the Burlingame General Plan and
Bayfront/Anza Area Specific Plan (SAP) by providing office development which is consistent with the plan
as well as contributing over $770,000 in Bayfront Development Fees for the implementation of necessary
intersection improvements to support existing and planned development identified in the SAP. Project
development also includes intersection signalization and dedication of right-of-way (0.23 acres) and
roadway realignment improvements to Airport Boulevard identified in Public Works plans necessary to
increase the safety of traffic circulation which will benefit all the existing development and properties in the
Burlingame bayfront area.
The General Plan fits the needs and values of the community well since business east of US I01 generates
revenue for services to the west side of US 101 and provides coastal access amenities for city residents and
visitors. The applicant is voluntarily building less density than the General Plan allows for office
development on this site (plan allows 0.9 FAR/636,000 SF; proposing 0.71 FAR/488,000 SF). The project
meets all the elements of the zoning and guidelines which implement the General Plan with the exception
of some aspects of the child care center. The business community supports the project; the City relies on
the businesses and offices to provide the quality of life that we enjoy such as soccer fields, assistance with
the cooperative effort of the City and the schools to build a swimming pool and all-weather track and
maintain fields, and funding for the golf driving range and community park facilities. Business and hotels
are the City's revenue life blood and enable us to enjoy a high level of service by police, fire, and public
works in the neighborhoods where we live. Burlingame is the envy of the other cities in San Mateo County
because of our General Plan which uses US 101 to divide the residential area from the commercial areas
to benefit and protect our quality of life. The project will also provide potential office space for local small
businesses serving the community that might otherwise have to locate or re -locate outside the City.
Second, one of the economic objectives of the Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan (SAP) is that any
development shall yield a high revenue to cost ratio. The following economic benefits both to Burlingame,
local schools, neighboring cities, and San Mateo county have been estimated:
a. As proposed and when fully occupied the 488,000 square foot office project will
enhance local and county revenues substantially over the current drive-in theater use.
The total annual secured property tax revenues would be $960,000. The secured
property tax benefits a number of local agencies annually, among them are the city
which would receive about $135,000; the Burlingame Elementary School District,
almost $164,000; the San Mateo Union High School District, about $202,000; the
Community College District about $77,000, and the County of San Mateo and the San
2 pir
LAHIBITE
C
Statement of Overriding Considerations
f
Mateo Office of Education about $317,000. These figures are estimated in constant
1999 dollars_ The unsecured property tax paid would add about $31 million to the
project value. The City of Burlingame could receive as much as $43,000 of this revenue
annually. One time school construction fees would also raise $158,000 for the local
elementary and high school districts.
b. Additional sales tax revenues generated by the businesses located in the new office
space are very likely to benefit the City, the larger county community and even the
region, including Burlingame's larger neighboring city to the south, because while
Burlingame's restaurant and hotel services are proximate and varied, there are few
outlets catering to business supplies and furniture in Burlingame. The annual direct
taxable sales from the type of office tenants expected to locate in this Class A office
space when the project is built -out are projected to be about $75.00 a square foot or
about $36 million a year. The sales tax dollar for goods purchased in San Mateo
County is shared with cities receiving about 1% of the 8.25% tax for sales made within
their jurisdictions. Since Measure A was passed another 1% (0.5% to SamTrans and
0.5% to the Transportation Authority) of the sales taxes generated in San Mateo
County will go to improve local transportation and transportation facilities. If all
taxable sales generated by the tenants in the project when it built out occur in San
Mateo County, then each of these two transportation agencies will receive about
$213,000 each year (in constant 1999 dollars).
Third, the Bayfront Specific Area Plan (SAP) policies focus on providing city-wide balance between
population growth and public facilities planning. The FEIR prepared for the proposed office project
documents that there are adequate capacities in all of the public and community services to support this
project at this site. Mitigations and a mitigation monitoring plan have been developed and will be adopted
as a part of the city's action on the project to limit the project's effect to levels acceptableto the community
in the areas of traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, visual quality, light and glare, hydrology and water
quality, sanitary sewer, population, job and housing, cultural resources, and wind and recreation. In
addition, the project will facilitate and participate in needed upgrading of other public service infrastructure
serving development on both the east and west sides of Bayshore Freeway (SR 101)_ Besides roadway
improvements, the project will contribute to the reconstruction and upgrading of the old and poorly
engineered sewer collection system from the project site, under the freeway to the pump station on Rollins
Road. The project will also contribute to resizing and upgrading the aging collection system and pump at
the Rollins Road station and replacing aged collection main which also serves the residential development
on the west side of the freeway along Rollins Road between Humboldt Avenue and Dwight Road. The
thoughtful integration of office and hotel uses through the Specific Plan has given the City the resources
and foundation to provide expanding park and recreation facilities at the Bayfront and throughout the City
that the community enjoys.
Fourth, the beneficial integration ofvarious types of land uses within the city in orderto perpetuate aviable
choice of land uses to maximize future revenue opportunities and flexibility in responsiveness to future
economic and revenue opportunities is a corner stone of the City's General Plan and SAP. This project,
by being consistent with the land use designations of the city's planning documents and supportive of
3
EX► -1.1 bi l_ t
Statement of Overriding Considerations
existing current development in the area achieves this integration. The project provides additional, Class
A office space to support and encourage the more than 3500 hotel rooms on the east side of SR 101.
Evidence of the need for more office uses to support the hotel industry was recently given the city by a
consortium of the hoteliers on the Bayfront who have expressed a need for a strong office community
nearby to complement their hotels. They have requested that the city encourage office on the east side of
SR 101 to provide a more diverse customer base, and better economic stability, for their hotels. In FY
2000 Transient occupancy tax made up 36 percent of the city's general fund revenue base.
Fifth, continuous public access to the shoreline of San Francisco Bay and the use of regional recreation
facilities is an important local community and social value. The continuous public access pathway system
is benefitted by this project. The proposed project will build, maintain permanently, and provide for
unlimited public use of 729 linear feet ( 47,385 SF) of public access pathways and landscaping along.the
edge of Sanchez Channel. Free unlimited access to public access parking will also be provided on site
clearly signed and close to the public access area. These proposed improvements are consistent with the
quality of the existing parts of the bayfront pathway system, meet the bay access standards of the Bay
Conservation and Commission (BCDC), and further the vision of the Specific Plan for integration of hotel,
commercial, and park and recreation uses at the Bayfront. The jointly adopted City and BCDC standards
will be enforced by the requirement that the developer receive a permit from BCDC before the city will
issue any building permits for the project.
Additional public and community opportunity for recreational use are provided within the project site_ This
site has 10% more public open space than Levi Strauss Plaza in San Francisco, it has been redesigned to
create a central plaza at the center of the four buildings and provides pedestrian access across the site from
the public access along Sanchez Channel through the Plaza to the public sidewalk along Airport Boulevard_
Wind experts for San Francisco indicate that the comfort zone for people sitting and eating out of doors
is 7 miles per hour(mph), the average wind velocity in this area is 13 mph, so unsheltered areas are not
conducive to such amenities as outdoor dining areas. Outdoor eating areas will also be affected by the fact
that the wind speed on the site is not constant, since wind speeds are greater than 11 mph 60% of the time,
it is unlikely that people will regularly pursue passive recreational activities in this area for long periods of
time.
All public access improvements on and off site including the bayside pathway system, bicycle lanes in the
public right-of-way and public sidewalk improvements along the street frontages and open space and linking
walkways within the site will be installed as a part of the initial construction on the site (Phase 1) and will
provide an important link between the city's pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Sanchez Creek at Beach Road
and Airport Blvd. connecting to the pathway system in San Mateo County, Coyote Point Park, and the City
of San Mateo. The project will also, by dedication of right-of-way and participation in the reconstruction
of the curve on Airport Boulevard, contribute to improvement of the access and safer use of Fisherman's
Park, a San Mateo County Park regional facility.
As a part of the Burlingame community's concern about development in our community affecting the
regional recreational opportunities at Coyote Point Park, a San Mateo County regional recreation facility
immediately adjacent to the project site, extensive evaluations of the development's effects on wind
(velocity and turbulence) were made. These studies are documented in both the environmental documents
and staffreports for the project. Although these wind studies did not find that the project would have a
4 EXHIB11E
Statement of Overriding Considerations
significant effect on the wind environment in the recreational area, the project was redesigned in size,
building shape and location to materially reduce its effect on the wind while allowing development within
the parameters of the city's Specific Area Plan for the area and protecting the regional recreation resource.
The proposed buildings are shorter than the movie screens now on the site, the shape of the buildings was
changed in response to technical experts to make them more aerodynamic, used the most advanced
technology available at this time to evaluate the relative impacts on the winds. The turbulence shadow of
the proposed project extends 650 feet, which is not half way into to portion of Coyote Point Park used by
windsurfers. The needs of the windsurfers which were not determined to be significant in the environmental
document have been addressed with adequate mitigation, the project was reduced in size and height, the
design of the buildings was altered to be more "friendly" to the winds, all of these changes were based on
expert advice. This project has made a lot of concessions to the windsurfers; the movie screens which are
located next to the water and are major obstacles to wind speed and turbulence will be removed, the
buildings will be located 200' to 300' back from the location of the closest screens, the area will continue
to be known world wide for windsurfing. Given the modifications made to the project, the wind studies
show that the standards set be the board sailing association have been met and the change to the wind speed
and turbulence will not be a significant hazard or detriment.
Sixth, all of the significant traffic and circulation effects ofthe project are defined as significant, not because
there is no acceptable mitigation to reduce them to acceptable levels, but because the City of Burlingame
has no jurisdiction to implement the mitigations which will reduce their effects to acceptable levels. In the
case of the Amphlett/Poplar/101 on-ramp intersection the FEIR documents several alternatives, any of
which, if implemented, will eliminate this significant impact by reducing the existing LOS F at this
intersection to LOS B at the critical AM and PM peak hour. The conditions of approval for the project
require that the developer work with the City of San Mateo which has no current plan or program for the
on-ramp to resolve this issue before receiving a building permit for the first phase of construction on the
project. Humboldt Street is designated as an arterial in the current City of San Mateo General PIan, and
this project will not increase traffic to a point beyond that provided for such a street, and in addition, the
project traffic will not exceed the indices used by the City of San Mateo itself to measure adverse traffic
impacts.
The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (which will receive sales tax revenue from future tenants
of this site) has a project currently in planning and partially funded to add auxiliary lanes to SR 101
southbound between the Millbrae and Broadway interchanges which will substantially alleviate the impacts
of this projects traffic on the Broadway interchange southbound off ramp. In addition the city has a
signalization project in design stage at CadUlac/Rollins/southbound 101 off -ramp intersection, which the
applicant will be required to contribute to, which will also relieve traffic delays in this area. The
Transportation Authority auxiliary lane project between the interchanges at Third Avenue in San Mateo and
Millbrae will also relieve congestion on the impacted segments of SR 101 identified in the FEIR (Millbrae -
Broadway, Broadway-Anza). While the city recognizes that implementation of the auxiliary lane project
is outside of its jurisdiction ( right-of-way owned and controlled by the State of California represented by
Caltrans), the city has supported the funding and construction of these improvements by participating in
C/CAG, supporting Measure A, and cooperating as requested with the Transportation Authority -
Seventh, it is economically, socially and technologically infeasible at this time for the City of Burlingame
5
tnil.lbtlt
Statement of Overriding Considerations
alone to reduce the generation of vehicle emissions which contribute to air quality problems cumulatively
throughout the Bay Area air shed, while the amount of certain pollutants contributed to the air from this
project exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) thresholds, the actual amount
contributed by this project alone would not degrade the air shed's overall quality. Because air quality is a
cumulative problem and air quality is a region wide concern, it can only be addressed by programs
implemented by the air quality management district and changes in the manufacturing of vehicles which they
can cause to occur. Through its conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program the project does
include the requirement for an aggressive Transportation Demand Program as recommended by BAAQN D
to reduce automobile emissions and the city does require all construction plans to be reviewed by and
receive a permit from the air quality management district before issuing a building permit. Through this
permit, the air quality management district requires compliance with air quality management practices
during grading and construction. So while the city has no jurisdiction over this problem, the city does
participate with air management district to do what is requested by BAAQMD at this time to manage the
air quality impacts of the new development.
Finally, changes or alteration to the project have been required in, or incorporated into, the office project
that mitigate or avoid most of the significant environmental effects of the project as identified in the Final
EIR and listed in Table 1 of the Addendum to the Final EIR dated June 21, 2000 which lists the impacts
and mitigations including impacts on traffic and circulation in the City of San Mateo which are required to
be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.
CXHI.B► e- E
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following conditions of approval constitute the Mitigation Monitoring Plan required for implementing
the environmental document and are primarily based on the mitigation measures identified in the
Environmental Impact Report. They have been refined to reflect timing and cost formulas provided by the
Public Works Department for the street and sewer improvements. Also included are the additional
conditions (Numbers 5 - 17) suggested by the developer and submitted to the Planning Commission prior
to the May 3, 2000, meeting as revised at the June 7, 2000,study meeting, and further developed for the
July 5, 2000, hearing. At the end are additional conditions for the Child Care Facility. The conditions will
be recorded with both properties. The conditions of approval are as follows:
IA_ that this condition shall replace condition number one and that the project shall be built as shown on
the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 11,2000, Sheets: 0.0
Cover Sheet, 1.1 Survey Plan, 1.2 Site Aerial, 1.3 Vicinity Aerial Photo; L-1 Preliminary Landscape
Calculation, L-1.0 Total Landscaped Area Calculation, L-2 Preliminary Landscape Plan, L-3,
Building Site Plan, L-4 Landscape Sections, A-1.0 Surface Parking Level, A-1.1 Phase 1, A -1.1a
Phase 1 Surface Parking Level, A-1.2 Phase 2, A -1.2a Phase 2 Surface Parking Level, A-1.3 Phase
3, A -1.3a Phase 3 Surface Parking Level, A-1.4 Phase 4, A -1.4a Phase 4 Surface Parking Level, A-
1.5 Building AB Surface Level Floor Plan, A-1.6 Building C/D Surface Level Floor Plan, A-1.7
Building `A' Floor Plan, A-1.8 Building `B' Floor Plan, A-1.9 Building `C' Floor Plan, A-1.10
Building `D' Floor Plan, A-1.11 Building AB Roof Plan, A-1.12 Building C/D RoofPlan, A-1.13
Building Section Typical, A-1.14 North Elevation, A-1.15 South Elevation, A -1.I6 East Elevation,
A-1.17 West Elevation, D-1.0 Day Care Center Main Level/Site Plan, D-1.1 Day Care Center Upper
Level Plan, D-1.2 Day Care Center Garage Level Plan, D-1.3 Day Care Center Elevations;
1B. that this project shall be built in four phases, with one structure per phase (with the additional
structure of the child care facility in the first phase), based on the plans submitted and approved in
this action, and that the phases may be built individually or in combination so long as each is self-
sufficient in parking and all public improvements, including the reconstruction ofthe curve on Airport
Blvd.; local coastal access improvements, including extension of the shoreline access to the Beach
Road bridge; on site berm reconstruction and front and side setback landscape improvements with
irrigation systems and planting and irrigation of those portions of the site not to be developed, shall
be constructed, installed, inspected and accepted by the City prior to issuance of an occupancy permit
for the first building; and that the maps shall be filed and approved to establish the child care facility
site as separate from the project site and the child care facility shall be "turn keyed" to the county and
ready for occupancy by the child care provider prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the first
office building;
2. that the vacant portions of the site being held for construction of future phases of the project shall be
landscaped with drought tolerant plant material and maintained, including necessary irrigation, until
each portion of the site is needed for its phase of the development and affected portions of
landscaping shall not be removed until a building permit is issued for the development ofthat portion
of the site; fertilizers selected to be applied to all on-site landscaping shall be reviewed by the City
and applied as required by the City on the basis of having the least effect on adjacent bay waters
including Sanchez Channel,, the Burlingame Lagoon and San Francisco Bay proper (Planning
Department);
CONDITIONS - 1
EXHIf3lT F
3. that the propeirty owner shall be responsible to see that small delivery trucks or vans making periodic
deliveries are on-site only during office hours; no trucks, recreation vehicles or other vehicles shall
be stored or parked on site contimiously throughout the day or overnight, and no parking shall be
leased to tenants or any other users for any purpose;
4. that the property owner shall hire an individual to be employed full-time by the developer, the sole
responsibility of this employee, shall be administration and monitoring of the various TDM programs
at the project site; the property owner shall submit proof to the City that this person has been
employed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the shell of the first building; this
employee shall make monthly reports to the City detailing the results of the TDM program and shall
be responsible for all annual trip count verifications including submitting them to the City as required
(City Engineer);
5. that the TDM program shall require each building tenant, as a part of lease agreements, to participate
in a comprehensive TDM program operated by a full time employee of the property owner who is
trained as a TDM program site manager and located on this site, with the purpose of reducing the
number of project generated vehicle trips; (traffic, circulation and parking, Planning Department,
Traffic Engineer);
6. that the property owner shall measure the trips at the project entrance in the a.m. and p.m. peak hour
on the first Monday of April each year, and shall report (no later than June 1) the percentage of actual
trips (all day, in the a.m. and in the p.m. peak hours) of the total trips projected for the project in the
environmental document for the same time periods. Evaluation of this measurement, presented in a
form approved by the City, shall be based on each phase. Should the number of actual trips exceed
the projected trips in the FEIR for the phase by 10% at any of the reported times, the property owner
shall contribute an amount equal to 25% of the cost of operating an a.m. and p.m. peak hour shuttle
bus service which would connect the Anza Area to the local mass transit terminals for Caltrain and
BART, this fee shall be paid by the last working day of June to the agency operating the "Free Bee"
or equivalent shuttle program serving the area. All records shall be retained on site for a minimum
of three years and made available to the City upon request (air quality, Traffic Engineer, City
Managers Office);
7. that the first time the project generates more than 00% of the trips projected in the environmental
document for that phase, the property owner shall require that, in addition to TDM programs
organized and coordinated by the on site TDM coordinator, each employer with more than 25
employees shall offer a financial incentive to their employees to use mass transit programs; the type
and effectiveness of these programs shall be evaluated annually by the on-site TDM coordinator and
shall be reported to the city no later than June 1 of each year (Traffic Engineer and Planning
Department);
8. that the property owner shall provide on site adequate, secure bicycle parking at each building and
shall report, to the City on the level of use and number of bicycle facilities required by June 1 each
year; should the number of facilities provided be less than demand the property owner shall increase
the number of facilities at appropriate locations as reviewed by the City (Traffic Engineer and
Planning Department);
CONDITIONS - 2
C
9. that, once the necessary operating fiends for the increased frequency of shuttle bus service has been
secured, the property owner shall deposit with the City sufficient fiords to purchase up to si-r
additional shuttle buses at a cost not to exceed $100,000 per bus (Assistant City Manager);
10. that the property owner shall be required to participate in and pay its fair share of any Business
Improvement District that is formed to help pay the annual operating costs of any aspect ofthe shuttle
bus service that serves this project and the rest of the Burlingame Bayfront area (Finance Director);
11. that prior to issuance of the building permit for the first building, the property owner shall deposit
with the City $400, 000, these funds shall be used solely to plan and enhance the bicycle route system
in the City of Burlingame andlor to make necessay bnprovements to Airport Blvd to facilitate
traffic flow (City Engineer);
12. that the property owner shall provide 36 bicycle lockers or racks at the site, 9 per building in a safe
and accessible location (Building Department, Planning Department);
13. that the property owner shall designate 70 car pool parking spaces and 32 van pool parking spaces;
these spaces shall be distributed among the four buildings and shall be placed close to each building
as required by the California Building Code (Planning Department);
14. that the property owner shall provide and maintain a commute assistance center, to include a brochure
rack, a computer kiosk, and a telephone information line; the commute assistance center shall be
staffed by a full-time dedicated TDM program manager, the TDM program shall include a
"guaranteed ride home program", an annual report on the effectiveness of these programs; these
reports shall be made to the City Planning Department (Planning Department);
I5. that the property owner shall provide an on-site ATM machine, exercise facilities and video
conferencing facilities in each building for the exclusive use of employees (Planning Department);
16. that the property owner shall apply for a conditional use permit for an on-site cafeteria to provide at
least breakfast and lunch service to the tenants of the project (Planning Department);
17. that the property owner shall provide pick-up and delivery services for laundry and dry cleaning and
the on-site manager shall coordinate grocery deliveries for employees (Planning Department);
18. that the property owner shall prepare the necessary drawings and construction documents for the
construction of the pedestrian and bicycle improvements to the bridge on Airport Boulevard which
crosses Sanchez Channel; these drawings shall be in conformance with the existing BCDC permit for
the project; and the property owner shall complete construction of these improvements, at his
expense, and construction of this bridge shall be commenced no later than July 1, 2001 and completed
in conformance with BCDC permit No. 4-86 (A) issued for this project ; and the property owner
shall provide a time table for design and construction of the bridge to ensure the commencement
of construction prior to July 1, 2001 (City Engineer);
19. that, subject to approval by the adjacent property owner which the property owner of 30I Airport
Boulevard shall secure, the property owner shall provide at his expense shoreline access and amenities
CONDITIONS - 3
LJl R I D l f_ r
I
to the standards established by the City and BCDC on the adjacent property to connect the project's
shoreline access with the bicycle and pedestrian bridge which crosses Sanchez Channel at Beach
Road, the property owner shall prepare the necessary drawings and make application to BCDC for
these improvements prior to the issuance of the building permit for the first building; the
improvements shall be installed, completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy for the first building and the property owner of the project shall be
responsible for the ongoing maintenance of these shoreline access improvements (City Engineer);
20. that the construction plans for each building shall include at least two showers and changing facilities
for men and two showers and changing facilities for women; the building permit shall not be issued
unless the facilities are included in the plans and the Final Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued
until these facilities have been constructed and are operational (Planning Department and Building
Department);
21. that the property owner shall provide electric car charging stations in at least four parking spaces for
each building, and that more shall be added if requested by any tenant (City Engineer);
22. that the overall height of the buildings as measured from the top of curb at Airport Boulevard on the
north side of the site (+ 9.32 elevation) shall be no taller than the following heights: Buildings A, B,
C and D, 64.78' as measured from average top of curb to the top of the parapet screen on the top of
each building; building heights shall be surveyed at the framing of each floor and at the installation
of the parapet screen and shall be reported to the Building Department as each floor is framed and
accepted by the City Engineer before framing of the subsequent floor or roof commences. The entire
building height of each structure shall be surveyed to confirm conformance with the approved plans
and conditions of approval before scheduling the final framing inspection. If the building does not
conform at any point in the construction process, it shall be made to conform before construction
continues and any further city inspections shall be scheduled (Building Division);
23. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall establish an escrow account at
a bank or title company in the amount of $200,000 with. instructions to disburse to the City of San
Mateo amounts requested from time to time that are certified to the City of Burlingame by the City
of San Mateo as necessary to reimburse the City of San Mateo for expenditures incurred in the
analysis, design, engineering, installation, and monitoring of the following: a) regulatory signs at the
intersection of the Poplar Avenue/Highway 101 interchange that would restrict vehicular movements
on North Amphlett Boulevard to right turns only during peak traffic hours and/or installation of a
raised channeling island and/or related measures as generally described in Mitigation Measure B-1
of the Final EIR; b) the evaluation and/or implementation of traffic calming measures on North
Humboldt Street. All such reimbursements are to be applied for an disbursed prior to two years after
the final certificate of occupancy for the last building in the project, after which time, any funds
remaining in the escrow as well as any accrued interest, shall be returned to the then -current property
owner and the escrow shall be terminated.
24. that the property owner shall pay the required Bayfront Development Fee based on the current rate
adjusted for inflation for each building one-half at the time of applying for a building permit for that
building and one-half before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled for that building or
combination of buildings (Planning Department);
CONDITIONS - 4 `J `'
25. that the property owner and developer shall be required to install and implement an adequate
recycling facility and program for each building, the program shall be designed to address the size,
location, tenant waste stream, and operation of each building; and the facility and recycling program
shall be approved by the City prior issuance of a building permit for each phase of the project
(Assistant City Manager, City Engineer);
26. that the developer shall, as a part of the demolition work on the site, prepare, have approved by the
City and implement a recycling plan for all material to be removed, prior to issuance of a demolition
or grading permit (Assistant City Manager, City Engineer);
27. that the developer shall be required to demonstrate with construction staking by a Iicensed land
surveyor that the shape, location and orientation of the building(s) proposed to be built in the specific
phase confonns to the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 26, 2000. The
building placement shall be surveyed and such surveys submitted to the City Engineer for approval
before the issuance of a building permit for each phase; the shape, location and orientation of each
building shall not be altered or changed from the approved plans without undertaking a wind tunnel
test to determine that the change proposed will have no greater effect on the wind speed and
turbulence than the effects shown for the June 26, 2000, project and that the test results and structural
and/or siting plan change shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before a
building permit or permit amendment is issued (City Engineer);
28. that during all phases of construction the property owner shall implement a construction dust
abatement program as approved by the BAAQMD and City of Burlingame including maintaining
ground cover on portions of the site reserved for later phases of development; this plan shall be
approved prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and shall be updated before issuance of
subsequent grading or building permits over time as air quality requirements change (air quality,
Public Works Department, Building);
29. that the property owner shall require construction contractors to limit construction activities which
generate greater than a 70 dBA reading on adjacent properties or noise sensitive residential receptors
across the freeway on Rollins Road to less noise -sensitive times of the day and week (e.g., 7:00 a.m-
to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday; none on Sundays and
holidays). The property owner shall notify property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the site
prior to commencement of all pile drilling activity, notification shall include the date when pile drilling
work shall commence and the duration (ending date) for that phase of development; all piles shall be
pre -drilled, cast in place or pre -caste; such construction shall be limited further to the least noise -
sensitive titres 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); and piles for all phases of construction
shall be pre -drilled to reduce the duration of pile driving activity and vibration unless otherwise
authorized by the City of Burlingame(noise, City Engineer, Building Division);
30. that the property owner shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the project and to
maintain it in good operating condition and to turn off powered construction equipment when not in
use; all internal combustion engine -driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers
that are in good condition; and that this measure shall 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, upon
CONDITIONS - 5 [XH I K11 F
complaint the property owner shall hire a qualified noise specialist, approved by the City Engineer,
to measure the noise levels and enforce measures to reduce impacts; all contractors shall be required
to turn off powered constriction equipment when not in use (noise, Building Department);
31. that the project design and construction shall meet an interior noise standard of45 CNEL, as required
by the General Plan and the property owner shall provide construction documentation confirming this
compliance as a part of the building plan check (noise, Building Department);
32. that to compensate for the loss of views of San Bruno Mountain and the San Bruno hills, the project
shall include the following:
a. a designed landscaped perimeter along the public frontages of the project site (i.e. Airport
Boulevard & the Sanchez Channel);
b. public pedestrian and bicycle access through the landscaped perimeters of the site;
c. before construction of Phase 1, removal of the existing movie screens, audio poles, broken weedy
asphalt surfaces, and all other on-site structures;
d. implementation of an active irrigation and maintenance program for all project landscaping,
buildings, and parking areas, including unused areas retained for future phases of development;
and
e. provide a pedestrian promenade which shall connect all of the structures on the site to the public
access along Sanchez Channel and the sidewalk along the eastern Airport Boulevard street
frontage (visual quality, light and glare, Planning Department);
33. that the property owner shall provide and maintain suitable site perimeter vegetative screening,
landscaping within all parking areas, and ground surface vegetation treatments, approved by the City
Parks Department, for all undeveloped areas retained for future phases of development (visual quality,
light and glare, Parks and Planning Departments);
34. that the elevation of the first finished floor and all occupied areas of all new structures shall be a
minimum of+10 feet above MSL, and no storage or other occupied areas shall be constructed below
+10 feet above MSL (hydrology and water quality, Building Department);
35. that the property owner and developer shall be responsible for designing and constructing on-site
drainage improvements to handle the 30 year storm event with no damage to the site facilities. The
developer shall insure that users of the facilities shall be able to move safely to the public right-of-way
in the case of the 100 year storm event. In the case of the 100 year storm event, improvements shall
be designed so that the runoff ponding at the project site shall not exceed ten (10) inches in depth.
The drainage improvements shall include storm drain system, catch basins, pumps with redundancy
and a standby generator. Prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit, all necessary design and
calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval (City Engineer);
36. that all emergency equipment, generators, controls, and motors shall be located above the 100 year
flood elevation (City Engineer);
37. that the property owner shall provide that the fill bordering Sanchez Channel shall be reinforced and
made seismically safe and a low permeability barrier shall be installed to prevent seepage from the
channel onto the project site (hydrology and water quality, Public Works Department);
CONDITIONS - 6 [PIT g F
3S. that the public and facility users shall be safely provided for and protected from the flooding ofthe
site in the event of a disaster such as an earthquake coincident with a maximum high tide, if the
Sanchez Channel or Airport Boulevard levees is breached. The property owner shall employ a
qualified engineer to analyze the seismic stability of the Sanchez Channel and Airport Boulevard
levees and identify protection against maximum possible credible earthquake. The property owner
shall submit the seismic stability analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the analysis
indicates that improvements are necessary along the project site to provide stability for a maximum
credible earthquake and for a 100 year tidal event, such improvements shall be installed as approved
by the City Engineer prior to occupancy of the first building. If it is not possible to achieve the
required seismic stability then other permanent means of safe egress from the site shall be provided
as approved by the City Engineer and Planning Commission, if necessary, prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit (Planning Department, City Engineer);
39. that the property pwner shall be required to incorporate the following measures into project design
in order to reduce the potential impacts of flooding:
a. tide gates shall be installed in the storm drain system on the project site to prevent high water-
from
aterfrom back -flowing into the site during flood periods;
b. adequate drainage, and pump facilities, including a sound -baffled backup power supply, shall be
provided in the parking area to prevent water ponding in excess of ten (10) inches in the event
of a 100 year flood;
c. storm drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate any future settlement of the site,
levees and other fill along the site perimeter; and
d. a flood contingency plan shall be developed to provide guidelines for management ofvehicles in
the event of flooding ofthe parking area (hydrology and water quality, Public Works Department,
City Engineer);
an that all nmoff in the parking lot, including runoff from the landscaped areas, shall be filtered to
remove oil and grease prior to discharge by a [method approved by the City Engineer and such
facilities shall be installed and maintained by the property owner, failure to maintain such filters and
facilities in working condition shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review, all
costs for the annual or more frequent inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for
by the property owner (hydrology and water quality, Public Works Department);
41. that if, during construction, any cultural resources should be discovered or identified, construction
shall be immediately stopped until the findings have been evaluated by a qualified professional
selected by the City Planner and such services and studies shall be paid for by the property owner,
the qualified professional shall determine appropriate methods of preservation; the property owner
shall insure that the City is notified of such findings and shall see that the preservation methods set
out are properly implemented (Planning Department);
42. that all identified improvements to Airport Boulevard shall be completed and accepted by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the first building. Design plans and
construction documents for all required and proposed Airport Boulevard improvements based on the
conceptual drawings, Sheet A-1.0 date stamped June 26, 2000 and Exhibit B dated November 22,
1999, shall be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to issuance of the first building
permit for any construction on the site (City Engineer);
CONDITIONS - 7
a,
43. that for the Airport Boulevard street frontage improvements the property owner shall design and
construct standard concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lane, landscaping, irrigation system, street
lights, fire hydrants, and asphaltic concrete pavement widening along the Airport Blvd. street
frontages of the project as shown on sheet A-1.0 of project conceptual plans dated received June 26,
2000, and in Exhibit `B' dated November 22, 1999, which documents show typical sections of
Airport Boulevard. The roadway improvements shall accommodate the ultimate width of four lanes
on Airport Boulevard (City Engineer);
44. that for the realignment of Airport Blvd. the property owner shall be responsible for the design and
reconstruction of the existing 90° turn on Airport Boulevard at the site. The new configuration shall
be designed for the design speed of 25 miles per hour with a 300 foot radius curve as shown on the
project conceptual plans dated received June 26, 2000. The roadway improvements shall include
concrete curb, gutter, asphalt pavement, sidewalk, street light and required median work. The
property owner shall be responsible to pay for its fair share of the cost of the improvements for the
reconstruction of the curve as shown on Exhibit `C' and based on the following formula:
Developer's cost = 47.0% of the total cost of realignment and reconstruction and dedication of
necessary right of way for the roadway and public utilities.
City's share = 53.0% of the total cost of realignment and reconstruction
Note: The construction cost estimates (including median correction, street lighting, paving, curb
gutter and sidewalk, etc.) provided by the property owner and approved by the City Engineer shall
be the basis for determining the proportional share each shall pay of the actual construction costs; at
the end of construction after the City Engineer accepts the completed work this proportion shall be
applied to the actual construction costs to determine actual monetary contributions of each participant
(City Fngineer);
45. that for median improvements on Airport Boulevard the property owner shall construct all median
improvements as shown per the project conceptual plans on sheet A-1.0, dated June 26, 2000. The
property owner shall prepare interim and ultimate design plans for improvements to Airport
Boulevard fronting this site, including median improvements for both interim and ultimate build out;
however, cost for all other median improvements, except those required by this project's
development, will be borne by the City (City Engineer);
46. that the roadway structural section shall be designed using the criteria of Traffic Index (T.I.) of 9.0
minimum (City Engineer);
47. that the minimum width of the travel lanes shall be twelve (12) feet for "interim" improvement, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer, with the additional width of five (5) feet of asphalt for the
bike lane (City Engineer);
48. that the property owner shall design and install a traffic signal at the intersection of the entrance to
the project and Airport Boulevard as generally shown on Plan Sheet A-1.0 with median
improvements. Median modifications, opposite driveway relocation and realignment are needed -
These will require the property owner to coordinate with the opposite property owners and discuss
CONDITIONS - 8 LIX H I B f F F
possible relocation of the access to those properties. All this median, driveway modification, signal
work and any necessary relocation of street lighting shall be done at the properly owner's expense.
The property owner shall work with the adjacent property owners to determine those property
owners' needs and include them in this intersection design and construction (City Engineer);
49, that the property owner shall underground the existing overhead power line along the frontage ofthis
project site. The undergrounding shall be completed concurrently with the roadway improvements
along the frontage of the project. This property owner shall be responsible to coordinate the
undergrounding of utilities with PG&E. The City will reimburse the property owner for the costs of
undergrounding for this area using the PG&E Rule 20A funds, any associated costs relating to this
development shall be the responsibility of this property owner in accordance with Rule 20A. City's
participation of the cost of undergrounding of overhead power lines per Rule 20A is subject to the
approval of the City Council. (City Engineer);
50. that since the City is embarking on a recycled water study which will ultimately place a main for
recycled water for all landscaping proposed for developments along Airport Boulevard, the property
owner shall install a 6 -inch diameter recycled water main with the roadway improvements. This 6 -inch
line shall extend from the existing bridge at the west end of the project site to at least past the main
entrance (driveway). Initially the line shall be connected to the City water main_ Its easterly end shall
be used as the service connection point for this site's irrigation needs. This line and the irrigation
system it serves shall be converted to a recycled water line, once recycled water becomes available_
These i nprovements shall be done at the property owner's cost and shall be completed in concurrence
with the roadway off-site improvements of the project (City Engineer);
51. that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall perform a traffic analysis at
the southbound off -ramp at Rollins Road/Broadway, and the southbound off -ramp and southbound
on-ramp at the Rollins Road/Cadillac Way intersection and submit it to the City Engineer for review.
If the analysis indicates that the project will have an adverse impact on the traffic operations at these
intersections, then the property owner shall pay the project's fair share of the cost of improvements
based on the number of trips contributed to the intersection at p. in. peak hour compared to total trips
at the intersections at these hours and make improvements necessary to negate any impact (City
Engineer);
52. that before receiving a building permit the property owner shall submit an intersection analysis,
queuing analysis and detailed on-site circulation information for the project's main entrance and the
Airport Boulevard intersection; the City Engineer shall approve the on-site circulation pattern and
the signal timing based on this information (City Engineer);
53. that the property owner shall be required to dedicate the necessary public easements as approved by
the City Engineer for the following purposes:
(a) Realignment of roadway at the 90 degree corner on Airport Boulevard;
(b) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and asphalt pavement along the frontage of the project site on Airport
Boulevard where such improvements require easement as shown on the Typical Sections of
Airport Boulevard for Utimate Width, per Exhibit B dated November 22, 1999;
(c) Easement for the purpose of access and maintenance of the 6 -inch water main (future recycled
water main);
CONDITIONS - 9
(d) Easement fort h etraffiic signal appurtenances such as sinal controller box, detector loops, signal
post, etc,
(e) Minimum five (5) feet of Public utility easement (P.U.E.) located at the back side of the sidewalk
along the entire Airport Boulevard frontage of project site as slaciwn in the Typical Sections of
Airport Boulevard for Ultimate Width, per Exhibit B, November 22, 1999 (City Engineer);
54. that for sanitary sewer improvements the property owner shall perform the following analysis of the
existing sanitary sewer system from the project site to the Rollins Road pump station during the wet
weather months (January, February) and submit the data to the City Engineer no later than April 1
of the same year:
(a) Flow metering of all the existing 8 -inch and 12 -inch ACP sewer line from the project site to the
pump station;
(b) Video tape of the existing 12' ACP sanitary sewer line to evaluate its structural integrity,
(c) Provide pump station analysis of the 431 Rollins Road pump station, showing the current flows,
spare pumping capacity and redundant pumping capacity;
55. that the property owner shall provide the following sanitary sewer and pump station improvements
as identified in the preliminary sanitary sewer analysis presented in the Final EIR prepared by
Environmental Sciences Associates and confirmed by Macleod and Associates, November 9, 1999
(Exhibit C) and as incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report:
(a) The property owner shall be responsible for paying before issuance of the building permit its fair
share of the cost to install a ten (10) inch sewer main from approximately 925 linear feet
downstream of the pump station to 350 feet upstream of the pump station; such costs shall be
based on the following formula:
Length of the upgrade =350 Linear feet upstream of the 431 Rollins Road pump station and 925
linear feet downstream of the pump station
Total length of upgrade = 1,275 linear feet.
Size of the sewer main= 10" diameter PVC sanitary sewer main per City Standards.
Property owner's share:
PGPF X Cost of installation of a 1,275 linear feet of 10" diameter PVC sewer main
CCPF
135.46 GPM X Cost of installation of a 1,275 linear feet of 10" diameter PVC sewer main
605.00 GPM
0.2239 X Cost of installation of a 1,275 linear feet of 10" diameter PVC sewer main
Property owner's share = 22.40 % of the cost of installation of 10" diameter PVC sewer main_
Note: PGPF = Project Generated Peak wet weather flows; CCPF = Cumulative Conditions peak
wet weather flows; GPM = Gallons per minute
(b) The property owner shall design the sanitary sewer improvements as mentioned above per City
Standards as approved by the City Engineer before the final framing inspection for the first
building;
CONDITIONS - 10 t 1 i s '
hE
I
(c) The Rollins Road pump station improvements are required for cumulative conditions which will
be experienced when the entire Anza/Bayfront area builds out. The property owner shall pay for
its proportional share of its impact on the volume of flow at the pump station. The property
owner shall prepare a cost estimate of required improvements to the pump station and submit it
to the City for approval. The improvement costs shall include engineering design, surveying,
construction of pump station and emergency generator, construction testing and construction
management and shall include pumps, accessories, structures, electrical upgrade and conduits_
The property owner shall pay its proportional share of the improvements before issuance of the
building permit; such costs shall be based on the following formula:
Property owner's share:
PGPF X Total cost of pump station upgrade
CCPF
135.46 GPM X Total cost of pump station upgrade
605.00 GPM
0.2239 X Total cost of pump station upgrade
Property owner's share =22.40 % of the total cost of pump station upgrade;
(d) The property owner shall monitor the sanitary sewer flows on the site before they enter the off—
site collection system and also at the pump station; these measurements shall be taken before the
issuance of an occupancy permit for each phase of the project; the flow monitoring data shall be
provided to the City Engineer and approved before issuance of the occupancy permit forthegiven
phase, should any portion of the wastewater collection system be shown to be inadequate, if it
is demonstrated to be caused by this project its capacity shall be corrected before a permit to
occupy the building is issued (City Engineer);
(e) If improvements to the sanitary sewer system which benefit the project are made by the City or
another developer, the property owner shall be required to reimburse the City for the cost of the
benefit to this project. The value of these costs shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the
construction cost index for the area as published by Engineering News Record magazine;
(f) Should the City need or desire to replace any portion of the sewer collection system before the
phase of the project requiring the upgrade is built, the property owner shall reimburse the City
the share of these costs based on this project's percentage of the total flows at cumulative
conditions prior to issuance of a building permit. The value of these costs shall be adjusted yearly
in accordance with the construction cost index for this area as published by the Engineering News
Record magazine;
56, that the property owner shall be responsible for providing cost estimates, plans and agreements which
shall be accepted by the City Engineer before related permits shall be issued for the following:
(a) The property owner shall design and prepare construction plans and documents in compliance
with the Burlingame Department of Public Works standards, including cost estimates, and
CONDITIONS - I 1 E" I B IT L
constrict all Airport Boulevard fi-ontage improvements, including, but not limited to, new
concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, irrigation system, street lights, PG&E Rule 20A
power under -rounding, recycled water main, and fire hydrants as may be required and approved
by the City Engineer; and
(b) For all work to be done in the public right-of-way or in easements, cost estimates prepared by the
property owner shall be submitted to the City and approved by the City Engineer. These estimates
shall be submitted not later than March 1 of the City's fiscal year before the proposed work is to
be undertaken;
57. that before issuance of any construction permit the property owner shall enter into a public
improvement agreement with the city for: reconstruction of Airport Boulevard including realignment
and signing and striping; construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt, pavement widening, bike
lane, landscaping along the Airport Boulevard and Beach Road frontages of the property; traffic
signal at the project site entrance; upgrade of 431 Rollins Road pump station for cumulative
conditions; recycled water main improvements (City Engineer);
58. that the property owner shall provide bonding for public improvements. At the time of plan review
for the first building permit for the project, the property owner shall submit a detailed cost estimate
for all the public improvements as required by the conditions of approval, the cost estimates shall be
reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permit for the project,
the property owner shall bond for the costs of all public improvements as required by the conditions
of approval. The property owner shall provide 100% ofthe bonding for the following improvements:
(a) Reconstruction of Airport Boulevard including realignment and signing and striping;
(b) Construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt pavement widening, bike lane, landscaping along
the Airport Boulevard and Beach Road frontages of the property;
(c) Traffic Signal at the project site entrance;
(d) 431 Rollins Road pump station upgrade for cumulative conditions;
(e) Recycled water main improvements (City Engineer);
59. that the property owner shall undertake the following required on site improvements (City Engineer):
(a) The setbacks for all buildings, landscaping and other structures shall incorporate the required
horizontal stopping sight distance on Airport Boulevard and site egress/ingress per State Highway
Design Manual;
(b) The property owner shall be responsible for meeting all the requirements set forth by San
Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission, and other local, regional, state and
federal agencies applicable to this development and site;
(c) The property owner shall submit to the City Engineer the project site grading plan including aff
recommendations made in the project's soils report, prior to receiving a grading permit or
undertaking any asphalt removal or demolition. The grading plan shall be subject to review and
CONDITIONS - 12 EX H r B IT F
approval by the City Engineer before issuance of any City permits for any work on the site;
(d) The property owner shall submit an Erosion Control Plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan to Regional Water Quality Control Board and to the City Engineer for review and approval.
No demolition, grading or construction permits shall be issued by the city until these plans have
been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City Engineer;
(e) The property owner shall be responsible for any damages caused to the public infrastructure by
the construction of the project. The property owner shall perform a walk-through with the City
Engineer prior to the beginning of construction and note the condition of the streets, pavement,
curb, gutter, and sidewalks. Any damages to the public infrastructure resulting from the project
shall be repaired or restored immediately to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The property
owner shall perform a final walk-through at the end of each phase of the project to review the
conditions of the streets, pavement, curb, gutter, and sidewalks, and other public infrastructure
affected by the project.
60. that the minimum vertical clearance in parking garage for disabled accessible parking and circulation
shall be 8'-2" (Chief Building Official);
61. that all areas of all buildings shall be protected by an automatic fire suppression system and shall be
protected by fire alarm system, both shall be monitored by an approved central station (Fire Marshal);
62. that on-site fire hydrants shall be required per California Fire Code (Fire Marshal);
63. that emergency vehicle access at Beach Road shall have removable or break away bollards approved
by the Fire Department and installed at a time to be determined by the Fire Department; fire access
to site at Beach Road shall be permanently maintained (Fire Marshal);
64. that the property owner shall provide a plan for site fire protection including Fire Hydrants, detector
check valves, loop system, etc. as shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of any
demolition, grading and/or building permits for construction on the site (Fire Marshal); and
65. that the property owner shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 1998 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame, in effect at the time application to the
Building Division is made for each phase of development; (Chief Building Official).
Additional Conditions of Approval for the Child Care Facility:
66. that all of the requirements of conditions 1- 65 shall apply to and include the child care facility use,
site and construction;
67. that the basement parking in the child care facility shall have a ceiling height of 8'-2" in the access area
to the designated disabled parking spaces and above those parking spaces;
68. that the driveway and frontage curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements and access ramp provided
as a part of the child care facility construction shall comply with all city requirements;
CONDITIONS - 13 -
Er E&h � Iy
69. that the property owner at 301 Airport Boulevard shall provide and maintain pedestrian access from
the child care facility to the office development at 301 Airport Blvd., the access shall meet American
Disability Access requirements;
70. that all utilities provided to the child care facility site and structure shall be underground,
71. that the property owner of the project at 301 Airport Blvd. shall be responsible for preparing a traffic
intersection analysis ofBeach Road and Airport Boulevard prior to issuance of a building permit for
the child care facility and shall pay the proportional share of the cost of installing a traffic signal at
Beach Road and AirportBlvd., this proportion sha31 be based on the amount of p.m. peak hour traffic
generated by the child care facility users over the total p.m. peak hour traffic generated on Beach
Road at Airport Blvd. during the p.m. peak hour at the time that the warrants for a traffic signals are
reached at the intersection;
72. that the property owner of the project at 301 Airport Blvd. shall prepare and file a parcel map and
preliminary title report creating an 18,000 SF parcel fronting on Beach Road with the Public Works
Department within one month of the rezoning of the property; no building permits for development
of either the office project at 301 Airport Blvd. or the child care facility at 350 Beach shall be issued
until the tentative map has been filed;
73. that prior to issuance of a building permit for either the project at 301 Airport BIvd. or the child care
facility at 350 Beach Road, the property owner at 301 Airport Blvd. shall have a licensed civil
engineer prepare a sanitary sewer analysis for the proposed child care facility and shall include any
sewage flow volumes identified in the work being done to upgrade the capacity of the sewer
collection system serving 301 Airport Blvd.; the city engineer shall review and approve the sanitary
sewer analysis and the plans for sewer improvements to insure that the system installed is
appropriately sized for both the office and child care facility needs before any permits are issued to
build these improvements; the sewer system improvements must be complete as noted in conditions
54 and 55 above;
74. that the design of the exterior facade of the child care facility should include features for a 30 dBA
noise reduction to meet a maximum noise level performance standard of 50 dBA from intermittent
noise events in areas proposed for sleeping and a features for a 25 dBA noise reduction to meet a
maximum noise level performance standard of 55 dBA in other indoor areas set aside for non -sleeping
functions (Noise, Building Department); and
75. that the property owner of the property at 301 Airport Blvd. shall increase his proportional share of
the realignment improvements at the curve at Fisherman's Park by the number of trips generated by
the child care facility using the formula set out in condition 44 above (Traffic, City Engineer)_
76. that the property owner at 301 Airport Boulevard shall be required to submit detailed architectural
and site plans, grading and drainage plans for the child care facility at 350 Beach Road to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit;
77. that the child care facility plans shall show site elevations, adjacent site elevations, and at -grade
parking elevations documenting that the maximum slope in any parking space shall not exceed 50%;
CONDITIONS -14
b,ri iT F
78. that on the child care facility site on-site drainage inlets and pump sump basins shall be equipped with
a petroleum absorbent system for treating drainage flows from automobile parking areas and the
underground drainage system shall be equipped with an emergency generator to supply powerto the
sump pump system,
79. that access fo garage exits, storage areas, and trash areas shall have clear exitways and the minimum
clearance for back-up aisles for parking spaces shall be 24 feet;
80. that the discharge from the elevator sump shall be to the sanitary sewer system and shall be kept
separate from the groundwater system;
81. that the child care facility project plans shall show a detailed profile of the driveway approach and all
driveways to below -grade parking areas shall have a high point that is 12 inches higher than the
proposed flow line of the street either at property line or on-site;
82. that all irrigation systems and planting areas on the child care facility site shall follow the City's water
conservation guidelines;
83. that the property owner of the project at 301 Airport Blvd. shall replace existing curb, gutter and
sidewalk improvements along the child care facility frontage per City standards; and
84. that the child care facility shall be designed and built to meet all the standards of the California
Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, or the edition in effect a the time a building permit is issued
and shall meet all the requirements of any amendment to the California Building and Fire Codes
adopted by the City of Burlingame for that use and that the child care facility shall be protected by
an automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm system monitored by an approved central system.
CONDITIONS - 15
p
X
rw a
� �_`�_z"u, 4