HomeMy WebLinkAbout765 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 4.28.1997� _�
.�:�` �`'_��
City of Burlingame
Negative Declaration and Special Pernzits
for a 132-room Hotel
Address: 765 Airport Boulevazd
ITEM #.�.
Meeting Date: 4/28/97
Request: Negative Declaration and Special Permits for a building which exceeds the 35' maximum
height within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and
exceeds the design review height of 50', and to exceed the view obstruction, lagoon setback and
landscape outside the shoreline band, in the front setback, and within the parking azea. design guidelines
for Bayfront Development at 765 Airport Boulevazd, zoned C-4 (C.S. 25.41.025 (d) and (fl).
Applicant: 765 Airport Boulevard Limited Partnership APN:
Property Owner: same
Lot Area: 2.038 Acres (88,775 SF)
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan: Hotels
Adjacent Development: Offices, Hotels, Airport Parking, and Sanchez Creek Lagoon
CEQA Status: Refer to attached Negative Declaration No. ND 485P.
Previous Use: Site is now vacant.
Proposed Use: Construction of a 132-room hotel
Allowable Use: Hotels
026-344-120
Zoning: C-4
Summary: The applicant and property owner, 765 Airport Boulevard Limited Partnership, is
requesting a special permit for a building 77'4" in height where 35' is the maximum height allowed
within Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction; a special permit to exceed
the height limita.tions of the design guidelines for Bayfront Development (77'-4" where 50'-0" is the
maximum allowed); and special permits to exceed the view obstruction limitations, setback from the
lagoon which is less than the building height, and to vary from the landscape requirements for outside
the shoreline band, in the front setback and within the parking area. of the Design Guidelines for
Bayfront Development for the development of a six-story, 132-room hotel.
The parking requirement for hotel use is one parking space for each hotel room, which results in a
requirement for 132 parking spaces for this project. The code allows up to 23 compact stalls (1 compact
space for the first 20 required spaces, and 20 % of the spaces over 20) dimensioned at 8' -0" x 17' -0" .
The applicant is proposing 23 compact spaces.
The hotel will operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day. There will be one airport shuttle van used
to take guests to and from the airport. It will be parked on site. Initially, there will be 6 full-time
employees and 12 part-time employees during the day, and 3 full-time and 2 part-time employees after
5:00 p.m. on weekdays. On weekends, there will be 6 full-time and 12 part-time employees during the
day, and 3 full-time and 3 part-time employees after 5:00 p.m. It is projected that the number of
employees will remain the same in five years. It is expected that 20 customers will come to the site
during the day, and 106 will come to the site after 5:00 p.m. The maximum number of people expected
at the site at any one time is 138. It is expected that sma11 delivery trucks or vans will make periodic
deliveries during operating hours. No trucks will be parked on-site continuously throughout the day.
� z
ti r 'Y�
�� . 4
SPECIAL FERMITS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 765 Airpori Boulevard
Property Development Standards: The attached table shows the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Ba.yfront Development Design Guidelines as they relate to this project. In summary, the project
requires special permits for:
1. a building 77'4" in height where 35' is the m�imum height allowed within Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction;
2, to exceed the height limitations of the design guidelines for Bayfront Development (77'-4" where
50'-0" is the maximum allowed);
3. to exceed the view obstruction limita.tions or apparent width (100% provided from Airport
Boulevazd, 80 % required; 55 % provide from the lagoon, 40 % required);
4, setback from the lagoon which is less than the building height (65' provided, 77' required);
5. to vary from the landscape requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development
a. azea outside BCDC jurisdiction (12.8 % provided, 15 % required);
b. area within front setback (59.7 % provided, 80 % required);
c. landscaping within the parking azea (8.5 % provided, 10 % required);
6. to exceed the maximum height review line of 50', (proposed 77'-4 lh"); and
7. to exceed 35' in height within BCDC jurisdiction, (77'-4 1/a" proposed).
The project meets all other zoning requirements and design guidelines.
Traf�c Study: The applicant provided a traffic study for the proposal, prepared by Fehr & Peers
Associates, Transporta.tion Consultants. The traffic study analyzed the impacts of the proposed project
on the surrounding transportation system. The study looked at existing traffic counts, impacts of the
proposed development, impacts of approved development in the Anza. azea which has not yet been built,
and cumulative impacts upon full build-out of the Bayfront Area. The study also evaluated impacts on
traffic at the project's driveways, at the key intersections in the Bayfront Area. (Bayshore/US 101,
Bayshore/�irport Drive, Airport/Anza. and Airport/Coyote Point Drive) and on the Freeway Segments
on US 101.
The proposed project is projected to generate 77 a.m. peak hour vehicle trips (45 inbound and 32
outbound) and 82 p.m. peak-hour vehicle trips (49 inbound and 33 outbound). The project impacts
were evaluated using standard traffic impact analysis methodology and the Traffic Analyzer which was
developed for the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Area.
The traffic study concluded that under all of the above scenarios, except cumulative conditions, the
project would not have an adverse impact on the key intersections in the Bayfront Area. When the area
is built out, the Airport Boulevard/Coyote Drive intersection is projected to be operating beyond its
2
r �
� - `i��
� , �
SPECIAL PERMIT5 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 765 Airport Boulevard
capacity, and intersection improvements are recommended. However, this intersection is planned to
be improved in the future with the Peninsula interchange improvements when conditions warrant and
funding is available. Access roadway improvements to Peninsula are covered by the Bayfront
Development fee. This project is required to pay this fee and, therefore, is contributing its proportional
share toward mitigation of this cumulative impact.
In its analysis of the freeway segments on US 101, the traffic study concluded that all of the area.
freeway segments aze now operating beyond their design capacity, and under project and cumulative
conditions, will continue to operate beyond their capacity. The project is estimated to add 3 to 17
vehicles per hour during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The project would result in a 0.2% increase
in traffic volumes on U.S. 101 at peak commute hours, and the addition of project traffic would have
a negligible effect on freeway operations.
Traffic Allocation and Compliance with the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan: The
Burlingame Ba.yfront Specific Area Plan specifies development densities derived by computing the traffic
which would be generated by different intensities of uses. Hotels are limited to a density of 65 rooms
per acre. The proposed 132-room hotel on 2.038 acres conforms to this density requirement. If the
Commission determines to approve the project, the action will also include approval of a traffic
allocation for this project. The proposed hotel is projected to generate 82 p.m. peak hour trips. The
proposed hotel is projected to consume 0.6% of the capacity of the Bayshore/US 101 ramps intersection,
0.2 % of the capacity of the Bayshore/Airport Boulevazd intersection, and 0.4 percent of the capacity
of the Airport Boulevard/Coyote Point Drive intersection. The total projected consumed capacities for
the three key intersections in the Anza. area, including existing development, approved projects and this
proposal are as follows: Bayshore/US 101, 64.7%, Bayshore/Airport Boulevard, 62.4%; and Airport
Boulevard/Coyote Point, 71:6%. This analysis of consumed capacity includes the traffic allocation
granted for the office building at 577 Airport Boulevard.
Negative Declaration: The initial study prepared for this project identified potential impacts in the
areas of geological problems and transportation and circulation. However, based upon the traffic study
prepared for the project and the mitigation measures identified in the initial study, it has been
determined that the proposed project can be covered by a negative declaration since the initial study did
not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation. The
mitigation measures in the initial study are incorporated into the recommended conditions of approvat.
The Negative Declaration was routed to State Agencies for a 30-day review period through the Sta.te
Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research. Comments were recei�ed from Caltrans (see attached
transmittal date stamped April 21, 1997). Caltrans staff asked to show the estimated total number of
employees particulazly in the section where parking requirement is discussed. As noted earlier, the
estimated maximum number of employees on site at one time is expected to be 6 full time and 12 part
time (18 total) during the day on weekdays and on weekends. Caltrans staff also notes that the
Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates dated February 14, 1997
identified Anza Boulevazd as Anza Avenue throughout the report.
3
( l
��1�� , �y a
. Y
SPECIAL PERMITS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 765 Airport Boulevard
Staff Comments: The City Engineer and the Chief Building Inspector had no comments on the
proposed project. The Fire Marshal (Apri13, 1997 memo) states that the plans date stamped March 31,
1997 appear to have been adjusted to provide for adequate maneuvering of fire appazatus. Planning staff
would note that BCDC's Design Review Board reviewed this project on March 10, 1997. Their
comments and direction have been incorporated into the project plans by the developer as presented to
the Planning Commission.
Study Meeting: At the Apri114, 1997 Planning Commission study meeting the commission asked that
the consultant verify that the cumulative traffic impact analysis include the new building just approved
at 577 Airport Boulevard. Staff notes that the traffic impact study datetl February 14; 1997 identifies
the proposed office building at 577 Airport Boulevard as a pending project in the background conditions
analysis (page 1� and also under the cumulative conditions analysis (Table 18, Capacity consumed by
pending developments).
The commission asked that the applicant provide a detailed discussion of the lagoon frontage
improvements proposed, was the alternative of removing the rip-rap and replacing it with sandy beach
addressed? Is this an alternative? The applicant has responded to this request in the attached response
from Callander Associates dated April 18, 1997. The applicant states that no alternative which would
result in any structural modifications to the existing shoreline barrier were considered. The existing
shoreline is outside the applicant's property and would require approval of the adjacent property owner.
These modifications would also trigger an extensive permitting process through State and Federal
agencies and could result in delays which would jeopardize the project. The applicant has also submitted
a schematic plan (see attached Beach Alternative dated April 18, 1997) which outlines the obstacles to
the beach alternative. Other concerns associated with the beach alternative are the attractiveness of a
beach at this location, and difficulties associated with breaching the existing rip rap levee including
engineering and liability issues. �
The commission also states that the project is a little short on landscaping on site and in the front
setback, what mitigations aze being included to offset the shortfall. The applicant has addressed this
concern in the attached response from Callander Associates dated April 18, 1997. The applicant states
that total compliance with the guidelines is difficult to achieve because a disproportionate amount of the
site fa11s within BCDC jurisdiction, and compliance with BCDC guidelines reduces the area. available
to satisfy City guidelines. The applicant has also provided a Landscape Comparisons chart, dated April
17, 1997, which compazes the site landscaping with City guidelines. The applicant states that the
majority of City guidelines have been met, and where they have not been met, the deficiencies aze
slight. To mitigate for the lesser azea of frontage and parking lot landscaping, the applicant is providing
specimen size trees planted at the street, turf planted from sod instead of seed, the use of a majority of
lazger size container plantings and well thought out placement of plant material(see attached preliminary
planting plan dated Apri117, 199'�. The commission asked sta.ff to provide the heights of the Red Roof
Inn and the Embassy Suites hotels. The Red Roof Inn is 50'-0" in height, as measured from the
adjacent grade, and the Embassy Suites is 97'-0" in height, as measured from the top of curb at Airport
Boulevard.
C�
i ,i
� t: , Ttl
SPECIAL PERMITS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 765 Airport Boulevard
G4 Pro e Develo ment Standards and Desi n Guidelines or Ba ront Develo ment
<`:::>;:::�;::Pl� > �. ;.`'`'�::�':` :; :�;:;>;:':<::s;;;;':;'';:;;;:>.:' . >;;`>
.. L .. . .
<:.::::::>::>:<::<.. ,::>::::>::::>:::>::: ::::>:::: : :::>::>::>::>:><::::> >:>< ;;:»>::>::>:::<::>>;><::>::>;;<:<::<:<:
:: : :>:.
: ; ;::;.
.......... . . +C��S. _ . . D ;;;::
::>::>:<::>>;<:>;`:::>::>:<`>`::'<:::>::::::<:: �><>::<:<:<:<:>::>;`>::<:::::<:::»>::>'«::<�:::<:::<::<:':::»:�:':<::><::<< AI..
................................................................ ................................................................. ......................... ..:.:............:.:: (���: ::.:.:.:._.. . .�7IRE�..:::::::>::>
::: .:::: .. . � ::: ...........:: . .............................................................................................................::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:::::.::::.::...............
>:< �:.>::::;�`:<>: :: :>::::::>::::>:::::::;::>::::»::;:::>::;:««':: `::
; `� Fr`�'� �ii C'�:.::>::>::>::»::»>: <::::;:>::> <::»: «> <:: <:::»: :>: <>.
Front (Setbackfrom 125' 30'; not less than bldg. ht.
street) (77'-4") & not less than 1/z
Appt. Width of bldg. (72.5')
Side (Right) 66' . 10'
(Left) 75' 10'
Rear 58' -6" 25'
Setback from 65' Not less than Building Height
Lagoon* (77'-4")
>::><>> ;::':.:<::::::::><:::>;:::::<::::;:>:::«:::::>::::>
::L�i�`���aia�c�.:::::>:::::::>::::: : ::::::::::::::
. . ... .... . ........ ...........................
.............. .................... . ............ .............. ... ...
........ ........ ... ............. . .......... .. ......... .. ......
C-4 District 29,470.5 SF Landscaped/ 15 % of Total Land Area
Requirement 88,775 SF Lot Area. =33.2% (13,316 SF landscaped)
Bayfront Guidelines 22,321.5 SF Landscaped/ 40% of 100' Shoreline Band
- Shoreline 32,965 SF Shoreline Band (13,186 SF landscaped)
=67.7%
Bayfront Guidelines 7149 SF Landscaped/ 15 % of area. outside Shoreline
- Outside of 55, 810 Outside Shoreline Band � Band
Shoreline Band* = 12. 8% (8371 SF landscaped)
Bayfront Guidelines 2325 Landscaped/ 80% of Front Setback
- Front Setback* 4028 SF Front SB = 59.7 % (3222 SF landscaped)
Bayfront Guidelines 4343 SF Landscaped/ 10 % of Parking Area.
- Parking Area* 51,494 SF Parking Area =8.5 % (5149 SF landscaped)
;::;• ...:::;>:<:<:<:;:.;:.: .>:<:...;::;:«:;;::::. :
`„,'�;'a<:,�:,
:;::'C?;��::<t�►��1`,I�UCZ�(�N:;;::::;;;::;: From Airport Blvd - 100 % From Airport Blvd - 54 %
.........................:..........:.........................................
.............................................................................
............................................................................
..............................................................................
Fr m n- 2 o F -4 0
o La o0 55. rom on 0
% La o %
g g
<:: ii�ii���x�r:::�:::�irr�i�i�::::::::<:::::�� < ::::::'::::::::'
*Bayfront Guidelines 77'-4° 50'-0" Maximum
- Building Height (35' maximum within BCDC
jurisdiction)
Bayfront Spec�c 132 Rooms - 65 rooms per acre
Plan - Densities 2.038 Acres = 65 rooms/acre (132 rooms)
� �
�. `r�
r�, . ,
SPECIAL PERMITS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
C-4
Standards and
Space Requirement
Guidelines
132 Spaces
*Space Dimensions Standard - 109
Compact - 23 (20 %)
765 Airpori Boulevard
cont
1 Sp./room = 132 Spaces
Standard - 109
Compact - 23 (20%)
* Special permit for setback from the lagoon which is less than the building height, 12. 8% landscaping
outside the shoreline band where 15 % landscaping is the minimum required, 59.7 % landscaping of the
front setback azea, where 80 % is the minimum required, 8.5 % landscaping within the parking area,
where 10 % is the minimum required, 100 % view obstruction from Airport Boulevard where 54 % is the
maximum view obstruction allowed, 55.2 % view obstruction from the lagoon where 40 % is the
maximum view obstruction allowed, 77'-4" building height where 50' is the maximum height, and
where 35' is the malcimum height within BCDC jurisdiction.
This project meets all other zoning code and design guideline requirements.
�ndings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review
and approve the negative declaration (ND 485-P), fmding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. .
�ndings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit the Planning Commission must find
that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c):
(a)
�)
the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, or convenience;
the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame
general plan and the purposes of this title;
(c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it
deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in
a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential
uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity.
Planning Comm��.Gion Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be taken by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be
clearly stated. Please note that the conditions below which aze in italics are mitigation mea.sures taken
from the negative declaration. If the commission determines that these conditions do not adequately
address any potential significant impacts on the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report
would need to be prepared for this project. These conditions may not be amended without preparation
of an EIR. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
C
� ,
� f: Yrj
SPECIAL PERMITS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
765 Airport Boulevard
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped April 4, 1997, Sheet A1.01, and date stamped Apri18, 1997, Sheets A-2 through
A-10;
2. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's April 3, 1997 memo shall be met;
3. that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours,
and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight;
4. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
5. that the overall height of the building as measured from the grade at the first floor (9'-6"
elevation) sha11 be 77'-4 1/a";
6. that the landscaping as installed shall comply with the plant materials, size and form as stated
in the Callendar Associates letter of April 18,1997;
7. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for
more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent
residential purposes;
8. that guests, visitors or employees may not be chazged for`the use of on-site parking without
review and permission of the city, this would include valet parking anangements;
9. that in the future, as required, the developer shall participate in an assessment district formed
to provide an east-west transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other
intercity transit opporiunities for employees and guests as well as providing an on-site
transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to
facilitate employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel;
10. that the hotel shall provide on-site security services and patrol, including the portion of the
public access area on the site;
11. that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and
pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping sha11 follow the procedure established by
a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control;
12, that the traffic allocation for a 132 room hotel which is a part of the planning approval of this
project shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time the planning
approval expires on the proj ect;
7
,
� '� r �
ri �r �
SPECIAL PERMITS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
765 Airport Boulevard
13 . that the project shall meet the requirements .of the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
the State Lands Commission (Land Use and Planning);
14 . that the project shall conform to any seismic requirements of the State Architect's o, f�ice
(geologic);
15. that seismic-resistant construction shall follow the recommendations of the site-specific
geotechnical investigations (geologic);
16. that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City
Engineer (geologic);
17. that all runo„�`'created during construction, future discharge and storm drain collection from the
site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards, and that all applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be
adhered to in the design and during construction (geologic, water, utilities and service systems),:
18. that all applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best
management Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including
stabilizing areas denuded due to const�uction prior to the wet season; and future discharge from
the site shall meet the applicable Best Management Practices for surface water runo,fj`'and storm
drain maintenance (geologic);
19. that an oil separator shall be installed to reduce pollutants from runo„fl`'entering the storm drain
system (utilities and service systems);
20. that project structures shall be built on piles, as mitigation for static and seismic forces, and the
o,,�`'ice buildings shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation 9.5 feet
(+9. S feet MSL), or 2. S feet above possible flood level if a levee should break (geologic, waterJ;
21. that emergency power for the storm drainage system for this site shall be provided (geologic,
water); �
22. that waxer and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material and in the event that there
is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, all utilities and the site shall be repaired (geologic);
23. that tide gates shall be provided on the storm drains to keep high water from back; f lowing onto
the site in high flood periods (geologic);
24. that if lateral spreading of'the edge of the lagoon should occur while the site is being filled, work
shall stop and the project sponsor shall correct the spreading and shall take appropriate action,
in compliance with the requisite regulatory agencies, to prevent further damage from occurring
(geologic);
:
� �a
1 r i
rt ,
SPECIAL PERMITS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 765 Airpori Boulevard
25. that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion into the adjacent lagoon will be minimal
(water);
26. that backflow prevention for storm drainage to the lagoon shall be provided (waterJ;
27. that a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans
shall be provided at time of permit application (water);
28. that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed (water);
29. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and
construction (air quality);
30. thax construction equipmenx emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and a BAAQMD permit shall be obtained before
a building permit is issued (air quality);
31. that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza
area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share for improvements which would
mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the
' time of application and one-half due before asking for a final framing inspection
(transportation/circulation);
32. that the project sponsor shall provide an airport shuttle service, which includes connections to
Caltrain to accommodate employees during sh� changes (transportation/circulation);
33. that the required parking area shall not be used for long-term parking as a part of a hotel
promotion (transportation/circulation);
34. that there shall be no charge for customers or guests to park in the parking lot
(transportation/circu`lation); `
35. that if the fill material or asphalts are to be removed from the site during construction, analytical
testing of the removed materials for petroleum hydrocarbons or metals will be required to class�
the material for appropriate disposal (hazards);
36. that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction imposed by the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven before 9: 00 a. m. on Saturday, and
none shall be driven on Sunday (noise);
37. that interior noise levels shall be reduced to a maximum of 45 dBA (noise);
9
� ,,
`,: Y �
r
SPECIAL PERMITS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
765 Airport Boulevard
38. that the proposed hotel project shall be required to meet the City's exterior lighting standards,
as well as the tree planting provisions of the City's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection
Ordinance (aestheticsJ;
39. that if arty prehistoric or historic archeological relics as defined in the Negative Declaration are
discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated
and proper protection measures, as determined by a qualified cultural resources consultant, can
be implemented; project personnel shall not collect cultural resources; any identified cultural
resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sites) and/or DPR 523 (historic
properties) or similar forms (cultural resources); and �
40. that BCDC approval shall be obtained for the proposed development within BCDC jurisdiction,
and a BCDC permit shall be obtained prior to construction activities (recreationJ.
Maureen Brooks
Planner
c: Robert Sauvageau, architect
10
� ;�
�'� T�� i��'� � � r o�
euaunpnM¢
i��° h:.:��
�e
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION
Type of Application:�Special Permit Variance Other _
Project Address: i�� �1V�,Y�OVZ.T� %LVD•
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): O 2<o - 3`E-`�' - I�
APPLICANT � PROPERTY OWNER - - �
765 �tiZ�°o►2T 6���'•
Name: LI M 1-� �P�rt.'�� �KS 1�, l�' Name: SR1M E�S ��°� l,lC.,�l�l �
Address: 351 �I�q�G�ll: ftiNE..ST,E.380 Address:
City/State/Zip: s��s �nc�t to . c� q 40 �� City/State/Zip:
Phone (w): �-I� "r3'77 � 4� o� Phone (w):
�h� : __-___
fax: �t 5�-17 I S I o
—
(h):
fa�c:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
E�YS ��,c�ll��vie�
Name: �,o��.�rzT SrcU�/'��� l,�'7� Please indicate with an asterisk * the
Address: 1'2-3 �'OWIJS�IJ►� 5�'. ST�E. 57'S
City/State/Zip: Si'i1�1 �Ye}�NGj�SG� _ G/� q�-� o%
Phone (w):�-15 543 �'o(�`�''S
contact person for this application.
�h� : _-^.
fax: �1-I� �43 3�C� �
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: t�E10�! l3 2 12OOM tiOTt�
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I
%ici�iii iS uuE 8i"i'u� CGIT:.Ci tt3 ��'18
I know about the proposed
application to the Planning C
certify _under penalty of perjury that the information given
�y n.^:��,�1:dge and bali��.
hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
—� 3 i 2
ignature Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY �
O-----------------------------------------
Date Filed: Fee:
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date:
'�
4
�` .
'' �;� "f�°"�'"°""` COr�IIVIF�tCIAL APPLICATIONS
' �._..,�.•�'' PLANNING COD�IIviISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMEN'rAL FORM
1.
�
Proposed use of the site. I 3 2- I�OOM N � TL�-
Days and hours of operation. 7✓� S,l �N ��.. � 2
3. . Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type). � � hf u Z'7't.�
v,�►�
4. . Current and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location:
Hours of
Operation
Weekdays
Full-time
Part-time
Weekends
Full-time
Part-time
Existing
AM- After
PM 5:00 PM
� �
t2 2
� 3
t 2- I 3
In 2 Years
AM- . After
PM 5:00 PM
� 3
l2 2-
(� . 3
l2 � `�
In � 5 Years
AM- After�
PM 5:00 PM
� 3
(2 2
(� 3
l� I 3
Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site:
5.
Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years
Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After
Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM
Weekdays 2.�J 0(0 � I 0� Zc� f o 6
Weekends 2� � O�o 2o I 0(� Zo �l�(�
6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner,
employees and visitors/customers):
�?� -
7.
Where do/will the owner & employees park? ON •� I� �°,a,2.�� �)C�
• 8. Where do/will customers/visitors parl�l Ol�- s t�. P�2.ic[ �Jl�. 02
�+2�21� ( � � ►3 � S K u }�1,� � V s �
9. Present or most recent use of site. �4 ��7 �' �� —
10. List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach
� list if necessary).
N�tNE -
�n � cir"r o
'��. ��',�� .�
. ,
. BURLJNGAME I
. ; �q� ti �,` �
How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame
Genera/ Plan and Zoning Ordinance7
r,
� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
�� (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the foliowing questions will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Piease type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or. injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
convenience. � �
S�E �T'rRChl'E�•
�1'
2.
3.
`� _J
CITti' ��)F EU�LIf��GHI��.�IE
SPECl/1L F''Er�MIT l�,PF'LIC�TI01`JS
s E� ��Ac.�.E�O
How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
.
� �� }�1T14CF��`�
, 2�92
ep.frm
, ��.
' ,i
1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious "ta
property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, oi
convenience. �
� ' ��
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on t��ose
propertiest If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving,
landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance.
Why will the structu�e or use within the structure r�ot affect the public's health, safety or general welfare7
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbaflel, air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems,
water supply safety, and things which have the. potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks,
storape of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases).
Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection7 �II alarm system:
or sprinklers be installed7 Could the st�ucture or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services
(i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials,
or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy anc
goals for conservation and development7 Is there a social benefit7 '
�onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parkin� for
this site or adjacent sitesl7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly oi
handicapped7
2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera�
P/an and Zoning Ordinance? ; . �
Ask the Planning Department for the general plan designation and zoning district for the proposed project site. Alsc
ask for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the statec
designated use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would "fit" accordingly.
3. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass,,bu/k and character of thE
existing neighborhood and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood7 If it does not affect
aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existin�
architecture, 'pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl If a use will affect the way �
neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the are�
and explain why it "fits". �
How does the proposed structure'compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no changE
to st�ucture, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with othe�
structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighbo�hood7 Think of character a:
the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. �II there be morc
traffic or less parking available resulting from this use7 If you don't feel the characte� of .the neighborhood will change,
state why. � �
How will the proposed project be compatible with existinfl and potential uses in the fleneral vicinity7' Compare-vow
project �with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/o it�
why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. �-
,srez
sp.frm
;,
r,
� � r_
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safely,
general welfare, or convenience. �
Traffic: A traffic impact study was prepared and found that the project would not
have a significant impact on intersection congestion nor on freeway operating
conditions.
Noise: Construction will be done in conformance with California Building Code
and City of Burlingame noise mitigation requirements.
Lighting: Any glare from on-site lighting will be directed away from the
neighboring properties.
Paving: The area of paving has been distributed around the hotel building in mostly
single-aisle parking rows, thereby minimizing any large expanses of paving.
Landscaping: 24% of the site area is dedicated to landscaped public access along
the Burlingame Lagoon frontage.
Sunlight/shade/views: The effect of shading on the neighboring Red Roof Inn is
minimized by the placement of the hotel in the center of the site. Similarly, view
obstruction is minimized by the central placement.
Public Health
Sanitation: Trash will be enclosed in a service area behind a wall.
Air quality: No objectionable odors or significant change in air quality is
anticipated. Traf�c emissions would be insignificant.
Discharges into sewer and storxnwater systems; water supply safety: Grading and
construction operations will conform to governing agency regulations. An oil
separator will be installed in the storm drain system.
Public Safetv
No significant impact on police and fire protection. The project is in an urbanized
area with existing public facilities are in place and have been designated to
accommodate this hotel use.
+ � v
e' 'i'
Fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems will be installed.
General Welfare
The improvements to the public access trail along the Burlingame Lagoon will
increase the amount of area available for public recreation.
Convenience
Three parking stalls are designated for public access to the public access trail on the
Burlingame Lagoon. Access to the trial and to the parking lot and hotel will be
handicapped accessible.
2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the
Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
The proposed hotel is consistent with the hotels/motels land use designation of the
General Plan and the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan. The C-4 zone
district permits a hotel use.
3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing neighborhood and potential uses on adjoining properties in
the general vicinity?
Aesthetics: The building is in character with the other hotel buildings in the area.
The sloped roof compares with the Embassy Suites and the Red Roof Inn. The
interior corridor allows for a more pleasing exterior wall treatment than the Red
Roof Inn. The one-and-a-half story pavilion building to the front of the Hilton hotel
is similar in placement with the restaurant building in front of the Red Roof Inn,
and the six-story Hilton hotel building compares with the eight story Doubletree
hotel building.
Mass and bulk: The footprint of the Hilton hotel is smaller than the surrounding
buildings. The mass and bulk is significantly smaller than the Doubletree, Embassy
Suites, and Crown Plaza hotels. The orientation to the Burlingame Lagoon is
similar to the Red Roof Inn, and therefore maximizes the view corridors to the
Lagoon.
Character of the neighborhood: The proposed hotel will not change the character of
the neighborhood, since the area is already characterized by hotels and motels.
�
/' • 4 / 1 , � 1
� CITY OF BURLINGAME
tC�Ji�7 p�pNNING DEPARTMENT
euR��N�amE : 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (415) 696-7250
76S AIItPQRT BOIJLEVARD APl�i: 026-344-120
Applicatian for _ne$ative declaratirni �nd special
pernnits . for a 132 room hotel at 765 Air�ort
$oulevard, zoned C-4.
The City of Burlingame Planning Comnussian
announces tha following public hearing on
�y, Arni128.1997 at 7:(l0 P.M. in the City
Hall Cotmcil Chambers located at 501 P'rimrose
Rosd, Burlin�eme, California. ,
��«t �;t is, i�
(Please referto other side)
A copy of the a�
to the meeting
Burlingame, Ca
rt
�;,
.� " ,
If you challeng�
raising only tho
described in;°the
at or prior to tli
s.
F;'=
Property ownez.
tenants about�;t�
696-7250 Tha;
� � ;.
Y � .,:
Margaret Ivionii
� -,
City Planner `
�
, f
�
� I
�
,.
PUBLIC HEARING �
NOTICE . ,
CITY OF B URLINGAME
and plans,for th�s-�ro�ect, may be reviewed prior
Plarimng ,7)epartment :�t4.S01 Primrose Road,
�; ,� ;. . �� �:_ �s .� . .r�
be limited to
blic hearing,
;d to the ciry
ming their
call (415)
RUBLIC �HEa`RINGy I�OTICE
(Please refer to other side)
_ : . ''�
' ;, ' � � .
RFSOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND SPECIAL PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
1 ' -_.� - �� .�• ��- � ��� -� � .�� • �-- .�- • �-.
�" 11 • � 1 � 1• .1 1" :-1 1' Ile. 11 .11 1' •1 . 1 1 1' M� �1 � 1- i.
•1: \.1�1 .11 /- - �111'1 •1111 •1 �i / .�1 ' -:.1 1" 1- •1 '� 1' •1 � � •,11 �
.�.�.� 1" '. •1 A�. 1•1 .`�dl : 1. , .�� .�1 ,.1' •. �" 1" 1� " 1' /.1� 1 1" �1 ' 1. ,
.11 �/.1 1 !' 1. ,�1' ! ".� 1" '1 ' . 1' 1" �. ,!.. .1_:l1, �- -:1111"1 . • � ��•� i�. ' � 1 • '��
� • i �� � � i• � 11 "�I �. � 1" 1 1 1• �" � •• 1" i�� � • �� �
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
.��ri128� 1997 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and a11 other written materials
and testimony presented at said hearing; �
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
recei�ed and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a signiiicant effect on the environment, and negative declaration, per
�Negative Declaration No. ND 485P is hereby approved.
2. Said special pernuts are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such special permits are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo.
- CHAIl2MAN
I, _�harles Mink , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 2gth day of A�ril , 1997 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
� p
w �� r � M ��D
u
/i��i
- ------ -__==._,T.-_. ...... ..........>_. .... ..-• : ••- •-._ *--
Conditions of approval negative declaratiori and special permits
765 Airport Boulevard
effective MAY 5, 1997
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped Apri14, 1997, Sheet A1.01, and date stamped April 8, 1997, Sheets A-2
through A-10; �
2. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's Apri13, 1997 memo shall be met; _
3. that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating
hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or
overnight; •
4, that the use and any improvements for the use sha11 meet all the requirements of the
California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of
Burlingame.
5. that the overall height of the building as measured from the grade at the first floor (9' -6"
elevation) shall be 77'-4 lh";
6. that the landscaping as installed shall comply with the plant materials, size and form as
stated in the Callendar Associates letter of April 18,1997;
7. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity
for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for
permanent residential purposes;
8. that guests, visitors or employees may not be charged for the use of on-site parking without
review and permission of the city, this would include valet parking arrangem�nts;
9. that in the future, as required, the develaper shall participate in an assessment district
formed to provide an east-west transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or
any other intercity transit opporiunities for employees and guests as well as providing an on-
site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area,
to facilita.te employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel;
10. that the hotel shall provide on-site security services and patrol, including the portion of the
public access azea on the site;
Fa
�' �� 1 ��' `D
r
11. that the site shall be landsca.ped with vegeta.tion which requires a minimum of fertilization
and pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure
established by a qualified lan.dscape architect. and approved by the city for fertilization and
pest control;
12, that the traffic allocation for a 132 room hotel which is a part of the planning approval of
this project shall run with the conditional use permits and shall exgixe;at.the.same time the
planning approval expires on the project;
13 . that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Conservation and Development
_ Commission, the U. S. Arnry Corps of Engineers, the Regio-�� 33zater Quality Control Board
and the State Lands Commission (Larid Use and Planning);
14 , that the project shall conform to any seismic requirements of the State Architect's o,�ce
(geologic); .
IS. that seismic-resistanx construction shall follow the recommendations of the site-spec�c
geotechnical investigations (geologic);
16. that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the
City Engineer (geologic);
17. that all runo„�'created during construction, fuxure discharge and storm drain collection from
the site shall be required to meet National Polluxion Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards, and that all applicable requiremenxs of the NPDES permit for the site shall be
adhered to in the design and during construction (geologic, water, utilities and service
systems);
I8. that all applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best
managemenx Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including
stabilizing areas denuded due to construction prior to the wet season; and future discharge
from the site shall meet the applicable Best Management Practices for surface water runo,�`'
and storm drain maintenance (geologic); -
19. that an oil separator shall be installed to reduce pollutants from runo, fJ`'entering the storm
drain system (utilities and service systemsJ; -
20. that project structures shall be built on piles, as mitigation for static and seismic forces, and
the o,�ce buildings shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation
9. S feet (+9. S feet MSL), or 2. S feet above possible flood level if a levee should break
(geologic, water);
3
R . ¢
hi N � 1 /�
♦'' � �t
21. that emergency power for the storm drainage system for this site shall be provided (geologic,
water);
22. that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material and in the event that
there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, all utilities and the site shall be repaired
(geologicJ;
23. that tide gates shall be provided on the storm drains to keep high water from back flowing
onto the site in high flood periods (geologic);
24, that if Zateral spreading �f �he �dge of the lagoon should occur while the site is being filled,
work shall stop and the project sponsor shall correct the spreading and shall take
appropriate action, in compliance with the requisite regulatory agencies, to prevent further
damage from occurring (geologic);
25. that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion into the adjacent Z�goon will be
minimal (water);
26. that backflow prevention for storm drainage to the Zagoon shall be provided (water);
27. that a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan together with landscape and irrigation
plans shall be provided at time of permit application (waterJ;
28. that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed (water);
29. that'the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and
construction (air quality);
30. thut construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay
Area Air Quality Managemenx District (BAAQIIID) and a BAAQII� permit shall be obtained
before a building permit is issued (air quality);
31. that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the
Anza area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share for improvements which
would mitigate cumulative impacts of this a�d other projects on area circulation, one-half
due at the time of application and one-half due �before asking for a final framing inspection
(transportation/circulation);
32. that the project sponsor shall provide an airport shuttle service, which includes connections
to Caltrain to accommodate employees during sh� changes (transportation/circulationJ;
33. that the required par7�ing area shall not be used for long-term parking as a part of a hotel
promotion (transportation/circulation);
4
r �)
�r �y � t� �v .� �,
34. that there shall be no charge for customers or guests to park in the parking lot
(transportation/circulationJ;
35. that if the fill material or asphalts are to be removed from the site during construction,
analytical testing of the removed materials for petroleum hydrocarbons or metals will be
required to class� the material for appropriaxe disposal (hazardsJ;
36. that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction imposed by the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven before 9: 00 a. m. on Saturday, and
none shall be driven on Sunday (noise);
37. that interior noise levels shall be reduced to a maximum of 4S dBA (noise);
38. that the proposed hotel project shall be required to meet the City's exterior lighting
standards, as well as the tree planting provisions of the City's Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protection Ordinance (aestheticsJ; .
39. that if arry prehistoric or historic archeological relics as defined in the Negative Declaration
are discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully
investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by a qual�ed cultural resources
consultant, can be implemented; project personnel shall not collect cultural resources; any
identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sites)
and/or DPR 523 (historic properties) or similar forms (cultural resources); and
40. that BCDC approval shall be obtained for the proposed development within BCDC
jurisdiction, and a BCDC permit shall be obtained prior to construction activities
(recreation).
5