Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 023-1990RESOLUTION NO. 23-90 RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION - LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING IN PORTION OF C-4 ZONE RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, California that: WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been proposed regarding the Specific Area Plan Amendment and zoning amendment allowing long term airport parking in a specified portion of the C-4 zone, and WHEREAS, it is the intention of this Council to approve said Negative Declaration as set forth hereinafter: NOW, THEREFORE, it is FOUND, ORDERED AND DETERMINED that: On the basis of the Initial Study, the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by the Planning Commission and this Council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Negative Declaration ND -427P is hereby approved. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of February 1990, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BARTON, HARRISON, LEMBI, O'MAHONY, PAGLIARO NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE n Z-�) - _ , r CITY OF BURLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND -427P The City of Burlingame by Maroaret Monroe on November 6 , 1989, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (xx) It will not have a significant effect on the environment No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for Conclusion: The proposed project involves an amendment to the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan to allow long term airport parking facilities as a permitted use within the planning area. The amendment would require modification to the zoning in the area. The proposed use, long term parking, is a lower intensity use than the designated uses in the Plan which include hotels/motels, offices and restaurants. Any development proposal would be reviewed under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Additional environmental review and subsequent mitigations would be levied should impacts specific to a particular development proposal be identified. -0 k MJF. City Planner November 6, 1989 Signature of Processing Official Title Date Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date posted: G%9 Declaration of Posting I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on 2ZZ-12 •�aT989 1989. Appealed: ( ) Yes (x) No 'f • NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILE NO. ND -427P Amendment to General Plan and Zoning Modification to allow long-term airport parking in the Anza and Bayfront Areas PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves an amendment to the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan to allow long term airport parking facilities as a permitted use within the planning area. The amendment would require modification to the zoning in the area. The two areas this amendment would cover are the Bayfront and Anza Areas; the Anza Extension would be excluded. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The area is on the east side of Highway 101 and is bayfill land. The initial fill occurred in the 1920's and the bulk of the fill occurred in the 1950's (Bayfront and northern area) and the 1960's (Anza or southern area). There are about 35 vacant acres in the Anza Area and the Bayfront Area is almost fully developed. The water frontage lots in both areas are generally developed with hotels, office buildings and restaurants. The area on the west side of Bayshore Highway is developed in light industrial and office uses. The majority of the area is covered by exotic vegetation and landscaped areas although there is a wildlife sanctuary in the Bayfront area and some tidal wetland vegetation along the land's edge within the San Francisco Bay. Developed public access is provided along the water's edge in most cases and public access is required for all new development. The Anza Area is traversed by Sanchez Creek which forms the Sanchez/Burlingame lagoon and Sanchez channel. A man-made lagoon, Anza, also provides a water focal point for development in the Anza Area. The Anza Area is generally flat and urbanized. The Anza Extension lies between the Bayfront and Anza Area, and includes the City's sewer treatment plant and sanitary landfill (no longer used) and the Bayfront Park. The Specific Plan Amendment does not include the Anza Extension Area. The City is currently developing a closure plan for the sanitary landfill which when closed will become a City park. Discussion of 'NO' Responses Should the Plan Amendment and Zoning Modification be approved to allow long-term parking in the Anza and Bayfront Areas an initial study would be prepared particular to a development request. Additional environmental review and subsequent mitigations would be levied, should impacts specific to a particular development proposal be identified. Long-term parking would be a lower intensity use than the designated uses in the plan which include hotels/motels, offices and restaurants on the 35 vacant or underutilized areas that could be subject to long-term parking use. The more intense uses are the basis of the analysis in the Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1979. The Plan Amendment and Zoning Modification would result in less impact to the area. 1. EARTH The subject area is predominately built -out; approximately 35 of the 180 acres in the Anza Area are vacant and the Bayfront Area is almost fully developed. Minimal site preparation would be needed for long-term parking. Using vacant lands for long-term parking would result in exposing fewer people to geologic hazards than using the area for hotel or restaurant/commercial develop- ment. 2. AIR Although the transportation section of the initial study iden- tifies the potential for the generation of substantial addition- al vehicular movement in the area an impact on air quality is not anticipated. The proximity of the long-term parking to the airport would serve to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle idling, and thus reduce the potential for regional air quality impacts. Cars would be stored on-site for a period of days/weeks and minimal movement of stored vehicles would occur. 3. WATER No development would occur on water bodies or in an area that could affect the lagoon or bay front. Subsurface development would not occur and thus would not affect ground waters. 4.& 5. PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE The area is developed and includes exotic landscaping. No development would take place in the Sanchez Creek wetland where salt -marsh bird's beak, a federally listed endangered plant, is found. The salt -marsh harvest mouse, associated with the salt marshes is a federally listed endangered species would not be disturbed. Birds associated with the lagoon, California Clapper rail (listed on the federal and state lists as an endangered species) and the California Black Rail, would not be disturbed. Development would also not take place in or on the banks of the Sanchez or Anza lagoons. 6. NOISE Traffic volumes in the area would have to double for there to be a perceptible (3 dBA) increase in noise levels. Long-term parking use would not result in doubling the traffic volumes in the area. 8. LAND USE Approximately 13 acres of land in the area is used for long term parking and is a use which pre-existed the present zoning and specific area plan. Should the Plan Amendment and Zoning Modific- ation be approved, conditions could be levied on long-term parking uses and such uses would be considered legal uses. Long- term parking, considered a public use, would be consistent with other public uses in the area which include service stations, commercial recreation, hotels and motels and restaurants. 9., 15. & 16. NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY AND UTILITIES Minimal development would be needed to prepare the site for long- term parking use. Development would not result in a substantial use of fuel or resources. Typical use of energy, once the site is developed, would be for night lighting and would consume much less energy compared to a higher level of use associated with heating and lighting for restaurants commercial and office buildings. Long-term parking could result in a net savings of petroleum products as vehicle miles traveled for passenger drop- off and pick-up could be expected to decrease because of the proximity to the airport and shuttle bus use. Utilities are in place to serve anticipated development in the area. Any improvements to existing utilities (extension of infrastructure) would be the responsibility of the developer, as conditioned or mitigated. 10. & 17. RISK OF UPSET AND HUMAN HEALTH Storage of chemicals or gasoline is not expected to occur as a result of allowing long-term parking. Gasoline would be as- sociated with automobile use, but not stored for refueling vehicles. Should a particular development proposal include provisions for storage of gasoline or oil to supply vehicles, the request, if approved, would be conditioned accordingly in order to protect the environment and human health. Parking areas would be paved and surface runoff required to be filtered on-site to remove petroleum products. 11., 12., 14. & 19. POPULATION, HOUSING, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION The Plan Amendment is to allow long-term parking associated with airport use and as such would not increase the population or demand for housing in the area. Public services associated with population increases (fire protection, schools, recreational opportunities and maintenance of infrastructure) would not be impacted. Long-term parking would be a land use of less inten- sity than that of commercial, office or hotel development. Long- term parking facilities would be permitted on vacant lands only and not in areas designated for parks or existing recreational areas. 13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The project (to allow long-term parking) would increase parking opportunities, and the use of shuttle buses to and from the airport would decrease the number of single -occupancy vehicles on the road. The project would not affect water bound traffic, as the use would be land bound. 20. ARCHEOLOGICALMISTORICAL The area was filled in the 19601s; prior to that it was open bay water. Discussion of 'MAYBE' AND 'YES' Responses 3. & 16. WATER (b. & i.) and Utilities (e.) An existing storm drain system is in place and sump pumps direct storm water into the lagoon (only in the lagoon area). Developers of individual projects would be required to improve the existing infrastructure as necessary to support proposed development including sand filter drains. Sites subject to flooding, if developed, would include mitigation measures to raise the ground level or construct berms. 7. & 18. LIGHT AND GLARE AND AESTHETICS Large areas of parked cars could increase glare to travelers along local public road ways. Design standards for long-term parking facilities would be developed and codified in the Burlingame Zoning Ordinance and the Specific Area Plan Guidelines to address light, glare and aesthetic issues. Landscaping and setbacks could be employed to reduce site specific impacts. Lighting studies could be conducted to determine the areas where most significant glare would occur and the placement of parked cars and utilization of landscaping and setbacks for screening could be used accordingly as a result of the study. 13. (a. & f.) TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Based on the Traffic Analyser (Land Use -Transportation Impact Analyzer -Bayfront and Anza Areas, Burlingame, California, Barton Aschman Associates, Inc., 1987) the impact of using some or all of the vacant or underutilized parcels in the Anza Area for long- term parking is relatively small compared to full build -out (hotel/motel, commercial recreation, office: memo from T. K. Dellaway, Traffic Engineer, October 3, 1989). Thirty-five acres generating 140 peak -hour trip ends (for long-term parking) as compared to 1,623 peak -hour trip ends for full build -out represents 8.6% of the impact of full build -out for long-term parking. Less traffic in the area would reduce the likelihood of traffic hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists. Any development in the area would have to implement BCDC regula- tions which include improved public access along water frontages. New development therefore, would not restrict access to water frontage. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES (b.)' Long-term parking facilities would not require additional police protection services in the area and in terms of police services represents a minimal impact since there is generally 24-hour supervision of parking areas. No additional person -hours or police vehicles would be needed to police the area (Sgt. Krut- tschnitt, telephone conversation October 26, 1989). The crimes generally associated with long-term parking are auto burglary and exiting without paying for parking. N. e,nw U PAK G''� c �r O r� kum Pr. AULEY xa irorxs°Z �� W G*W" Gi Poriai of Mao EXHIBIT A P% 4. Wo Regional Location BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN Torrey & Torrey Inc. I / W M EXHIBIT C - INITIAL STUDY East of State Highway 101 Anza and Bayfront Areas Project Address or Location BVRLJNGAME TO: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 1400 - 10th Street �b,..m.,..•'•• ' Sacramento, CA. 95814 File No. ND -427P Project Title: Amendment to General Plan and Zoning Modification Type of Permit: to allow long term airport parking in the Anza and Bayfront Areas Legal Description: area addressed in the June 1981 Specific Area Plan - all properties in Burlingame on the east side of Highway 101 Zone: C-4 & M-1 Property Owner: Name: Days California One c/o James Cutler Address: 11020 White Rock Road #250 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Contact Person: James Cutler Area Code: - Phone:— PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant: Name: Metro Park c/o George Corey, Attorney Address: 700 E1 Camino Real P.O.Box 669, Millbrae, CA 94030 Contact Person: George Corey Area Code: 415 Phone: 871-5666 Amend the Specific Area Plan to allow long term airport parking facilities as a use within the planning area. The plan amendment would require a modification to the zoning in the area. The planning areas to be considered for this use are the Bayfront and Anza Areas. The Anza Extension area is not included. Incorporated by reference as a part of this environmental document is the environmental impact report prepared for the Specific Area Plan -Burlingame Bayfront, May 1981, SCH #80093007. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The area on the east side of 101 in Burlingame is primarily bayfill. The first fill occurred in the 1920's but the bulk of the fill was done in the 1950's (the bayfront or northern area) and 1960's (the Anza or southern area). Currently there are about 35 of the 180 acres in the Anza Area vacant. The Bayfront Area is almost fully developed. The water frontage lots in both areas are generally developed with hotels, office buildings and restaurants. The area on the west side of Bayshore Highway is developed in light industrial and office uses. While there is a wildlife sactuary in the Bayfront Area and some tidal wetland vegetation along the land'sedge within San Francisco Bay, the majority of the area is covered by exotic vegetation in landscaped areas. Developed public access is provided along the water's edge in most cases, and is required for all new development. The Anza Area is traversed by Sanchez Creek which forms Sanchez/Burlingame lagoon and Sanchez channel. A man-made lagoon, Anza, also provides a water focal point for development in the Anza Area. The area is generally flat and urbanized. Between the Bayfront and Anza Area lies the Anza Extension, a land area containing the city's sewer treatment plant, -2 - sanitary landfill (no longer used) and Bayfront Park. The general plan amendment proposal does not include the Anza Extension area. The city is currently developing a closure plan for the sanitary landfill which when closed will become a city park. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT: (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided at the conclusion of this . section.) Yes Maybe No 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: _a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X — c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? — X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X — f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of X a river or stream or the bed of the ocean — or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, X mudslides, ground failure, or similar — hazards? 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X — b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, X either locally or regionally? — 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either X marine or fresh waters? — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface X water runoff? — ice^--•'c=-e.-s-.<•.:....�..,- -3- Yes Maybe No c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, X including but not limited to temperature, — dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception — X - of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public X water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal X waves? — 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a.- Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including X trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, X rare or endangered species of plants? — c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the X normal replenishment of existing species? — d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X — 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, X land animals including reptiles, fish and — shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, X rare or endangered species of animals? — c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to X the migration or movement of animals? — d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X — 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce X new light or glare? — B. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or X planned use of an area? — -4 - Yes Maybe No 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. RISK OF UPSET. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not _X limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or — radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth X rate of the human population of an area? — 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional X housing? — 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional X vehicular movement? — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X — c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? — X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people X and/or goods? — e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X — 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any .of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X _ c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, X including roads? — f. Other governmental services? X 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? - X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require X the development of new sources of energy? — 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X -5 - Yes Maybe - No b. Communications systema? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X. e. Storm water drainage? X — f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential X health hazard (excluding mental health)? — b. Exposure of people to potential health X hazards? — 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive X —. site open to public view? _ 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of X existing recreational opportunities? 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, X object or building? 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does. the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples X of the major periods of California history or — prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time X while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, X but where the effect of the total of those — impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects X on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -6 - RESPONSES TO IDENTIFIED EVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 3. Water b. Changes in runoff. Since the areas to be used for long term airport parking will be required to be paved, addition of up to 30 or more acres of paved space could alter stomp runoff patterns. The size of present collection facilities should be addressed as well as on-site protections for San Francisco Bay. i. Since some sites in the project area are subject to flooding because of the height of their protective levees, flooding would be a concern for some sites. Could this condition be corrected on these sites? 7. Light and Glare Large areas of parked cars could increase glare visible and possibly annoying to nearby development as well as people viewing the area at a distance. Moreover, illumination at night could be a problem to adjacent properties, public thoroughfares and driver safety. 13. Transportation/Circulation a. Substantial additional vehicular movement. The impact of this use as a trip generator needs to be analyzed and evaluated against present and planned uses to determine that the impact on the critical intersections will not be greater than the previously designated land use at densities allowed in the plan. f. Increase in traffic hazards to pedestrians and bicycles. Ensure that the use will not have a negative impact on the flow on and use of water frontage public access and that each area addresses the public access requirement. ---^�..e---- - 14. Public Services "'- b. Police protection. Will the cost of policing this use be greater than policing now planned permitted uses and require an expansion in the number of officers - - - -, "-�- now expected in the area for buildout? 16. Utilities e. Storm water drainage. See 3b. 18. Aesthetics Create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. It needs to be determined how the Specific Area Plan design guidelines would apply to this - _ use, and whether they would be adequate to protect the view and streetscape -- _ - to have it match the standard established in the area while providing the openness necessary for public safety. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance c. Individually limited impacts but cumulatively considerable. Each of the above cited items needs to be evaluated in terms of its impacts if all now vacant land were to be used for long term airport parking. Note: This initial study on the amendment to the Specific Area Plan to allow long term airport parking and modify the zoning accordingly shows that there are a number of items on the checklist which will not be affected by the project. This finding is based on the city's experience with development in the area since 1981 as addressed by the environmental document prepared for the Specific Area Plan adopted in June, 1981 and the city's experience with development in the area since 1981 as addressed by the negative declarations and environmental impact reports prepared for these projects. 0 -7- DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: (xx ) I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures which have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ( ) I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date November 6. 1989.Yh IV'plsI � (Signatur For CITY OF BURLINGAME IE - — -- RESIDENTIAL USES INSTITUTIONS LOW DENS" w I.. e.nl y LJ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL j MEDIUM DENSITY o m zo em.c(} JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MED. HIGH DENS" 21 m eo wr.e , RIGH SCHOOL HIGH DENSFfY sr W. ar.e 8 PRIVATE SCHOOL o..wy Mn. •.u. COMMERCIAL USES POLICE DEPT OO PRECEPT SERVICE& 6 SERVICE CRY HALL LOSARY O SERVICE d SPECIE SALES ® CHURCH a OFFICE USE %s OTHER w.. WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL i= COMMERCIAL NEOEEATON PARKS c eals8np Q HOTEl6 / MOTETS NEIGHSORHOW &EEnwsed STAuuxrs c&MMurnTY PRESERVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY Myxov NIerGle�ga INDUSTRIAL USES INDUSTRIAL 8 OFFICE USE © SEWAGE DISPOSAL ® WATER STORAGE CIRCULATION Pronaaea eamaq FREEWAY MM R ARiEPoAL ARTERIAL COLLECTOR d FWY RAMP GRADE SEPARATON RAILROAD —•--� RAPID TRANSIT �' r C 4 ��I £ts � Zt`¢' •X I !