HomeMy WebLinkAbout765 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 12.14.1998�
�l .
h s ' y�b. ' . . . i
� '-i ' ��
r _4
�
City of Burlingame
Negative Declaration and Conditional
for a 132-room Hotel
Address: 765 Airport Boulevazd
Use Permits
ITEM #_14_
Meeting Date: 12/14/98
Request: Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Pernuts to allow development of a new six-story, 132-
room hotel which exceeds the design review height (77'-4" height, where 50' is the maximum height
and 35' is the ma�cimum height within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission), and to vary from the view obstruction, lagoon setback and landscaping requirements of
the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development at 765 Airport Boulevazd, zoned C-4 (C.S. 25.41.025
�d) �d �fl) •
Applicant: Robert Sauvageau, RYS Architecture APN:
Property Owner: 765 Airport Boulevard
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
History: On Apri128, 1997, the Planning Commission considered and approved this application for
conditional use permits. The applicant has been pursuing the completion of the development and has
completed working drawings and plan check; he is ready to get his building permits. However, the
original approval on this application expired on May 5, 1998 because construction had not started within
a year of approval. and the applicant did not request a one-year extension. There have been no changes
to the project from what was previously approved.
Summary: The applicant, Robert Sauvageau, RYS Architecture, is proposing construction of a six-
story, 132-room hotel which requires the following conditional use permits:
1. to exceed the maximum height review line of 50' and to exceed 35' in height within BCDC
jurisdiction (77'-4" height proposed);
2. to exceed the view obstruction limitations of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development
(100% view obstruction from Airport Boulevard, 80% allowed; 55% view obstruction from the
lagoon, 40% allowed); .
3.
for setback from the lagoon which is less than the building height (65' provided, 77'-4"
required);
4. to vary from the landscape requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development:
a. azea outside BCDC jurisdiction (12.8% landscaping provided, 15% required);
b. area within the front setback (59.7% landscaping provided, 80% required);
c. landscaping within the parking area (8.5% landscaping provided, 10% required).
,
� �
Negative Declaralion and Conditional Use Permits for six-story, 132-room hotel 765 Airport Boulevard
7'
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
dimensioned at 8'-0" x 17'-0", and the applicant is proposing 23 compact spaces (20%).
T'he 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, and it will be parked on site. Initially, there will be 6 full-time
employees and 12 part-time employees during the day on weekdays, 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 5 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 small delivery trucks or vans will
make periodic deliveries during operating hours. No trucks will be parked on-site continuously
throughout the day.
Property Development Standards: The attached table shows the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Bayfront Development Design Guidelines as they relate to this project. The conditional use
permits required for this project are summarized above.
The project meets all other zoning requirements and design guidelines.
Traf�ic 5tudy: The applicant provided a traffic study for the proposal, prepared by Fehr and Peers,
Transportation 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 area 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/Airport 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 Trafiic 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
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.
�
T
r � �
v
Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permits for six-story, 132-room hotel 765 Airport Bouleva�
In its analysis of the freeway segments on US 101, the traffic study concluded that all of the area
freeway segments are 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 trafiic 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 SpeciCc Area Plan: The
Burlingame Bayfront 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 traffc
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 Boulevard intersection, and 0.4% 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, 71.8 %, Bayshore/Airport Boulevard, 79.8 %; and Airport
Boulevard/Coyote Point, 65.5%. This analysis of consumed capacity includes the traffc allocations
granted for the office building at 577 Airport Boulevard and for the hotel development at 835 Airport
Boulevard and 600 Airport Boulevard.
Capacity Capacity Consumed Total Consumed
Consumed - - This Project Capacity
Existing +
Approved Projects
Bayshore Hwy/US 101 71.2 % 0. 6% 71. 8%
Bayshore Hwy/Airport Blvd 79. 6% 0.2 % 79. 8%
Airport/Coyote Point Blvd 65.1 % 0.4 % 65.5 %
Negative Declaration: The initial study prepared for this project identified potential impacts in the
areas of geological problems, water, hazards 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 approval. Environmental conditions have not change since the project was originally
approved, therefore the original negative declaration is adequate.
Staff Comments: The City Engineer originally had no comments on the proposed project. The Fire
Marshal (November 18, 1996 and Apri121, 1997 memos) states that automatic sprinklers are required
to be extended into the existing system, and the existing fire alarm system may not support the addition
of this section. The project may trigger the replacement of the existing Fire Alarm system. The Chief
3
M
� �
♦ Negahive Declarahion and Conditional Use Permits for six-story, 132-room hotel 765 Airpo�t Boulevard
Building Inspector (November 12, 1996 and Apri121, 1997 memos) requires that an exiting study be
provided from the meeting room area, and requires that a disabled access facilities study be prepared
for the hotel (number & location of fully accessible, number & location of addidonal roll-in shower
units, and number and location of rooms for hearing/sight impaired. The City Engineer, the Fire
Marshal and the Chief Building Official (November 16, 1998 memos) all noted that the previous
comments apply to the cunent renewed proposal.
C-4 Pro ert Develo ment Standards and Desi n Guidelines or Ba ront Develo ment
,,.: :.::: :
>> ! PROPUSED ; ALLt�WED/REQ'D
, ;
SETI3ACI�S:
Front (Setback from street): 125' 30'; > bldg. ht. (77'-4")
& > 'h Appt. Width of
bldg. (72.5')
Side (Right) 66' 10'
(Left) 75' 10'
Rear 58'-6" 25'
Setback from Lagoon: 65' Not less than building
height (77'-4")
��.:: �LY���7�r�P11rVr;
C-4 District Requirements 33.2 % of Land Area 15 % of Land Area
(29,470.5 SF) (13,316 SF)
Bayfront Guidelines - Shoreline 67.7 % of shoreline band 40 % of shoreline band
(22,321.5 SF) (13,186 SF)
Bayfront Guidelines - Outside of 12. 8% of azea outside of 15 % of area outside of
Shoreline Band* shoreline band shoreline band
(7149 SF) (8371 SF)
Bayfront Guidelines 59.7% of front setback 80% of Front Setback
- Front Setback (2325 SF) (3222 SF)
Bayfront Guidelines 8.5% of Parking Area 10% of Parking Area
- Parking Area* (4343 SF) (5149 SF )
t�tL� OB;STRirIC7'ION*
From Airport Blvd. 100% 54%
From Lagoon. 55.2 % 40 %
4
� �
Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permits for six-story, 132-rnom hotel 765 Ai�port Boulevanl
r
< ; ;
,
' PR�PO►�ED ALT:OWED/REf,�'D',
;
> �Y'L�'1'C"iHT �i BL1L'K.. . :.:: ': '; '
*Bayfront Guidelines 77'-4" 50'-0" Maximum
- Building Height (35' maximum within
BCDC jurisdiction)
Bayfront Specific Plan - 65 rooms per acre 65 rooms per acre
Densities (132 rooms) (132 rooms)
: ;
PARKING ; ,
Space Requirement 132 Spaces 1 Sp./rm = 132 spaces
Space Dimensions Standard - 109 Standard - 109
Compact - 23 (20%) Compact - 23 (20%)
* Conditional use permit for 12.8% landscaping outside the shoreline band (15 % required); 59.7% front
setback landscaping (80% required); 8.5% landscaping within the parking area (10% required); and
77'-4" building height (50' height review line and 35' maximum height within BCDC jurisdiction.
This project meets all other zoning code and design guideline requirements.
F'indings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review
and reapprove 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.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional use 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 proposeti 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;
(b) 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.
5
_ �
r
Negative Declamtion and Conditional Use Permits for six-story, 132-room hotel 765 Airport Boulevard
Planning Commission 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 are in italics are mitigation measures taken
from the negative declaration. If the commission determines that these conditions do not adequately
address the impacts on the environment to reduce them to acceptable levels, then an Environmental
Impact Report would need to be prepared for this project. At the public hearing the following
conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped November 12, 1998, Sheets A1.01 through A-10 and Sheets Ll and L2;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Of�cial's and City Engineer's November 16, 1998
memos and the Fire Marshal's Apri13, 1997 and November 16, 1998 memos 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) shall be 77'-4 'h";
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 rocros and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent
residential purposes except that the hotel manager may live on the site;
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 arrangements;
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 opportunities 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 shall follow the procedure established by
a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control;
0
k �
:
Negative Declaration and Condilional Use Permits for six-story, 132-room hotel 765 Airport Boulevard
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 project;
13 . that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, the U. S. Arnry 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,�ce
(geologic);
l5. 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 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 runof�`'entering the storm drain
system (utilities and service systemsJ;
20. thaZ 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 9.5 feet
(+9.5 feet MSL), or 2.5 feet above possible flood level if a levee should break (geologic, water);
2l. that emergency power for the storm drainage system for this site shall be provided (geologic,
water);
22. thas water and sewer lines shall be constructed from,flexible material and in the event that there
is subsidence us 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 flowing 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,
�
� � c
Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permits for six-story, 132-room hotel 765 Airport Boulevard
�-
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 lagoon will be minimal
(water);
26. that back, flow prevention for storm drainage to the lagoon 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 (water);
28. that low flow plumbing frxtures shall be installed (water);
29. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and
construction (air qualityJ;
30. that construction equipment 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);
3I. 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/ci rculati on);
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 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/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 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);
:
�� �
Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permits for six-story, 132-room hotel 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 (aesthetics);
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 fied cuttural resources consultant, can
be implemented; project personnel shall not collect cultural resources; any identified cultural
resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sitesJ 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).
Maureen Brooks
Planner
c: Robert Sauvageau, azchitect
G7
__ y `
Burlingmne Planning Co»vnission Minutes April 28, 1997
_�
C. Deal noted this is a good project. He then moved
City Council.
adjustment to
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A 132 ROOM HOTEL AT 765 AIRPORT
BOULEVARD, ZONED ' C-4, (765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discusseti the request; reviewed
criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Forty conditions were
suggested for consideration:
C. Ellis opened the public hearing on the negative declaration and project. Robert Sauvegeau, RYS
Architecture and Mark Schlecter, Callendar Associates presented the application. They asked that
condition number 9 be modified to read property owner, rather than developer and clarified that in
condition number 20, 2.5 feet above possible flood level is 9.5 feet, and in reference to condition
number 21, the storm water will drain to the lagoon via a gravity system no pumping will be required.
In response to Commission questions: they clarified that a sandy beach would not be appropriate and
would eliminate the habitat areas; there would not be enough water movement to keep the sand clean
and useable; they have no plan to alter the shoreline on the water side at the existing levee, the land
does not belong to them; the plant specimen trees along the street will be 24 inch box size along the
side property Iines, new trees will be mixed in size from 15 gallon to 24 inch box. There were no
other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Galligan moved approval of the negative declaration based ori the review noting that the project is
consistent with the plan and with what exists in the area. The potential impacts identified by the city
and BCDC have been addressed in the mitigations. There have been no environmental problems
experienced as a result of previous developments in the area and no unique or special conditions exist
on that site therefore there is no environmental significant effect with the mitigations as noted in the
conditions on the project.
The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and carried 7-0 voice vote.
C. Mink then moved approval of the special permits for a 132 room hotel for the reasons stated, there
is no view obstruction and the design guidelines are met. The project fits and is unique to the frontage
road/Lagoon. It was noted for the record that the only the property owner can be assessed and that the
emergency power noted in condition number 21 will not be necessary if the storm water will drain to
the lagoon via a gravity system. The motion is by resolution and with the following modified
conditions: 1) 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
-13-
- .
Burlingu»te Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997
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 chazged for the use of on-site parking without review and permission of the city, this would
include valet parking arrangements; 9) that in the future, as required, the property owner shall
participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east-west transit connection to CalTrain,
SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other intercity transit opportunities for employees and guests as well
as providing an on-site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in
the azea, 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 shall 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 project; 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 office (geologic); 15) that seismic-
resistant construction shall follow the recommendations of the site-speciiic 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 runoff created during construction, future discharge and
storm drain collection from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Dischazge Elimination
System (NPDFS) 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 azeas 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 runoff and storm drain maintenance (geologic); 19) that
an oil separator shall be installed to reduce pollutants from runoff 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, �nd the office buildings shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation
to elevation 9.5 feet (+9.5 feet MSL), or 2.5 feet above possible flood level if a levee should break
(geologic, water); 21) that emergency . power for the storm drainage system for this site shall be
provided if gravity flow is not used (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 (geologic); 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 lateral spreading of the erige 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 lagoon will
-14-
- � �
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997
be minimal (water); 26) that backflow prevention for storm drainage to the lagoon shall be provided
(water); 2'� 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) that construction equipment 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 shift 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/circulation); 35) that
if the fill material or asphalts are to be removed from the site during constriiction, analytical testing
of the removed materials for petroleum hydrocarbons or metals will be required to classify 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); 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 Urbari
Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (aesthetics); 39) that if any prehistoric or historic
azcheological 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
(azchaeological sites) and/or DPR 523 (historic properties) or similaz 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).
The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were adviserl.
DETERMINAT'I�N REGARDING NON-AIJ� RELATED USES IN�C-2, SUBAREA D, AUTO
Reference staff report, 4.28.97, with attachments. Monroe discussed th request, reviewed
criteria, Planning Depart nt comments, and study mee ' g questions. Commiss ner asked if the
tique store previously in t's tenant space had a use pe '; staff noted that they 'd not, but the
st e was no longer operating the site. �
,. Chair Ellis opened the public h'ng and asked if the applicant as present. Dave Man , real
estate br er representing the owner applicant, noted that he felt th his letter stated his con rn.
He comme ed that the broker for the on shop and the shop owners ere also present. Fie s
asked why h did not get a special perm' . Mr. Marino responded that he called the Planning
s:�' � .
� -15-
.=� �,,! , , ,
Burlingame Planning Co»vnisszon Minutes
�
.__� �
April 14, 1997
��°'"� �� .�.,,,._ __
there be tables a�"d� chairs in each of the lobbies. Item se public hearin on A ril 2
providin e have the letter from BCDC in time. , � P t, 1��7,
�6• APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A 132.
ROOM HOTEL AT 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (765 AIRPORT
BOULEVARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERSI
Requests: consultant should verify if the cumulative traffic impact includes the new building just
approved at 577 Airport; 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 project is a little short on landscaping on site and in the front setback, what mitigations
are being included to off-set the short fall; provide the heights of the Red Roof Inn and the Embassy
Suites hotels. Item was set for public hearing April 28, 1997 if responses aze completed in time.
7. PPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A CHURCH AT 1500
EA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 AND R-3, (B�B DAVIDSON, APPLICANT AND ARTHUR
Ti ('TTAilR D�nn�nmv �«�.,,-.�,.
Requests: thought ho e next door was going to remain on parate parcel, why has it been merged
into the larger piece; h the church understood the problem used by this merger if they wish, in
the future, to sell the ho e separately; the city needs an easemen r an old water vault found on the
site when the survey was one. Item set for pubic hearing on April 1997, providing the map can
be adjusted and the questio answered in time.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
8. APPLICATION FOR FRONT �BACK AND PARKING VARIANCES AT 12 BALBOA
AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (DAIVIEL��IERMANN, APPLICANT AND ROBER ND ANN
un�'iTtC�T-�11�lA DDl1T]T.nmv ��in,�,-„�... ,.
Reference sta • 4.14.97, with attachments.
Monroe discussed the request, reviewed
criteria, Planning Departm comments, and study meeting uestions. Two conditions were suggested
for consideration. A letter fro Mr. O'Brien, 114 Balboa, in pport of the ro'ect was r
record. �_ P J ead into the
C. Ellis opened the public h g. Dan Bierman, 1620 El Cami� Real, the designer and Ann
Hoeksema, 1112 Balboa Avenu the applicant, were present to ansv� questions and ex lain the
application. They noted that th 'r data showed more than half the hous on the block ave one
covered off-street parking space, many of these aze larger houses than the roposal, they would
like the same opportunity. A two car age would have to be put further back on he lot which would
reduce the useable rear yard area and ca trees important to screening rear yard.
Applicant noted, looked at different options this design is the least detrimental to the landscaping, i.e.,
the Persimmon, Cherry and Oak trees. Does provide for 4 parking spaces off the street because of
the driveway. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed.
-3-
_ „r� ciry � .. . .
, ' - � . `�R�N4..M� CITY OF BURLINGAlV�
��..���� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
: -
Type of Application:�Special Permit Variance Other
Project Address: 7�S l�11��POYZT f�LVD•
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): D 2�- 3 4`� - I�
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER
76 5 Pl1�,Po►e�' g�ut�.
Name: _ LI M 1'� �f�R.��l E�KS ki 1 p Name: Sf�wl E AS �l°�° L1C.A�1`I�
Address: 35.1 r���� �vE_.51E.3a0 Address:
City/State/Zip: s�u $r�u►�o. �..� 94o_b� City/State/Zip:
Phone (w): �-l.r-� "��i% J9�� Phone (w):
�h�; -
fax: �-1 5 9�17 I a I o
�h�: .
fax:
ARCHITECTIDESIGNER �
RYS ,�Rc� I'fF�TUI��
Name: �o�'T' S�cc��/f�C �A�l� 7� Please indicate with an asterisk * the
Address: l'23 `1'OWIJSFU►� ST. Si�. 51� contact person for this application.
City/State/Zip: Sf�t� �IeA-►JGIS� . C�Q 9�-� o%
Phone (w): �-15 S43 �(�`�''S
�h�; ..._--
fax: 41� 543 3�C��
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: I�IE�PI L 3 2 Y�OOM H OT��
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I eby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
hzreira zs true anu co;rect to the t o�,�fiy �,owledge and belief.
I know about the proposed appli
application to the Planning Com�i
7
ate
hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
?j � z
ignature Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------------------------------
RECEIVE��
Date Filed: Fee•
NOV 1 21998
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: GAME
PLANNING DEPT.
8:15 a��+
♦
f� O�
�_ � �(JRUMaAM( COMIVV�RCIAL APPLICATIONS
' � ,
� ��._.._..��' FLANNING COMIvIISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT.AL FORM
a
1.
Proposed use of the site. I 3 2 RooM N o Tt�-
2.
Days and hours of operation. 7� 5/ W��1c. , 2
3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type). � 5�E u i�tLE"
��N
4. . Current and projected maximum number of employe�s
F.xisting In 2 Years
Hours of
Operation
Weekdays
Full-time
Part-dme
Weekends
Full-time
Part-time
AM- After AM- After
PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM
� -
� .
� �
� 3
t2 3
� 3
�2 2
( 3
l2 I �
ng,owner) at this location:
In•5 Years
AM- After
PM 5:00 PM
� 3
12-- 2
� 3
l 2- I 3
5. Current and nroiected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site:
F�cisting 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
weekaays � 2� o(v � I o 6 Zc� ( 0 6
Weekends 2�U � 0�0 2o I 0 6 Zo �I�6
6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner,
employees and visitors/customers):
��
7.
• 8.
9.
10.
Where do/will the owner & employees park? ON • 51I� �°,Q-rt.�i I��C�
Where do/will customers/visitors park? �— S� t�=- P�2�c� l�G�- ��� � e P— �. .
. I�
��J � � SKu �LE s
Present or most recent use of site. V�4 ��� �������N��ME
• PLANNING DEPT.
List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach
list if necessary). � �
N�d.l —
:
�
��` c�Tv O*
B4IRLYNC�,AME I
�.� .y.:•�'
V Y� � U ll�1����Y 9`�.i1�� IL.
��L��C�6�� �t����' �a�.BC�a'B'B�BV�
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
(Code Section 25.52.0201. Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocatfon wil/ not be detrimental or. fnfurious
� to property or Improvements in the vicfnity or to pubrc health, safety, genera/ welfare, or
convenlence. � �
S�� ftT1`AChIE'�•
�
2.
How wfl/ the proposed use be located and conducied In accordance with ihe Burlingam,
Genera/ Plan and Zoning OrdinanceT . .
S E� /�'i'CACaiE'�
,, .
3.
;: -.
How wfl/ the proposed profect be compat/b/e wfth the �esthetfcs, rr�ass, bu/k and charact
of the exlst�'rig and potential uses on adJolning properties in the general vlcinity?
S FiFi I��CN,'�.'D
�ECEIi���:�
NOV 1 21998
CITY OF BURLfNGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
t 2192
sp.ftm
_ -: �
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 signifi�ant change in air quality is
anticipated. Traffic emissions would be insignificant.
Discharges into sewer and stormwater 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 a r a zed K
area with existin ublic facilities are in place and have been designate��� �����,; •
gP
accommodate this hotel use.
NOV 1 21998
CITY (7F BUt�LINGNME
PLANNING DEPT.
. . .'.
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 potemtial 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.
�ECEIl���}
NOV 1 21998
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
�
.
DATE:
ROUTING FORM
November 12, 1998
TO: �C CITY ENGINEER
_CAIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
_FIRE MARSHAL
_SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for new 132-room, six-story hotel at 765 Airport Boulevard,
zoned C-4, APN: 026-344-120.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: December 14, 1998
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, Noveinber 16, 1998
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
�.yt,e Y � C� t�s C o►�'f vnv+r` � cQ-'a � l
�
1� ( 6�� Date of Comments
� �� �,,�,�.,, a--�.-�.. .
� �
' ; ' ' ,
,�
�
ROUTING FORM
AT
� r� ` ^ � �
(� � � �ti�
�
J
� r� c�i�G��-�� 5 ,
�
� -��� �
�
��`�� v�.�� vi o �
�
��1
� �: �. ° `
DATE:
�(JI'� � � � f��.%
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING�INSPECTOR
� FIRE MARSHAL
PARICS DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR
r �� Q—�
0
lJ
� J�-- —
11
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: A / "6�
THANKS, �� ��� (� 1���' � �'
Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben � Date of Comments
�
1� IC'�Ls c���-e s�z�� t-��
\
�� !-T ��- C� , U S� l� �) `-' 1
����, " ����7
��,'
. � ,_ �
;.
�
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November 12, 1998
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
�FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for new 132-room, six-story hotel at 765 Airport Boulevard,
zoned C-4, APN: 026-344-120.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: December 14, 1998
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, November 16, 1998
THANKS,
Maureen/Jani ce/Rub en
� ����vC �
�
� � Date of Comments
9
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November 12, 1998
TO: CITY ENGINEER
�CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
_FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for new 132-rooin, six-story hotel at 765 Airport Boulevard,
zoned C-4, APN: 026-344-120.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: December 14, 1998
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, Noveinber 16, 1998
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
� � %r0�� Date of Comments
f ljp �'j� Co�► ��''� ��,3 �i p/���m-t � ra✓� ��J d�i�✓°'�a'
c����f��� �,ls�p y
�,o �f ho f a.y
1 1
� 1 �
i� I y I �
/ � �• 1,
�� � �� ►� �\�
• \�t � i � • �_ �1 • i � i 1
The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on March 19, 1997, completed a review of the
proposed project and determined that: �
(XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment
(XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
�roject Descri tn ion: The project is a new six-story (77'-4" tall), 132-room hotel building with
parking for 132 cars at grade, at 765 Airport Boulevazd, zoned C-4. The site is now vacant. There
is an area with deteriorated asphalt paving on the portion of thc site closest to Airport Boulevard.
This area was formerly used for long-term airport parking. There is also a 40-foot strip of the site
adjacent to the Burlingame Lagoon which contains landscaping and a paved bike path. The site has
access to and frontage on Airport Boulevard. The project requires approval of special permits for
buildings which exceed the 35' maximum height within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and to exceed the Design Guidelines for
Bayfront Development adopted by the City Council. The proposed building is 77'-4" in height, which
exceeds the 35' maximum height within BCDC jurisdiction, and exceed the overall maximum height
of 50 feet required by the design guidelines. Special permits are also required to exceed the view
obstruction limitations, for the setback from the lagoon which is less than the building height, and to
vary from the landscaping requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development.
�easons for Conclusion: This project is consistent with the General Plan and the Burlingame
Bayfront Specific Area Plan. Except as noted above, all zoning code requirements have been met
through the project design. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings,
it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
Signature of Processing Ofiicial
�1� ��_-- ..
.I �� �
Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final.
Date posted: • �! / � �'
+�- �
„ ,�,�
�
Negative Declaration
765 Airport Boulevard
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,
Appealed: ( ) Yes�
ATTI,
California on �, 1997.
) No
, CITY OF BURLINGAME
�, �
- � , ,
j�� , , , ,
9
l.
2.
�
3
7
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
7G5 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Project Title: Six-story 132-room hotel at 765 Airport Boulevard
Le�d Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Contact Person/Phone Number:
Project Loc�tion:
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(415) 696-7250
Parcel with an address of 765 Airport Boulevard,
Burlingame, California
Project Sponsor's Robert Y. Sauvageau, AIA, RYS Architecture
Name and Address: 123 Townsend Street, Ste. 575
�
San Francisco, CA 94107
Gener�l Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Assessor's P�rcel Number:
Hotels and Motels
C-4, Waterfront Commercial
026-344-120
8. Description of the Project: This project proposes the construction of a six-story, 132-room hotel
on a parcel which is now vacant. There is an area with deteriorated asphalt paving on the portion
of the site closest to Airport Boulevard. This area was formerly used for long-term airport parking.
There is also a 40-foot strip of the site adjacent to the Burlingame Lagoon which contains
landscaping and a paved bike path, a part of BCDC's public access area which connects to public
access improvements at each end. The site has access to and frontage on Airport Boulevard.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: Red Roof Inn (200-room hotel) is located to the west of
the site, and a privately owned long-term parking facility (13a) which serves San Francisco
International Airport is located to the east. An of�ice building is located across Airport Boulevard
'to the north of the site. The Burlingame Lagoon is located to the south of the site, with State Route
101 south of the lagoon. The lagoon and the Sanchez channel, both estuaries, serve as the outlet
to San Francisco Bay of Sanchez Creek, which drains the eastern face of the coastal range.
10. Other public �gencies whose approval is required: The site is within the jurisdiction of the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). A BCDC permit is required prior to
issuance of the building permit for the project. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) guidelines and San Mateo County Pollution Prevention Program Best Management
Practices would need to be followed for any construction activities and for future management of
the site. Bay Area Air Quality Management District oversees any emissions guidelines, and may
require a permit at the time building plans are reviewed. Any storm drains proposed may extend
into U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (corps) jurisdiction, which will require corps approval. If corps
approval is required, coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, BCDC, and
possibly the California Department oi Fish and Game would be necessary in order to obtain
certification.
t
- � ,
�,�� ;,.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population tznd Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems X Hazards , Recreation
X Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
X Circulation X Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initill evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant ef%ct 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 would not be
a siguficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE D�CLARf1TION will be prepared. X
I fmd that the proposed proj ect MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but nt least one effect (1)
has been adequately tinalyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the ef�'ect is
a"Potentially Significant Impact" or "I'otentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVII20NMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is requircd, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant e�'ect on the environment, there WOULD NOT
be a significant effect in this case because All potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
��'��7(�� ' u�► �, _�Nt,VI ?,D, �.�; �
Margaret Monroe, City Planner Date
2
. . _ _. � . � � . . . . �.m _ , . .. .. , . . .
...- ., . � � - . . . . . .
. ..._ .. ., �.r
i _ -.. . _ � _. _ .
� -
.... , —: .-�,,,. �.., , <�: ��_,._ .. _. _._.. �... ,� .. _ ,. . _ . rte��� ,e�.. .r._-.- �.-
w . .. . .:',. � . ` -.k, .. ;.,y: Y _� _ �.+u:m
. . . ♦ .. p�:i� "' P^. _ . , :�., , j . .:..q .`P-Y�� ��. , '.�?i �"a�db�: . : . ., .. . %r. � •,._�a'
,..
_
. � _ , i .: �,�, �'��i t�` _
. � . � � . � .. _ : . � , _ . hq; � . ' ,
.
�-, y
.,.:: ... „ . . � ,S . . . . .
.:. . e �.`�� - ; , „� ., . • ..;'{� - , - 3�,� :� ��'."��y,. �� �'>
. � � ,
: • � ��
.
. . .. . _ f � �� �
., .
� ..�, -. . .. � � � _ . cp�1.;?;�. .,��'�""'aa a-;....��'.ti "'?P �,L�.,,er �`�"' ; r . . .. r.: ���� - w. c i��.,,,,�e,� .
:. � . ,_ .. ., F ..; . , � -; , . �� _ . . . �'§". �. `+�',.;,�7a ,. ,.-« � . . ��� � . . '�. z4 . . �� . . , . ti � f a� . . .
;
.
• t
is.. ,,j� . ,. , ,
,�
� -.,� � .-.. . , �. .� -,a .. : • � � - --ry'. - . �'�'-. - �.i..
� �
� : ,<, �: _: . . .-----.:. . ' : :: .. �> ; �i.. > .yu
, . . .. , ,
- ,. , .,,�, ,.. ,. - • _-. _ '> ti
� � � - � � � � s.. -
. ..
.
. ���.. •.- �� = - -. .. ,. j; ' _ .
. , !.
« � .:
,
A " ^.: _.` (�� Y1
�
_ ',. . .. "- .' y� �.✓.. � -'� �7�. _f __ .' . ' _ .. F 3``:_ - .iY' {a � . . . � . � l .
2
- . .. .... . : � ..; ti; ..4. � . .. . ..�i t . .'- . �!:�. �.' .
�;
_ , _�._ . ... . - � , �. ' . �.s.' -r . .. .
_ _ .., �.. ..
.. --- . . �� � .
'•`. •' � „1" • � .bE� °r .��. . �...�... .� v I' . _ } .
.
4 '
-� - : ' �. .: �„�r, t
ll'
; -. �-,�-. .... ` . . ._ ,.... . , � -;,., t' • . ,Y!±.- , . : r�y a. ;g _K.1.�au - ?;f,.. . . . :� ..
�z F y �
- � � ':.. �iF.,. . . . _ . . ��,.y��t . � _
, .. .. � - .. � ..� ..:: . .� � . . �;: �A K��.�?�?::✓, � ::::.i'�1 .� , .��— h:�.ti �- �� - �-�7 , � -"'� • � ' � --��'"� � � ��r'� � � ..
.t.. Y = ��� ` �
�: : _. .. • � . . _
_. . . - ... , �'� .. � - . � c �:�'r ,w - ^'a'�, - � r
, ? +.s� : ; . _ ; t � � ; ,: � , w, ,.0 � � -'i�� �'..:�%ro'�� s�+'�`,""'"`�"�"r ..r� 3 ' °','asr.e.
" : +�
. .,� . :.. . � . g �� �.:. ,.:: . . -� . .. . . . ;�rt .����',���_ _ . . , . . � .. a..�+ti>�b.
� .,,, yM .. ��-. � kn� �:J:i..' -..
�^ � 'T:
� r - :�i} � � �. ' �i ' '` . ..-. . . � . . � . . . •f�i ��5�
.
.
r • . � � . a y..� . _ .
:.. - •• � ..-'�� � S .. . .'i�, . . .. . . .
.
.
Y . � .. .. . } ...�£�'r,it 3aX . � . . .. . . . .
... . a , a �- � .� . . . . t
:
. �y ,, . ,� - . . � . .
..
�
/ ��' �y.� �:� .. r r,� b 7 F � I n3-°�
' �,,f'� . s�"iyY ` ! Jr � _ �. . �
' � : �M ... � .
, ` .. Y y� • � .�- � ".. y
.. ,
P ��.* . i�.:1 L K� .. `�F J �'. � . . . . _ . . i i'' . .- _ � � �"t<. -
y � - � .I ��� Mi
s ,' ..� - r... $ X'L: .. j.� t �i 4 � I . .. . . . �. t _ ..��Y �.,,. .. .. .. :,. �q� kL � .
' � , � .. S�4 � . �.rY . �a�
�' �( 't' ,�`'' � �f . , �;` •
- F� � � .%� ::� . ,. - !� :�' j
�i� . `�I" ig.�� •.'�!� °�y,,.l �� 'i^r R � , r �:
s � ,�� �,�5��, x , n. :�•
, .,)�, ''� . � �;: � � q �'°� _ • .�.. M � � • � ..- .
� . �, � ��:. �p �� Yr'�
, . '� .:'r -�.._ ..�:� a,i{' '`�DiY _ z- f ry£ r�` _ � . J #" . . 'a ', ��'� . .. '�"�"" . � j'` _ . '`io- _
,t. ; �� ��s u .. ._�.�'�fCy" �.�, � ..��. �' `` !�j' -,' . . k � . . �` , .I
r ^ Y'
� ��� Y•. `� ; � �` ' > , a �' ; � � 4• r � :
• •��� `�r I • - ,� a ,7? ,°` a f � � `� 4 � . � � " : � � i I
t '... � `yp,. q � ,�. ,.,�. y i1 �� : .�.
, � . '�d.: �li� �`f .,`� �^` i• �`' � , ,�,ky � t . �� � ib"'.. {�, l %;1�1-i�ii�- . ,✓; � . s -. l'� '
y � �, •• `♦; -� � :.S A_J • . i �� ' . �a ' i,�� t'. � . �. �%� .� \ / �
� �i ., - w� . a. • t � < ; - } a' �`,'. , V� 9 i' ' .
_ ,�_
;
.. : • �' ,
; , _ , • ,.
. _
_ o
, . '�-�"^�' .�34'�i�. \ ' " - .
� . :. . � ., V� y� � � . � A�
�, -: ��:<�.�i;�.: . - � .. : ;j . +'ci.'44� ��� . . . . . '�. � . �J' _ . . -
,
. . - . . . la ' �"�w.�..
.: - �:�.i.. � • -���;0"`s .. t _ ��,� .: - _ . �
. _.. ..._ .s:,,. -_. ..�. .�i � .. .. . , . ._ .
.
.-
�
�: ... - ;�+ .,�_. . - � � � ... � � ♦ C .,*�k'�T• .... .,� . , ,. ._ - . ��,_ _.. . �{s'ac � f "��
.•
. �
, - ...�. :S�J�;a-. _ . :.'. , . , �- ♦ •� .;k�. •,,, � �.�. , .. . _ . . . . . .,.:y . -
�.. ..:
_,_.
� \ M ��...:. . : � , . � . � .. �{
. • ' _�" " ...':.. ' "l:. � ,. . ..:' - _ '
�
. ..: . - � ,, . . . - i. .... .i' _
, iw 'y
, , ,
. � :� ,� . ,. � e� �. ..,�. �..: : .._ . : ; .' � a-- . _�,
.;
�� . . , � _ � _ . .,... ,: ���/
.. �s . . _
� `� y �, ,;� . ..�' . � �_ �
+ .. � _:-.: ��i,a- •; ' - ` � . � � a : u ,,�':..... � . ��� � �dyf • - a ���, �3a�s.w.ey,�, ^� ;r a t - � �'.
�: •i-�c""r y {� '�+�. ,!^,S `� i � . _ �,,.:.�."y"` ,.. � 7^� v�y: S. ';,,' ..v. :v .i%'" x
:. .
,
� tl '. �i.'�''`�. 1."5�- ". . �, ,p4 1 ,. � ,, �� -� , � r . _ . s j 9,.,� .. . . .�_ , ..^�"
�- s
.. � . ... ... _ .
�' �,�Y e� . . , • - _
y�.. ,'�,! . � px.'- . .}SgR:. � X � �"� �'�1 ..'-'�`v. J� . - ' S��.'?f�ni., S.,.g,,,, ..yR}�; . __. � ... 'Y
(� . . : -.,. Y. - ...i .....-. � �� '� �` :. • " � � . L , - . +'aM�'.�.Y -*�� - - . j
"�`��� 't � � ,[ '�"'+�"'+n+ /�
-
r y>4�..�_ w �::�. �'►� ,,� �'► r. ' . ,K� "*c:r,x, -��:cr,.,,y, � `^ �:,:,,'�tnw ... _
��� �,,�: �aj ..,�� :s � .�'' +4'_ .�A•�a„�,�,,.e�, L .� .:�c�..`�`. ;- _,;.� �r.d� -
:: '
R . . _ �\,�� .i� i�1 �� J5� 4 �' ?s Y .�{ �r+t �5W � � . - .
�'. � p �l,iN'.. �.� . ,,�,- .� �. �. _ ,� .;'A' �•yliJ� 1.1'},Id +s_-.Yi.-^u- . � � t"� ' .
.. y . .
` j :" ' Y .
� �.:. ..� .�.., .
f `
. . # �� � .i��i - ..� �` ` � ai's�w. . - yw.';.� = :
_.`'` -,i '_';a a + x - � aye��.
.4 • � 1 � � '.t � �' .
� i '� �'�,.�1 ► � ' � ` .
� � 4� V�^ _� - E ` � y ,e ` � ' � .: , �
'� �� `•- a.� � �/11►�= p , e:� - :
. � °r�, y _� _ . . �¢ �� t % �`� _ �3::� � �
� � . .. . _ . . . '"���•�� �,,,m.,r.�.�9.y..t,�c . . _ m°�0.�r ta� ` `w�q� � t� F . . � � . i�✓ f :l �i �* , 'Sits�r y � . .�
.':. . ..._ .
y '. .
. _- ,,
. . � , .. ..�.."
� t . . . .,;: - . , �� ♦ .
. �� � _ _ ... _ ... _ �� ��n�,� -
. >.,
{ . r ,,,�, ti g� �� 'a�e�
, �i � - ., .,
, n ':
. � � � �� . . � . . � - . . ..4 K � -,.,.� • '"T e- '.'�'^�� �M �O�"�,.'�`�a'����..,�.,a-�.re. . ��,.�'� ,�4', � -� ,=ii� !,!
�. ., ;;. _ . .
, _„ .
_
.
>�
.
. d ;- �. . . ' � � : . . � ... _ � . .. ; -�' . . '�t[,n,-�_� - .
.
3 a =_"�� , i' . ��.' :�t''xs'�. �v'�s':�'Fi �F• E c =
:. �': t `s.""�a'�`�",�,: r i.E f;=
;t > �' � ;g� _. � �'`t
�t � , � � . . . � . .. „_ ' - . .. . . .a: .. . , . � . . ' �"� ".K >,.,"�r�- �7n_ .
. i ; . . . . . . . ,)',- . � . . ;w '�� ' _ �'.. , _ -4b �'�^ �n.:s».�e�
fi�� i
�i � � � �� _ !; �� ,, � �-'� .' , •
w- , _.
* � � �
' ;� � r�'� , _ ��.
� � �-'��' { �'� '`Y . -
t � `
�
,,. +k� {1St�k .. . . . . - .� _ .. . , , - '•kaip� �. � i. � . F� 7t; . - .. . �- . .. ���. .
, . 9,,.�'6'y:,. . . . _ . .,.. � . . . . . ... .^ ; . ,�'�.�. :�.'�r,� _. . .. . . .
YF� :\ �.� . . . . . . . ��.,
f .�.
;� ";�\ ; _ �
� +t -
-�:=- - { �� :
ti t•�', �_ .a. _�C • .
,a ; ,- .. . . . -- �-`u' F:M1a�'ry i.. - � . . . .
q _; � ' � - . � i �
.� , 4 .
: ; �� .
,h._. ...�.�. � �'�. 1 Y4 S�vf -� . _ - . - . � � . . . - .
" Ss..:.- �.,r"'�.3.rc+- +-.'1'�A'f2X§rt��'Yr"� +��, G 4 k J 'S.3,�.+,�. �.-' . . - .
( {
. „µ� y !
.
-.o. - fr� ...�,:. ... f .OF y �. .. . `"l 'ri=Snx!s.'� ¢^i:.ia �S.°.�'ih! "�^�.s'!'�w� r^.vwa.6e`,�..a A 1 . � ..
.:r
le°i' .. ��"�+�M�ez1 FY.�,u "'k��+�"4''R���In'€�` ` ia� _ .� _w..i,+�....n��.;r�tist+:a",vrar"""„+�:7ir„ _ ' . � � . ._. �� � . .
a .�': , �:.�. .� .
v: � .
.,..... ..e�:�,. �.w"'sr x.l,"k���'��:; -�.. . -� :.: . ,,�, tai.u.;:aMS*at se.: e:gsw.a.;Y+at^a�s2i, -�-s..+i.=;."3:r,.,F,� ,,,,�,�-'x" ���� '�+�xa.....:..:r .
... �. �' . ` .,..,..a . . r � 9Ai°Xt..tY+eX . -NF.::' sz.r�ar�:,wX+�� a ,u:a i--�� �� _ . . . . .. -. . �
-- ._ ..: ._- _. .
��� ...' �' >-,-. . ..-.�_ .,. .-. � _ -
::� . �� ��.-
. . , . . �._ �:..+•��%-. � .:.:r.� .:
. , '�'
. ... . . .._ ... ��. >. .. �.:.:., ...,-.'�'-��'
,�. . " " ' ..� . . � ,..:.:. .. : .y....:.;^ '.' `t.., a
, . . � .. � � �� �-. v -
. . _ r,,. �.e �� „ ._'' .c <- - ... ��.. . J ,�, -�i+,t
. :..., _. , , , _ i:L
... u
- �._._<. ,. . . .:.. �. ..... '
. . ..,.. , ..�:.:� v:. �� � --�� „.. � � 4. .. . . .:..,.. ,_ .. ;_ ... . x.ia:�..
. ,.szsn . .<:,:r..n. , .. ., ._ :.s�. -..,. , . ._ , , de� -
t !,
. . . . . . . ._�fi�m..�.. . . . .. . . -
rV
: iY
,._::: , n
. .. . . . ,. ,�'< . � '��n
. _. : _.. .. �. ��... �3 ' :'-' . >.. . . : y:. � "Z", « ,y�� :�
. . . -.-._, -.,..-� .. �. � �.:.`-4,> � a� e
,�...:-. - . . .. . .. �� � �:� . ., _�. - � ..
. . .�.., � ... . ' '" . '_ . ��... , �-.. ..� ��,...: . _�.-._,.. . k., .+Ms•�&i. -. � � � �#R. .�'4 rkt.wn:,:�. )
' .,, e.,.,> �. �:., �',-
, !a
:. ,.�: .._:: r..� ,. _ _ ,
' �, :
_ _ ,., . .. _ ,_ ,,...
... -� « � r ... w. � � . ' •':'1:�� � e .., ,. . :. _;.... :-,�.. ...:.._. �� . .. :. . . _ .. . , ' ' ,; �s.s:�y,... .!+ 3:.
�_. s i . � . ..�.. /afaf ��+ . . .- .. ... . ., .. ..... ' .. ' a�:'.q
- , � . t�. '..TY� . �"_"`✓9'w�Gti`id 5%::"..b�ili'����-�.�..: �: : ;_': ._ ".._ . _._..� . � . ..� . M. �.:... � .... � . ' ^ r�.w�;iS'<sYf�N��.�ry•u-�.��..
'. .: J . . '� ..0 . . .. . '.-. .. - ' ... .: .., .,.: .�.,.k+iA`1+.`.'.+�w�+��•y+.0 �- �.+r- . ...-,..,.:...�� � .., ra"F-
__..._.. . .... . � _ �i.�%i! .;� " _
* { c.:,
i�, ... < - .. .�:•.;.e 'r"...+�aa�.,`u`'` .. . - �,
. ' : � ` a . . , ' _
.. . . � 'ya,-,- >. - �. �....: ' .' > ' +�� j�_ � � f. . ' ' . �±�?�•
: . "'� ... :; „ _: . . 7.� .
.r ' '�4: - _ ��' LYa .'S� - _
, _
- L �.; 4 i �' � � ��
.� . =�. ' �,
�; -.
a
r i . �': :-,e` "siw�arr�C'm' _
�-
�
� � � Y
. �. �' i � , «:' j+ ►
.. f T: �+���r r�^' . . ,C^�
, °_ ;
� �
r -' + ^
.
..� . . . +� r�
.. ; . � ,. , �,, .
. .. - �. �. , , :.., ry . . ;..
. . 'f4: A � Asb .i, . . . - . .k�. .s,' %, .F+ ,
� '-� `� � . . -
�,+�..r . ^ ��,� z_,, � _ '� �: t� �' �►
_ . _,:,,:r . ..� � � � -� �. �: . s
� � '�'°� • t= �` �
�. " ' �: :r . � �`
, . �� �; . `!� �. ., � , � " t.
`< :� �' .� ;�`
<. � - � � � � t;
. "£�`�, � �� �i - . � .: � � � ���' ..i! .#a�.�v . � _. sm. �� i4� ♦ _:�' , � ::'/ F�': YMv � � ,':� '�
;:. .:-' : �� .. i.� � ° -
.. . .. q: �i i .. � r�.�% " , l�.
. ,. �:- °�'' � - . �. , �, * ���. � ; + �� . � .�} . . . ;�' t ' �., �
. . _�, �. . � �`- , . � `� . . - - - - ' - _
�� ,
:- _.., E.�.��r�a��+s s� . r -_
w''�i-s"='=_„-�s ��_.-.. _y w�,.,:.-5�5as.b�... . . . : , - •. - � �
�srx.6� � .�.. _ _ .. � �=r_.
�.. _n�
. �'d�i-y :' � � - -� -��-...=��
i � `��" q '���" � � -
a,.
�f . �
� � +���; r � v v ,- _ ;! •'-��
T
' � i � .
�l� � .�
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conilict with general plan designution or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project7
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity7
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. imPact to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical aiTangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)7
I Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
1,2,4
1 I I X
�
1 I I I I X
1 I I I I X
3 I I I I X
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
Land Use and Pl�nning Summnry: The hotel proposal 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.
A special permit is required for buildings and structures which exceed thirty-five feet in height when located within
area that is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC),
and for buildings and structures which exceed the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development adopted by the City
Council onFebruary 19, 1980. The proposed building is 77'-4" in height, which exceeds the 35' maximum height
within BCDC jurisdiction, and exceeds the overall maximum height of 50' required by the design guidelines. A
special permit is also required because the proposal obstructs the view corridor from Airport Boulevard and from
the Burlingame Lagoon. From Airport Boulevard, the proposal will obstruct 100% of the view, where 54% is the
maximum view obstruction allowed. From Burlingame Lagoon, the proposal will obstruct 55.2% of the view,
where 40% is the maximum view obstruction allowed. A special pernvt is required for the setback from the Lagoon
shoreline. The design guidelines require that the minimum setback from shorelines should be not less than the
building height. The proposed setback from the lagoon for the six-story portion of the building is 65', which is less
than the building height of 77'-4". Special permits are required to vary from the landscaping requirements of the
Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development. The front setback is proposed with 64.6% of the area landscaped,
where the design guidelines require 80% of the front setback to be landscaped. There is a total of 8.5% of the area
within the parking area which is landscaped, where 10% of the parking area is required to be landscaped. 13.5%
ofthe area outside the BCDC shoreline band is proposed to be landscaped, where the design guidelines require a
minimum of 15% of the area outside of BCDC's jurisdiction. �
Mitig�ttion: Special permits, shall be obtained for height in excess of 35' within BCDC jurisdiction and to exceed
the height limitations, view obstruction and landscaping requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront
Development before any development is allowed. The project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Conservation
and Development Comtnission, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
3
,
�1' ' 1r ' .
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
I Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentialiy
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would tlie proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed of�icial regional or local population
projections7 . 5 X
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major 1,5 X
infrnstructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially afT'ordable housing? 3 X
Population �nd Housing Summlry: This site and the surrounding area are planned for commercial uses. There
are no residents in the area. The project would have no direct impact which would result in an increase in
population in the immediate area because this is a commercial area with no housing developments available now
or planned for the future. The project will result in approximately 132 people employed at the new hotel. This may
create a demand for housing in the region. Housing is available in the San Mateo County area. However, public
transportation access from this area is limited. In order to mitigate the impact of this hotel on tra�ic and available
parking, as well as to provide access to public transportation on Caltrain, shuttle service to the airport should be
provided .for hotel guests and made accessible to hotel employees. As an alternative, the project sponsor may
choose to contribute to the City shuttle service provided to the airport and Caltrain station.
3 GEOLOGIC:PROBLEMS Would the proposal result iu or expose �eople to potential imp�icts
involving•
a) Pault rupture7 6 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? 8 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction7 7,8 X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard7 1,7,8 • X
e) Landslides or mudflows7 7 X
fl Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions fi•om
excavation, grading or fill? 1,7 X
g) Subsidence of the land? 1 X
h) Expansive soils7 7 X
I) Unique geologic or physical features7 7 X
0
,
, ' �, , �
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Thnn
Significant No
Impact Impact
Geologic Summ�ry: The site is located in a seismically active region that will experience an earthquake and
groundshaking strong enough to cause moderate damage to ordinary structures. The groundshaking could produce
ground failures such as liquefaction, ground lurching, lateral spreading, landsliding, and settlement. The likelihood
of ground failure is low because the underlying medium dense to dense soils contain significant amounts of clay and
silt to act as binders for the coarser material (sand, gravel). The density and coarseness of the soils would provide
sufficient support for foundation piles and would resist lateral movements. The site also is subject to static
settlement, the naturally occurring effect of gravity on filled tidelands. The use of pile-supported building
foundations would prevent damage from static settlement. Using a flexible base for hard or impervious surface
covering would extend its useful life. The channel levee of Burlingame Lagoon adjacent to the site is more than. 8
feet above mean sea level (+8 feet MSL) as shown on the Boundary arld Topographic Survey (Reimer Associates,
19 March 1997). Elevations range between +8,1 feet MSL and +9.2 feet MSL, based on the referenced bench mark
elevation of +g,175 feet MSL at City Bench Mark Number 523 (62 feet southwest of the intersection of Airport
and Anza Boulevards). For flood protection, the City requires the levees to be at least as high as +10.0 feet MSL
or that some alternative flood protection be provided. The proposed project would raise the first occupied floor
of the building to 9.5 feet MSL or 3.1 feet above maximum high water of +6.4 feet MSL and 2.5 feet above the
seven-foot flood base ofthe �djacent 100-year flood zone. The proposed project would use pile foundations, would
be designed to current California Building Code standards, and elevate the first floor to 9.5 feet above MSL to
achieve 2.5 feet of freeboard above the 7-foot MSL flood base of the adjacent 100-year flood zone in conformance
with Federal Emergency Management Agency standards. These points are discussed below in more detail along
with mitigation measures.
The proposed development is on a site that is part of a 240-acre rectangular peninsula created in the 1960's by fill
(soil and rubble concrete) placed within a perimeter levee. The existing fill on the site is between 5 and 10 feet thick
and is underlain by 3 to 8 feet of Bay Mud. The Bay Mud is underlain by at 42 to 46 feet of stiff clay and at least
5 feet of dense sand 1nd gravel capable of providing end-bearing support for the building's driven-pile foundation.l
The filled area (project site) is separated from the original shoreline by a 500-foot wide lagoon known as Burlingame
Lagoon. The lagoon is connected to San Francisco Bay by the 100-foot-wide Sanchez Channel located
approximately one-h11f mile east of the site.
For flood protection, the City requires levees along Burlingame Lagoon to be at least as high as +10.0 feet MSL,
or that some alternative flood protection be provided. Such protection could include raising the lowest occupied
floor of a building above the flood base for the site as proposed by the project sponsor. The site is in a Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone B, defined as an area outside the 100-year flood zone.
However, the site may experience up to 1 foot of flooding during storms larger than the 100-year storm due to the
temporary accumulation of rainfaIl. Also high water in Sanchez Creek could raise the height of Burlingame Lagoon,
which could result in flooding of the site. The flood base for the 100-year flood zones adjacent to the site is +7 feet
MSL. The tidal fluctuation in the area is between +3.89 feet MSL (Mean Higher High Water) and -3.48 feet MSL
(Mean Lower Low Water); the estimated maximum high water is +6.4 feet MSL, and minimum low water is -6.3
feet MSL.
.
, ; , �, � .
�
ISSUES AND .
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
I Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
The e�cisting ground surface at the site is 1 to 6 feet below the top of the levee and Airport Boulevard. The site will
be filled in order to level the parking lot at about +9 feet MSL. This project is subject to the Best Ivlanagement
Practices (BMPs) to Prevent Storm Water Pollution from Construction Related Activities. These BMI's require
that areas denuded by construction shall be stabilized prior to the wet season (1 October through 1 May) by using
suitable practices such� as temporary or permanent seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer strips,
protection of trees, plastic covering, and/or application of ground base on areas to be paved. In addition, the project
is required to comply with BMPs for construction activities. Erosion and sediment controls during construction
shall comply with the California Construction BMP Handbook or the Association of Bay Area Government's
(ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control.
The site is in a seismically active region and the active San Andreas fault is located about four miles west of the site.
There are no known fault traces passing through or trending toward the site. After the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake, the United States Geological Survey estimated the probability of at least one large earthquake (M7 or
greater) in the San Francisco Bay region within the next 30 years at about 67 percent. Recent studies by the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) indicate, unof�icially, that the probability may be as high as 90 percent. On the
San Francisco Peninsula segment of the San Andreas fault, the probability is estimated at about 23 percent that an
M7 or greater earthquake would occur in this time-frame. During such an earthquake, the site would experience
groundshaking ofModified Mercalli Intensity VIII, strong enough to cause moderate damage to ordinary structures.
In accordance with the 1987 USGS maps showing cumulative damage potential from earthquake groundshaking,
this site is in an area where the potential damage is moderately low for concrete and steel structures, and moderate
for tilt-up concrete structures. The surface soil is artificial fill. The 1986 USGS maps consider this a Category C
Ground Condition Unit, indicating a high intensity of groundshaking during a major earthquake.
Potential seismically induced ground failures at the site include liquefaction, ground lurching, lateral spreading,
landsliding and settlement (see endnote for definitions).2 These seismically induced ground failures would have the
potential to damage at-grade parking lots and underground utility lines, but would not affect structures supported
on pile foundations. The likelihood of seismically induced ground failures at the site, including liquefacti�on, ground
lurching, landsliding and settlement, is estimated to be low because the underlying medium dense to dense soils
contain significant amounts of clay and silt to act as binders for the coarser material (sand, gravel), would provide
su�icient support for foundation piles, and would resist lateral movements. .
The site also.is subject to static settlement (compaction, compression, densiiication). This is a naturally
occurring effect of gravity in filled tidelands. To compensate for previous settlement or incomplete fill,
approximately 11,000 cubic yards of new fll would be placed on the site, in the proposed parking lot areas, to
achieve a nearly level surface, raising the site from its existing elevations between 3.1' and 8.9' MSL to
approximately +9.0' MSL. At the landward edge of the channel levee (about 80 feet from the edge of the
lagoon), the fill would be about an inch thick. The depth of new fill would increase to about 6 feet in the low
area south of Airport Boulevard (about 200 feet from the edge of the lagoon).3 Estimated settlement would
G
�
�,.
�
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentia��y
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
range from less than 1 inch during the first year for the thinnest fill (the landward edge of the channel
levee), to a maximum of 7 inches during about 6 years for the thickest fill (the low area south of Airport
Boulevard).4. Because the fill is very thin near the shoreline and overlies a relatively thin layer of �Bay Mud,
the probability of its increasing the hazard of ground lurching and lateral spreading of the edge of the lagoon
is considered very low. Settlement impacts can be compensated for by placing buildings on pile supported
foundations with flexible utility connections, and hard or impervious surfaces on a flexible base in order to
extend their life. Pursuant to existing regulations, new facilities would be required to be installed to the
standards of the City of Burlingame Public Works Department and California Building Code Editions in
effect a't the time a building permit is issued.
Mitigation: The project design shall conform to the latest edition of the 1995 California Building Code as
amended by the City of Burlingame and any seismic requirements of the State Architect's office. Seismic-
resistant construction shall follow the recommendations of the site-speciiic geotechnical investigations. The
grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All
applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during
construction. All applicable San Mateo County Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Best
Management Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including stabilizing areas
denuded by construction prior to the wet season. Project structures shall be built on piles, as mitigation for
static and seismic forces, and the building shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to
elevation to + 9.5 feet MSL as flood protection. Emergency power for the storm drainage system for this
site shall be provided. Water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible
connections. In the event that there is ground failure as the result of an earthquake, the site shall be
repaired. Tide gates shall be provided on the storm drains to keep high water from back-flowing onto the
site in high flood periods. 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.
4. WATER. Would the propos�l result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates; drainage patterns, or the rate and
tunount of sudace runofi7
b) Exposure of people or property to �vater related hazards such as
flooding7
c) Discharge into surface waters or other �lteration of surflce water
quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity7
d) Changes in the Amount of surface water in any wAter body?
e) Changes in ciurents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
14
�
X
X
�_'�
�
7
l
i � i � iI � �
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
fl Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
Additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of ground�vater
recharge capability7
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater7
h) Impacts to groundwater quality7
I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othenvise
available for public water supplies7
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Sources Issues Incorporated Impact
1 X
No
Impact
1 I 1 I I X
1 I I I I X
1 I I I I X
Water Summary: The project site borders on Burlingame Lagoon. Surface run offwater does not freely flow
from the site to the lagoon because the site is surrounded by dikes. No water from the project area drains into
Anza Lagoon on the north side of Airport Boulevard. A 33-inch diameter storm sewer, located under Airport
Boulevard, conveys storm water in the area to a 45" storm drain which empties into Burlingame Lagoon. There
is no significant groundwater underlying the site, and the near surface groundwater is brackish and contains
about 26 parts-per-thousand of salt. Municipal water supplies in the area are obtained exclusively from Hetch
Hetchy reservoir storage; groundwater in the project area is generally not used. The primary impact that the
proposed project would have on Bay water quality is the addition of contaminants contained in surface run off
water. New buildings and parking areas may affect drainage patterns and will increase surface runoff.
Site flooding due to seepage through the permeable fill bordering the lagoon during periods of high tide could result
in localized flooding on the site. The tide level at mean higher high water is +3.89 feet MSL and the estimated
maximum tide height is +6.42 feet MSL. This could lead to localized flooding because of insuf�cient freeboard on
existing levees. Placing the hotel building on raised pads would avoid flooding of these structures. The site is
located outside of the inundation zone for a possible tsunami (tidal wave) in San Francisco Bay. Active faults within
the Bay Area have predominately horizontal movement and are not expected to generate significant water waves
in San Francisco Bay. Therefore, the potential for site flooding from a seich is minimal. In addition, the distance
of the site from the Bay and Burlingame Lagoon helps to preclude such an event. Also, high water in Sanchez
Creek could raise the height of the Burlingame Lagoon which could result in site flooding. This project is subject
to the state-mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be
submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application.
Mitigntion: All runoffcreated during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the
applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices for surface
water runoffand Storm Drain maintenance. Grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion into adjacent lagoon
will be minimal. The elevation of the first floor of the new hotel building shall have a minimum floor elevation of
9.5 feet MSL, or 2.5 feet above possible flood level if a levee should break. Emergency power for the storm
drainage system for this site shall be provided and maintained. Backflow prevention for storm drainage to the
lagoon shall be provided. Provide a complete Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan together with
landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. Low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed.
:
�
'�� ' ►'�,
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
InCorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate tiny air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? 1 X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 1 X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or causc any change
in climate? 1 X
d) Create objectionable odors? 1 X
Air Quality Summary: No objectionable odors or alteration in air movement, moisture, temperature or change
in local or regional climate is anticipated to occur as a result of this proposal. The change in emissions
generated by traffic to and from the hotel development as compared to all development in Burlingame would be
insignificant.
Mitigation: The site sliall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction.
Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
6. T'RANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
u) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion7 13,15 X
b) Hazards to safety fi-om design features (e.g. shaip cuives or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. fann 9 X
equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? 9 X
d) InsufTicient parking caplcity on-site or of� site? 2,9 X
e) Hazards or ba�riers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 9. X
fl Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alteinative '
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 9 X
g) Rail, waterborne or air tr�c impacts? 9 X
C
M
�
i
'i � ; � �
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Trinsportation/Circulation Summary: A traffic impact study was prepared of the project's impacts and those
of cumulative development a the intersections of 1) Bayshore Highway at US 101 Ramps, 2) Bayshore Highway
at Airport Boulevard, 3) Anza Boulevard at Airport Boulevard, and 4) Airport Boulevard at Coyote Point for
AM and PM peak hours. The results of the study are summarized below.
The proposed hotel building would generate 77 am peak-hour trips (45 inbound and 32 outbound) and 82 pm
peak-hour trips (49 inbound and 33 outbound). The four intersections indicated above operate now at LOS
(Levels of Service) A or B(see Table 1). The intersections would continue to operate at their existing LOS of
A or B(see Table 1) under the proposed project. Therefore the project would not have a significant impact on
intersection congestion. Intersection impacts during the pm peak-hour were also analyzed using the La�id Use -
Trarasportation Impact Ar�alyzer fof• 1he Bayfrojrt arrd Anza Areas (the Analyzer). The estimated number of pm
peak-hour trips using the Analyzer rate is lower at 58 trips. The Analyzer does not include the intersection of
Anza Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. For the three critical intersections included in the Analyzer
(Bayshore/US 101, Bayshore/Airport, Airport/Coyote Point), the Analyzer indicates that the project would
consume 0.6%, 0.2%, and 0.4% of intersection capacity, respectively, with operation at LOS A(see Table 2,
"Project" row). Total intersection capacity consumed with existing traf�ic would be 64.7%, 62.4%, and 71.6%,
respectively.
Since the project would not generate more than 300 peak-hour trips, the San Mateo County Congestion
Management Program �CMP) analysis of freeway impacts is not required. However, the traffic study included
this CMP analysis at the request of the City of Burlingame. All of the US 101 freeway segments (Millbrae to
Broadway, Broadway to Peninsula, and Peninsula to SR92) are operating at LOS F in the peak hour. As the
CMP LOS Standards for these segments are E, E, and F, respectively, Millbrae to Broadway and Broadway to
Peninsula are now exceeding their LOS standard. The proposed project would add from 3 to 17 vehicles per
hour to any segment, less than one percent of the current hourly volumes (7,972 to 9,094 vehicles per hour), to
segments already operating at LOS F. This would not be considered a significant project efi'ect on freeway
operating conditions.
The traffic study also assessed cumulative impacts and found that cumulative development would create a
significant impact at the intersection of Airport/Coyote Point. Impacts were estimated using the Analyzer to be
LOS F at build out of cumulative development and would be a significant impact. The intersections of
Bayshore/US 101 and Bayshore/Airport were estimated at LOS B and A, respectively, and wouid not be
adversely affected. The impact at the intersection of Airport/Coyote Point will be mitigated when warranted by
the planned Peninsula Avenue Eastside Access Realignment, which will be funded by the Bayfront Development
Fee. This project is required to pay a Bayfront Development Fee, based on the number of hotel rooms to be
constructed. Therefore, this development will contribute its proportional share for improvements which will
mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation.
10
'. �
►
;t•
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
The parking requirement for hotels in Burlingame is based on the number of rooms in the hotel (one space
required for each hotel room). The proposed 132-room hotel meets this requirement by providing 132 parking
spaces. The municipal code requirement for hotel parking in Burlingame is based on the fact that Burlingame's
hotels are airport oriented, and many of the hotel guests arrive by airport shuttle. Therefore, it is assumed that
the requirement for one space per hotel room will also accommodate hotel employees and people attending
meetings in the proposed meetirig rooms. In order to ensure that adequate parking is available for hotel guests,
employees and for meetings, an airport shuttle service should be provided to reduce customer auto use. In
addition, the shuttle schedule should connect to Caltrain at times when employee shift changes to reduce
employee trip generation and parking.
The parking requirements irnposed for hotels is intended to meet the day to day needs of the hotel as described
above. Therefore, other uses of the parking lot, such as making the parking lot available for long term airport
parking as a promotion for the hotel, or charging a fee for parking•should be prohibited.
Mitig�tion: Payment of a B�yfront Development Fee to the City ofBurlingame for impacts in the Anza area
shall be required. The project sponsor shall provide an airport shuttle service, which includes connections to
Caltrain to accommodate employees at shift changes. The required parking area shall,not be used for long-term
parking as part of a hotel promotion. There shall be no charge for customers or guests to park in the parking
lot.
7. BIOLOGICAL R�SOURC�S. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)7
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastll
habitat, etc.)7 -
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and veinal poo17
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors7
1 I I I I X
1 I I I I X
1 I I I I X
1 1 I. I I X
1 I I 1 I X
Biological Resources Summ��y: Biotic resources on the site are very limited. The site is vacant land, with an
asphalt bike path along the Burlingame Lagoon. There is no record of any rare, unique or endangered species of
plants or animals on the project site. There is no farmland in Burlingame. Because this area is already disturbed
and there is no native vegetation on the site, no significant changes are anticipated in the diversity or number of
species of plants or animals, or in the deterioration of existing wild life habitats. The wetlands in the Burlingame
lagoon are located on the south, opposite side from this site. The east side of the lagoon is marked by an almost
vertical structure protected by riprap. The proposed development would not impact the wetland on the south side
of the 500' lagoon.
11
I
�' � ; . f �
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
8. EN�RGY AND MINERAL RESOURC�S. Would tlie proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans7 1 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 1 � X
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the 1 X
State?
Energy �nd Mineral Resources Summary: The amount of energy used to grade, drain, pave and construct the
project is negligible. Substantial amounts of fuel would not be needed to construct, develop or maintain the project.
9. HAZARDS. Would the propos�l involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or 1 X
radiation)? �
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? 11 X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential heallh hazard? 1 X
d) Exposure of people to e�isting sources of potential health hazards? 1, 16 � X
e) Inereased fire hazard in areas with flammable Uiush, grass of trees7 1 X
H�zards Summ�iy: An environmental site assessment conducted for the proposed Hilton Garden Inn site
included: (1) site and surrounding area reconnaissance; (2) review of historical uses of the site; (3) file review of
applicable regulatory agencies, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Environmental
Protection Agency, California lntegrated Wast Management Board, State Water Resources Control Board,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health, City of
Burlingame Fire Department, and City of Burlingame Public Works Department; and (4) soil sampling and
analytical testing. The results of the assessment indicate that there is no past or current use of hazardous
materials at the project site. No sources for generation of hazardous waste were identified. Therefore, the
potential for soil or groundwater contamination from on-site sources is minimal. Three underground storage
12
�
;: ; ' ' �
�,' �
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially
Significant
' Sources Issues
Potentialiy
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
tank (UST) sites and a closed municipal solid waste landfill were identified within approximately 2000 feet nf
the project site. Soil contamination resulting from the UST sites is restricted to or within close proximity of the
particular facility as petroleum hydrocarbons are known to have low migration rates. Based on monitoring well
tests at the landfill site, there is no evidence'of leachate migrating from the site. Therefore, soil or groundwater
contaminations resulting from these facilities are not expected at the project site.
Results of the soil testing indicate that metals and hydrocarbons are present in the fill material beneath the site.
The concentrations of the cont�minants present are below any action levels of the regulatory agencies. The
construction workers at the project site are not expected to be exposed to any public health risks from these
contaminants. The contaminants in the on-site soil may be present due to transport of hydrocarbons and metals
(lead) by rainwater from asphalt surfacing (an asphalt bike path extends east to west along the south boundary
of the site), or motor oil on the asphalt flowing to the low area and then seeping to the ground. Adherence to
federal and California Occupational Health and Safety regulations during project construction would further
reduce any potential for exposures to soil contaminants.
The site contaminants would not pose a health �nd safety hazard to occupants of the proposed project.
Imported fills would be placed over most of the site to raise the grade for project construction. This would
eliminate the potential for direct contact of the occupants with native fill material.
The proposed hotel would not interfere with emergency access since the project site is along Airport Boulevard.
The project would also not increase wildland fire hazards because of the urban nature of the site and its vicinity.
Mitig�tion: If the fill material or asphalts are to be removed from the site during construction, analytical testing
of the removed materials for petroleum hydrocarbons and metals will be required to classify the material for
appropriate disposal.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels7
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels7
�
�
Noise Summ�►ry: The site is impacted by noise from traffic on adjacent Freeway 101 and from aircraft landings
and takeoffs at San Francisco International Airport, which is located about 2.5 miles northwest of the site.
Quarterly noise reports provided by the airport indicate that Burlingame consistently experiences noise levels
less than 60 dB CNEL. The Noise Element of the Burlingame General Plan lists the acceptable maximum
outdoor noise levels for hotels �s 65 dBA. . This site is approximately 500' from the Bayshore freeway, and it is
not expected that combined noise levels from the airport and the freeway would
13
�
;; . , ,
, .' .
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
exceed 65 dBA. Since the area is already impacted by traffic and aircraft noise, the additional vehicular traffic
generated by this use would not have a significant impact on the ambient noise level in the area. Construction
activities may affect adjacent businesses, and noise levels may increase during construction, particularly when the
piles are driven. The Noise Element rec�uires that interior noise levels f�r hotels shall not exceed 45 dBA.
MitigZtion: All construction s}�all be rec�uired to be done in accordance with the California Building Code
requirements, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and in addition to the limitations of hours of
construction imposed by tlie City of Burlingame Municipal Code, no piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on
Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday. Interior noise levels shall be reduced to a maximum of 45 dBA.
11. PUBLIC SERVIC�S. Would tlie pi•oposal l��ve �n effect upon, or result in a need for ne�v or
�ltered government services in any of the following �reas:
a) Fire protection? 1,11 X
b) Police proteetion? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 1 X
e) Other governmental scrvices? 1 X
Public Services Summz�y: The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provision of public
�services, as this is an urbanized area with existing public facilities in place. This site is planned for hoteUmotel use,
and public services have been designed to accommodate this use.
12. UTILITIES AND S�RVICE SYST�MS. Would the proposal result in � need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial niterations to the following utilities:
A) Power or natural gas7 1,9 X
b) Communications systems7 l,9 X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 1,9 X
d) Sewer or septic tanks and water supply? 1 X
e) Storm water drainage7 1 X
� Solid waste disposal? 1,9 X
g) Local or regional water supplies7 � 1,9 X
14
�i` � :� �� � �
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Utilities and Service Systems Summ�ry: The proposed project would be served by existing utilities in the area.
The site is served by an 8" water main in Airport Boulevard and a 12" water main along the lagoon frontage. There
is an 8" sewer line in Airport Boulevard, and a pump station in Airport Boulevard east of the site, which pumps
effluent to the City's w�stewater treatment facility. The project will generate a water demand of about 25,000
gallons per day, including irrigation of the landscaping. Sewer capacity consumption for a 132-room hotel is
expected to be approximately 20,000 gallons per day. The Public Works Department has determined that there is
adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed project and that the City's water supply is adequate
to serve the additional demand from this project. Storm water from the site will be collected and discharged from
the site through two outlets into the lagoon. In order to protect the water quality of the lagoon from these
discharges, approval from the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board and from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers will be required. Approval from these agencies will include implementation of Best
Management Practices BMPs as part of the NPDES pernvt that will be required. The proposed project will include
installation of oil separators in the drainage system to collect automobile oil residues from the parking lot prior to
discharge into the lagoon.
Mitig�tion: Storm drain collection shall comply with NPDES requirements. Oil separators shall be installed to
reduce pollutants from runoff entering the storm drain system. Water and sewer lines shall be constructed from
flexible material with flexible connections.
13. AESTHETICS. Would tl�e proposll:
a) Af%ct a scenic vista or scenic highway7 1,9 X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect7 9 X
c) Create light or glare? 9 X
d) Block views from adjacent development7 9 X
Aesthetics Summary: The project calls for a six-story hotel (maximum elevation of 77'-4") and an adjoining
one-story pavilion (maximum elevation of 20'). The building footprint of the hotel would be rectangular,
approximately 200' by 45'. The length of the hotel would generally be oriented along a north-south axis that
parallels the orientation of the Red Roof Inn on the parcel immediately to the west. Broad-leaf evergreens are
proposed along the site's boundaries with the Red Roof Inn to the west and an airport long-term parking lot to
the east. Flowering trees are proposed 11ong the Airport Boulevard frontage.
The proposed structure would be visible from close-up viewpoints, along Airport Boulevard and from nearby
office buildings and hotels. Mid-range views of the proposed hotel would exist from Highway 101, and distant
views from higher elevations in Burlingame and Millbrae to the west and south. The proposed project would
not be seen from the San Francisco Bay, because of intervening buildings along Anza Avenue and the north side
of Airport Boulevard. �
15
' n *sc,fj " t} ., i s -
. ' �':' � ,s��.
_ _. „ . _.,,
.
:
i'i. •."? .. _• .........��... ---� -- ...... � � _t.:.....:.._�,-:- . . . . . . _ . _ .,��r�� - kr'Fr �,- ': . _ . . - c"s:�:
� . . .,...... i '�-�. , .t:...�-+'.'. .. _. . :..:y-...-..+ . . . " , ..�. zti :"9g#Yq .. � ' � . ��� ai� �"c""^ �ja.i..ti ..a ��pi; -_ "'�=-^�
_1. . ,,... _ r., _. � �,.. " ' - � �'f'�'- ,r',i.. � . . . v'•+"v�a,:� - 3�'� `•• - �:-�-l�
. _ .y �-. ... - � . .'. . . ' .
,.. ,. . . . . '
-- � �: .;�q, :�.i� .. ., . _ ' _. .� -`"'.�, .' . : �" I ,ry � 7 � a.
�>�z� _ Y
, _ o-:
� :: -
. „ - _�� , _ . . '
. e
f
.. :. _�_,. �. . �" c . -. ��� .... - . .: . . �#'r � --v� • a - rr � x� � �y;:r '�a�.t���:'
- .' �..: � �.::. � .�- .,nc+. �.. �., - ._ � .�...,. . � - . ��.'Y y $F
- Y{„ _ _ � _ . . � � � • k �'3j r .
� .� a �.� E.p�r,� . . a. �_ .�� •e.. 4�h �� �t.�Y� ��-
�c,�. � �y t �' � �.�.� `� .�. -,.. a. t>;� �.. N, .� 7''��_-��'- -
.. .. ,
` . . ` _ _
`, .w _.. - , . �. ,
,
.,� ". • _ , . ,�;. ;.. > ...�- } �. . :. � . �'-�:�, . { �
•t �`�: - +. , " � ` �' -. � � rr � �
.,-,..,; . �'':'... ��. .. a . .. � ..- .}:: � � `-=�'`. . .: :...,v- �; . ., s;. •4 �.' c ,� X. _ � ' ' . Yi :a. >.a.�
. .. �z"�„'s�t_ .,�g � � f •� _ � .�y:� � � R a
.. .. �r . � �-
_ ' c _ . - - ,. �`: �. `�`..� R -��� � _ � � l �-` �� -
- - �a� . Y. I. �r :�.. . .f�- _ _ . � _
��..`�. . ��., .%`X^ - �t ' �4:�' .
� ��
- � . �`:'�' _ '
�� -
": r � - "•�' ,�
_ "�
- y - �
� � .
, , _:. ..
°i'- r � .
,� � -
�.�.•.,,
,. . .
. �w
4;, . ., : ,.. . .
. , , �-� �,
„ , .
_, � �
: < �` � ; �; � ,.� - ' _
. 4..., . . � ' '":x> �-+ _ .,�.� ,sy s��.'i �r . . ';:.: "�r �� :.-iq- �. .
. . . . "tr.. �� �._sT,�.� �� M1�� . s� �r�l`^.:a � - - -� tT'._"� . if ��
�` . , ��'�w.�^s' k�.S,.. .M4�y�t.Y�`3 -.p. .
� _ th . =-t. L.. - � �y.5 - ' t' . �1F � '-.'� t` .
. . 0 . - . F'� . . �
� + .Xaa+�_ ' - ..
. . �r` " G•L�� j - .
. cu.: -��ti �'�1'.�-`,��� . . . -,
. 1�
`L , _
C'"
���
vr�i3 ,
• ;x� . . �ip-T• _ . . , .
. :� . . .. a _ . � - . . .
-�?� ' .�+ � _ _ ' ' _ . �.�. � .. � '�`A�...� .'�J
n.�y � .r,�M�l- -,. � f . . t r � .
. � .. `. .♦ � "'„'�y ��{�-- 4 i�fy� �� � ��- - � . .
:' : -. '7}
Y e �� .:� J . . k .;' .
.
. � � . � . . . . � . F ��' . .
� ��. ,, �
; � ,
, .
. , . �� �
, , �, _ ,.
� ' ��\ , . '�;?,� ` ' � y , _
.
`��' � � , a��` ' *s�- �'
� �� a: : . •s t a j•��. �� _ � _...._• ..
�' . ♦ � � � . � . ..�.. ,,.�-�:^+a"` i _ , .r-
_ •.
v � :"-R `. � i ' � � �.\. � . . .. � r�.�sx kr z �, s . �; �. . .
_ �'>� "�`'� i � . . �,
? �•< t �'� � � "�. � � � ' t : .
.. y
_ . x
-,
.•
.• ' � � . �' �. r� ` . . � � �i L a� �. . . �`,•
� s'- 4`\ . i ,�, ���•� . . �.�._ . � r � � � � � '_s a � . • \
. �� •. � ? � �. �' " . '.�:?,'. � r+ - � ; �+�►`- .. , �
�.� '� � Lh ��� 3.. r,i, � t � " �v - . �'
. s �� h1.' t * �' ,' � � �� y�,�'i � ., ` 4 Y� - � ti�. '� �
�;� .:• , , _ �
' • e� : ,�.\ _ �c' ...:, - ,'?T �_; .;.;yl � . � ,:. t . `.` t � 3 _ . • - a. � ` , ..�
•" ` '� � �.,�=�' �- � � ,;,� �� �' �;�''o� .�; . ,� �i, � +� J �,� r
. � ''' ��`' � ,�,�''�"-' � "'t � � �'� _ �` ,€ �:` � re�, , ` i . ' � .�. ��. ./� , * � x:.
. A . '
. ,
.. _. ,,
,,,: :., , '' . . } .r
; �. �
. _ ... �-,�� -� a t- �,.� -• � ' .. .'Y,. . � ''� ��k.� ..> -+� . ��'� a..;.'
F
�a . .• ..: s `
,.:r:- ��,,� , ._ �� .. �•�:;' � ' '.,��, �
. .
;, .
, . . ,
, _ � . . � :. _ _ , +� ,..a��:��. � ,'' , �;;
��
>�, . A �,: � f
+ �� �� � � F _. i � '� . _ • � ,� '` - � � � . p F �^x•�� ' +�` �� ��r ,
� � w. �t�,a1T y.�;l�re�: Y �i'�` ,'4:� �°e:: �-_ . . �4� \ �
?n , \'. �•�' A�#�s�� � iG` ' �� I.. \ _
;'::�`� Y" ' � 1�. mt ` T�Y,�"�R - .':,-.P . .G � ,'t :. . l �, C`�
. ' ' ,� .�5�� � •'�*..'�i-. •',� ::�., W . a-,. � .� . ^�Y _
�� �.�?,5� �� � � .'ro.. '.�i�.,, - . ✓..... \ j„�"'
, .
<, \
'4.. '+%.Ss � ♦ -
. �"' �. :. `ti.ri ; � ., 1� .x�+, �p� _ t ��.\ . .i
- � �� . .A. . . � .�'- . fc 9".7�i! �� -4 �.,_ � ""aY�J."�k.. '"�".L • � ' _T• �u'
�.•� . _ 3 [ ! a� � `-a;n:;: r f � `�i, ' <7V ;a"`tA�d� w-;+�.+, ,• °f-� ��'^ F �' , � � - r' �� �y1r� '•'�.
. �,a '
. /.. , I
• :. � , s� .,'.. 7��,,y. � � � ," ! a.. , h,,y`��t�,•„� . �;- 1'i �;I Y
�
s'.
y Ss- �v �.,' i �4g; �. n �� f �T'� �+ 'Y' . tti �� +r �
. ,, �
� .� ��"r� _ - �` "�"'7 - '�'�, .�. �e. ./' r
. ', '.'�
, " ., � . �:� • .
, � z� � w�� � .,
. s._, ..,' �w. . .+ - ^'s--.�-v � � .+-�
;�a�� ♦ 1' r. . .�. . _:.,= � P �
, , ..
�'
.� , : ? - � ii
l� :,
� �' rr �r-*� -`a` �..-.. ,
, ,
♦ .V' .._� ..�~ . �1 �.��
. . �,.: . �:��G..��i4' t �� uy �� 5
., . •.t_. L ,�;� ,.�_>` ��
., . ,.M .
:
,
, . a � .
. . _ � .
' ._•.•�_s,�i.� �� . •:. . ,.... � ..m,^:r:. ' -'� :: ,. �-' �' a �r'✓ _..�.;�' ��� x�7it;�a ^s!.«�'.:.ii4.
�
, .
�
:�r; � iF,- t •,�,.,? 4 � • '�, � � .r: _,�'�yr.- L� �,�,"� t' �� �"� � .�y sa , �-c.
.-
.
� .�'7'
� �,� <� {°4: i ;4c �, � ,�.� -:. � .c, `'--: .` ,��y ► _vt z,,, ..A�.r � a'��. ._., -F'�`�,
�� .t�� � - y y.y5` ;,x' .+, 'd ' .r � �. ""`r�� .���� v��.:.QG� ..
m � � ', �;;�r : .`• `""��7`,� a��� .�i� pA� � >-- ' .;+r�r a. �"-3e, �y�r ;v ;jpp + -.. . �
�
� g p �.:3 � � ' C 'a1.ai F" +�-�-� �'� � � "° � k „�r '.;, �. ^ � ` -
� � ,� '" : � . $ � �`�Y�� ' � � ��� � � ,� %�� � � � . _ E 4, -„-�,,,. M �` � - .. -
��, �� i+- .::+�.�r�r.-r,._,tyi:t.,. � ' .. �_ 7-� '^,�!
...
, ,� �-- �� , ► :
--
_ _ :•
-
.,
t , ,; .�' ..� . . ' : � , � _:.. .. "�:'�.s�:.�'^n�'��,,,� . iii(i�ii'i'ii �i ' �" �� . - -
,
. •
Y-i� .,� . .:i
- .. ���. .� � � � ,9- -�`� �-e
. � >
.. , .. .
- . - ......•- ,
�. �.� � . _ � . . . . ' ' ' . 14. � -_
... - �. �e'�`'•` .�:"7� ��--�-�ya,p� 1 �I
. . � � _ � , . .; " , �
- -: ' . . .. ... _ . . y� .
...� . . .. ....� . ,�..:�`atsi i�c;.r. � __ • '��r� L����"S'
{ '�, � � ' . . : . . . iJ�,.,;� s+� � _"�'��� J .. ..i�
'k� � . ; yr. a�� i� :l�e
:� -..1 y . „� , � � . . . . .: . ' _ . � . . �. - _ '_ � . �n+�sk� _ ,y� �:- _.
-
i3 • � .
. ,., .,::,- ;��``,`� • � .�.
, ' � . _ .
,`
, ,
., -
. � w� - S, � . ....: ..,��, x� t �,...�� y _ ..
a
.. `+� .�� - . . - . � . � . �. - '?� ^�fa'•^-t ",`.'i�S��!y:-a.a' jr s�. � � . �� �'4 ��sC''.
� ; :;{.� . �` �: . . Rt � .
i; �i � �� 'g� r... Y �'�cr - `► �" �i
;* � -4-.'� " _"'�'"�':��`''�`�i - �ife fi s: g �,, �`
i�p i j �; � e'��."r.��� . �r !.' <�[i
.
. i � 4 . . . . . . . . -_ _ � £;. - �. � tn"" .. . . �i:.
a ,� . - a �`�??R�y;. � .
� t "
��
j , � � _ �-
, .i ,. __ ' . - ; , . � r �. + �-'- 'k�t� ,
� , �` � :
� � ,_� � ;., , `, ,.
,
'� . _ , . . �
( , .. .
. j .. , �..:.. . �_: , .. � . : _� �.. . . :,; .;_,_ . . ,. �_-i . �. � �,,: � ' '<..: . . .. . . '�c � . . � . - �
- 3. _� . , . . . . .. . . ��fi
� ar' .F,
. � `� t �s s: , ��� � t r � _ ye
� . � � � �� � ,. � - . �.. - � ,�i=%= c - . '� �,r .., _ .. .. �,.;.,, 9�it , � . . .: .
y . . . . 'U`'' �„ d"- - F' . -
� . .
4 r � '
� �' k
.. ' �! .�.�. . .. , .. .... � ., �4� j Jr}�`� . . .
' . 1 � '�} . . . . � • _ �tl' . , . .
' ... : .:t-.q;,�� "' . . . . . . '
. .� `'�-�. ..,. .t .?� ��,.'� . . "S�r�n-... .. � " . ....� �. - . - � .. . . . � . - . . . _
+'� - ..-:-. . . .
. . . � ' . �.-.'�"iydix}�� . __ . . - . .
� s�4 t'+. . . � . . . . _ - - � . . . "
>' •-
. � � a :
r .
p _f w � . .: _ . � . ,- . - ._ ` .. . � . . . . . . . . .
.
. ..i . .- � . � ' . _
� � .. � ' � . . .. . , . 3 . . . � � . �. . . . . . _
� .
- . � f� . .t�3�.r'.1'. ' . � � - . - • 4„y.z„ _ . . .. � . - ' .. - x, „m.;x'.a. _- _ _ ' .. ' . . . . . . - - _
• �„� < . ,� - ; . -
: . e,y#: �.�"ti �`R . -��� - �4 � . .
. .. . �. � ., �. . _ ' . '
. .'-.. � . . . .
�q w .. : � ,�M.�
..=» ' �. -: - :IT"g.-,. re_. l�r . -� ,r._. . . .. . . . . � . - ". . ' ' .. ..
Y, -,....'..�-� -�s. --r-:.u� . . �.. � . . - _._ . . �" . . . ' . - _
..,
�..�... .... -.... _.. .�
,�,.�a.. .,p„.� ..:.� -.�s-...,-;.s,._ �n""' .:.�""-e^.,�.,;.� �" ' .;� •'� s r _ „t -._-.. � , _ . k . . . . . _ . „� . .r;:�^:, . -
x��A., _-t .... -,_. . . ... �a^�e jamnzx ' , .., . .�.w,_.-.�.<: ,: -;-: ._.::,�' . _... `: �-- �. - . .:"�a 4 '��^:s�c<
�a
iw, -:r;'- '�';: ,:..-.� �x�.� �. . . �.SwK�c.tw �"w.,m. . .. Y .z... _ ,. . �.,:. «- . - . S<:� 'r. R�aa`::. . _ ..:: . .;} . _ . . �'�7�-,�sr _
p+�wY"+ �+c-35..a�ar..�'�W � - - - - ��k- . . . - . . � . "S k:g ' .. .. . -
.. � . - .s •-:e . ,aro�.,_ .
�-r -: ..� ...;i .. .
� .. ...-n.3__ . . , � . � . .�;�^. . . � v. "'+-.,�24..'•M$4�` ii.,.::�,i- � . ''Au�c'"ww..�"^ _ _
: . ,.: �.. � . . � ' � � :.: � ... , � . . .. 4vl'v,SWK' � ,AAQCENI. ' " - ' . . _ . a-
. -.:,_ . . �. .. - � -
• " "". .
fi -
. y� ,_.a.. 'i `"' � .i%.:...�'.'�+."Y r!S'2"Tsi-..—..ay x.,.p ,,,v.�u•.ti..: Rt Aq ,,, � _ -
_
.. - ..' 4 .! t . .. ' - . ... :.
. � - -._ �..^:. i-�.�s=., uM `.i'w„'�v'�-€"�`�. �'w�"-'-�w�..�ir�s. " y�qRsxs;w� •- . _ _ .:-:-���oia�r'r.-M .v_'=-.r":s --�:. �-s�
-__ . .,. .. .� .. ; �_:
.�.
" - .. .. , . ,� ti . .eaf � 1^'
�� �- . ,;::. '::.-.�:....s.=w,�re. F _.�., •y.ak:.ay�uktvxn+w�„ . �J+ :.�+ �,. .t � • .s.a a... ,.'y* "5 �;,�., �,s . �° : -'�_ b {;'�'�''�.s�� ��..,.,.. ,. ... . . , «:'� .Y �q�c. -
. . . _.. '�F�-.�r. -� .._z..yc:<.ti.-ar�C7s.�.'^-A §.a .->.x+,�:� .� ,,,�n t� r ��;n*o�T ,� .
. . . .. ..,. . . , .,. .. .«.,. � - 'r � '�:
... , r-•�.r ^'Y'L'�iF�"wx,-"6$6�i'r��'� :st-�s:�..r - � . =a."^'+T �=+•Sky« Mki� � �1tEK�'..�ifAmt���:!sYn��+,.. � . .
� -'. - , :-.:.. .. ' - .�_..:: ww'.�""'°'.�""' '.,. :. .�,�� ,� .�, Ya::,,��111si.,.pf . '
. . �
-'� w.�.�..... .,.._: ;�.a. -..-.. �: .;.,r�.Y.r:+r.t.`,. ...... ,_...,-�...«.�.,....+...�.. __ � ' . . . ��. �� �1.y::-.iY%i�.'v:� .:ta�_.� - '� :,�., "'
.: _ ., . �. -".-✓..- �: .. .. � ... ... . .s. .F ..�.-.'.��::-�.. -. � " - _ _ "�
:
w. ` .
.. � ..++.J� ' ' ��:F.: ..,' .. :•:�.:. ".4• .•:.:J. ..-:. : . . -. .::r. � -.-....t�.-�: ...-., . � :.:.,..�i ..�r . _ . W �l'ann.'�d'sF4v�Yrei. {- a:Y d+ �q.@L'}"�ie..
..., -� ....e.+.c- �ysws7�W = .. r_: ..r-.,_. ,;_,_ .... ,_. .. ., r...F._......, _..:... _. .- � �.,.,.�;. . ., 8^r aesaey�q+.,.,.:►+ -
: .,. . .. ,o,.�u� . .,.>.. .,._. . ..� z_-:., .'. -,. . .._, ,.__.... , .,:..-. . ._:. . _ . . _ _. . �t:. " - .
,, j� ,�, �, _ ,_. _ .__ - _ ��
, , .R,� .._, fl. .,� -- „,_, ,:;. , , -.,� ,�.:,,_,� ����,�-�;: _ .�.� . -
►r
r:
� .. �'_ . � :r �. ,.. ..�:a: ' �.�.,, - ::'�r�N��'i�t`-.Yce �- - _ " �.'.1a:�.
� . ..:._, _ .. .. _ _;:... �. ___.: .. .� _ _ ..,._. . .. . ... - _- � :, . ._ �' �. - '.. 'v-+��-'-t . . .. . _. . �.: - �".m...:,...�r - i�'s� .
_. _ . ..__.�... . ...__. . . ._. . . „_ . ..,� . ..e.._.,�» _ . . .,.� ' ... . - __ .. -�s,�,y;._�es, r . .. _ . - - _
.., . � .:.; . ._ .. s�. .. ' _ _
_._. _. . • :...,., � ._ , . ._ ,..._- _ •._. .. :.a- -. _.:, �.. . . : ._"? - ','' '� �'"�`-,,,�Sir- . } ...'� �.t..::ti�-.: - a - - - .� �aY�'t�' . - . �,.,.. ...... -
,_. , . _ � . ,: >t, a _- - � t. : ,< . - . . ,�� —,.< - _ . .._
_. ,��' . ..::, . .; .. , . _ a, .. t . ,r , "� ; >.%+� *W �a _
�.. i. .a...-.: t . . -.; �.r$r: _: . :.� �� �:,�..� r.:. � ,.� .>�..� i'n ::��,.., . _ ; � 3�� . i' - � �_�*^-.e.�r----. �_+-:'.- - "�'�
. ,...,-; -. ,. ., ^ .. � .. - �• •,.,. �;� .r { �, -:.... ,.i�.,: ..: . ,: � _. .. . - �«.�` �!C > • � - .._, .. -
:- � : _�:� :°�' � � •' �:.. fi� ,::; _ 'Y,: ... . ,_,.: :._ :..,y t-.;: - . ;. _,v....- :s-;- . . �i . -� -� . ' - °•':-r
� � _
- .:
.._�`�s. � . �� „� � . :.:-,: � ... . ;;. � :.� � .: *� �> ::.:;_y�_ "r' :� f,�,, ;.,.. �c �. i , ) t, �a"�'' ..�Ar:. -
_
_ ,...__.
;
� ,.,c .,.. .. .. i• �_� L: r � --.� . . �� _ j _ . ,:�� _ � . ... � a
. . . � � ,. � '� � .'r.., +�, '. .: . . ::a . _.:, . . . -... �`-� ... .; ,. _ .. ., k' . �v [it�3 i ' �'{1.�... .. _
. .:.. :. .. .;� K
i Jg ,%,�
;' _ . . . k. • . � . � ;: . . .. ; S� �" $ # . �: ': 'J" : ;i -, � 3��.:� _ � . "`F'i� y
� . � . . .. . �. .r., . . �, ( - . . � R � -
. . L . .�Y . .: � �� �. .�.; .-�i. ... _ _ wl . �4.'. J . �� , i #S �'." $. a� I � .:�5 �
. .- ' �i� +;�� . - . ` - Kq�:.. . . _4:x �,.�Y' � 1
. . .�� � y � . . �
�., y .- y¢
. , ...� , . .... . i;:. �. . ��. $ ..,. _ �
... � . ...� �.- ' . .vJ� �.. e ,... .. . .. �.. -�.-. ��f :8��� a �•� ,✓ y_.'.
, � ; , ..... � � ,� ,� ".,� . .- i":� :�, ,,_ - f
.. . ,� � ±w ;, • Y.'a,. - � - �s y°+� +. tti� � �� :�, ,, � . :}' .�' t , i
`� -�7�� 'ti,� .x p !"��' .. G-x y4?,: i ����t��� �r'�tr '
. . . es ' i '� f }; _ . � , . L� �.
. . . +� �� :s- `m.= . . 's�•�f!
. . '�� , �� �� �it �� � � /"� .� . '��.. :s,�. �l?�:y �H�'�� J . ��
. . , , _
..� > .. �.�.,. ,
,,
;_ . � .. . ,� . ., .. �¢
,. ..: � .. , �. < <� � - - . .
; . o : + '
�«.,
'� s- . '�S. ...�. �';'�t•- . ..s ���� ..-.* ... ' �:;�'�. . z�� '- .. .t _.-_ • _.� .= _ ..,i.,�� .. .. ' � _ ...:�._ •, , . ;�-� -�,r. �'� . � .. .. . ... -_ �� � -'*� . '"•' . _ _ . - � -- ---
_'- J
�, ,
� ;, � �
� � . � , .
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
I Potentially
Significant
Sources issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Views along Airport Boulevard would be affected by the proposed project, as discussed earlier under Land Use
and Planning.s There are currently unobstructed, easterly and southeasterly views across the project site to the
lagoon from just northwest of the intersection of Anza Avenue and Airport Boulevard and along Airport
Boulevard. Althougli there is existing vegetation along Airport Boulevard and along the lagoon frontage,
eastbound motorists and pedestrians have glimpses of the lagoon as well as the distant hillsides and rigdeline to
the south and southeast. The proposed hotel structure and landscaping are expected to eliminate these views
for a stretch of about 700' along Airport Boulevatd, from the Anza Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection to
the western boundary of the project site. Traveling west along Airport Boulevard towards the project site,
motorists and pedestrians have focused views along the roadway through the roadside vegetation. The focal
point at the eastern end of this view corridor is the Red Roof Inn. As Airport Boulevard begins to curve to the
northwest, there are views of the Highway 101/Anza off-ramp, the hillsides, and ridgeline to the west across the
project site. These views from Airport Boulevard would also be blocked by the proposed hotel. Blockage of
these views would be at variance with the City's Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development which allows a
maximum view obstruction of 54%.
Views from nearby development would also be affected by the proposed project. East-facing rooms at the Red
Roof Inn would be the most affected as the proposed hotel would be in direct line-of-sight and block easterly
views of the lagoon, Highway 101, hillsides, and ridgeline from these rooms. There would, however, remain
angled views from these rooms. Other ne�rby development where similar views would be blocked include the
office building to the north across the street at 711 Airport Boulevard; the office buildings to the north at 111
Anza Avenue, 700 Airport Boulevard, and 800 Airport Boulevard; and the upper floors of the Embassy Suites
Hotel, also to the north of the project site (see Figure 1 for the location of these structures).5 From these
buildings, views of the lagoon, IIighway 101, hillsides, and ridgeline across the site would be partially blocked
as the proposed hotel would occupy varying portions of the viewshed for the building occupants. To estimate
the extent of view obstruction for these occupants, specific viewpoints from these neighboring buildings were
selected. Viewpoints were chosen based on the maximum expected view obstruction due to the proposed hotel
(see Figure 2). The field of vision from each of these viewpoints was assumed to be 80 degrees, which is
generally the maximum view angle for persons looking straight ahead. In cases where there are structures in the
foreground, the view angle is reduced. The project site plan was superimposed onto an aerial photograph, view
lines were drawn from the selected viewpoints, and estimates were made of how much of the maximum view
angle was blocked by the proposed project. The results are summarized below:
711 Airport Boulevard, a two-story office structure: about 25% of the maximum 80 degree view corridor would
be blocked.
700 Airport Boulevard, a four-story office structure: about 15% of the maximum 80 degree view corridor would
be blocked.
111 Anza Avenue, a four-story oE�ice structure: about 20% of a maximum 50 degree view corridor (between
700 Airport and 711 Airport Boulevard/Red Roof Inn) would be blocked.
16
4� � :�l �;�' � �
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
800 Airport Boulevard, a four-story office structure: about 60% of a maximum 25 degree view corridor
(between 711 Airport Boulevard and Red Roof Inn) would be blocked for occupants on the first and second
floors.
Embassy Suites: about 15% of a maximum 80 degree view corridor would be blocked for occupants on
floors 5 through 7(below the Sth floor views are obstructed by existing structures at 711 Airport Boulevard
and 111 Anza Avenue; above the 7th floor, building occupants would be able to look over the top of the
proposed hotel).
Mid-range views of the site are prominent from Highway 101, approximately 700' to the south at its closest
point. The proposed hotel would be seen adjacent to a number of other office buildings and hotels of similar
height and mass. These structures include the Doubletree Hotel (about 75'-80'), the Red Roof Inn (about 50'),
the office at 800 Airport Boulevard (about 55'), the Embassy Suites (about 85'-90'), and the Bayside Plaza
offices at 700 Airport Boulevard (about 55'). The proposed project would be visually compatible with other
nearby development and would not adversely affect mid-range views from the freeway.6
Distant views of the site exist on the hillsides of Burlingame and Hillsborough to the west and south of the
project site. At one of the highest points in Burlingame, the views from Cuernavaca Park at 525' MSL are
representative of the panoramic, scenic views that exist for the area, encompassing the San Francisco Bay and
much of the East Bay. The park in nearly two miles west of the project site. Because these viewpoints are
distant from the project site, the proposed hotel would occupy a minimal portion of the field of vision from
these vantage points. Furthermore, because the proposed project would be similar in height, scale, and building
materials to the surrounding built environment, it would not appear visually prominent.'
The project architects indicate that the project would not be built with a reflective exterior finish. It is proposed
that the exteriors be constructed wifh fiberglass with a cream-colored plaster finish, and the peaked roof would
be covered with earth-tone colored shingles. Accordingly, light and glare effects from the building's exterior
finish would not be expected. While the parking and building lighting plans have not yet been prepared, the
project lighting will need to conform with the City's exterior lighting standards. The project architects indicate
that the lighting fixtures would likely consist of low-pole and landscape lighting. The lighting would therefore be
similar to illumination from the Red Roof Inn. Consequently, the proposed light fixtures would add to nighttime
light and glare but they would not be considered significantly adverse.
Mitigation. As described earlier under Land Use and Planning, special permits shall be obtained for height in
excess of 35' within BCDC jurisdiction and to exceed the height limitations, view obstruction, and landscaping
requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development before any development is allowed. In
addition, 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.
17
�� 1
� � • � i �„ �; � •
[i�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATIOfJ SOURCES
I Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
14. CULTURAL It�SOURC�S. Would the proposll:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 1,9 X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 1,9 ' X
c) Affect historical resources? 1,9 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 1,9 X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? 1,9 X
Cultural Resources Summ�ry: There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites at the location of
the proposed building. Since the site consists of landfill and rubble brought into the site in the 1960s, it is not
expected that any historic or archeological relics are present. In addition, a cultural records search was
conducted for a project in the immediate vicinity and this area contains no recorded Native American or '
historical cultural resources listed with the Northwest Information center of the Historical Resources
Information System. State and Federal Inventories list no historic properties in the vicinity of the project and no
record of archaeological study in the area has been identified.
Mitig�tion: If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics 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.
Prehistoric resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable
soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include
stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits, often in old
wells and privies. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sites)
and/or DPR 523 (historic properties) or similar forms.
15. It�CREATION. VVould the propos�l:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities7 1,9 X
b) Affect existing recrcational opportunities? 1,9 X
:
� �
i� ; � �i� �� � .
�
ISSUES AND
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
I Potentially
Significant
Sources Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Recreation Summ�ry: There is an existing public access trail along the Burlingame Lagoon , which provides
recreational opportunities for hotel guests, employees and the general public. The project would require additional
improvements to the public access trail area and within BCDC jurisdiction. This would increase the amount of
available area for public recreation. Any development within the 100-foot wide BCDC jurisdiction requires a BCDC
permit.
Mitigation: BCDC approval shall be obtained for the proposed development within BCDC jurisdiction. A BCDC
permit shall be obtained prior to any construction activities.
16. MANDATORY TINDINGS OT SIGNIrICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to dcgrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reducc the habitat of a fish or �vildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop bclow self-
sustauung levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce thc number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
o�- animal or eliminate import�nt examp]es of the m�jor periods of
California history or prehistory? 1 j�
b) Does the project have the potenlial to achieve short-tei�n, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 1 X
c) Does the project have impacts il�at arc individuAlly limited, but
cumulatively considerable7 ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the ineremental elTects of a projcct a�-e considerable when vie�ved in
connection with the effects of the past projects, the efY'ects of other
cuirent projects, and the eft�ects of probable future projects) 1 X
d) Does the project have environmental eiTects �vhich would cause
substantial adverse ef�'ects on human beings, either directly or 1 X
indirectly7
19
J
� \ ; ' � � 'j' � �
18. SOURCE RErER�NC�S
1 The City ofBurli��ganae General Plan,l3urlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingame, Munrcipal Code, Ti11e ?S - Zoning, Burlingame, Califomia, 1995 edition.
3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City ofBurlingame, Burlingame, Califomia, 1994.
4 I3urlingame Bayfi•ont Specific Area Plan, adopted by the Burlingame City Council on May 4, 1981.
5 1990 Census.
Brabb, E.E., and J.A. Olson, �11ap siro�ving fazrlts and earthquake epicenters in San Mateo County, Calijornia, United States
6 Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1257-F, 1986, scale 1:62,500.
Wentworth, C.W., S. Ellen, V.A. Frizzell, Jr. and J.C. Schlocker, Map of hillside materials and description of their
engineering characte , San Mateo County, California, United States Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations
7 Map I-1257-D, 1985, scale 1:62,500.
a) Perkins, J.B., Map showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Groundshaking, San Mateo County,
California, United States Geolopical Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1257-I, 1987, scale 1:62,500.
b) Thompson, J.M., and J.F. Evernden, Map showing predicted seismic-shaking intensities of an earthquake rn San
Mateo County, California, comparable in magnitude to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, United States
Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investic�ations Map I-1257-H, 1986, scale 1:62,500.
� c) Yous, T. Leslie, and Perkins, Jeanne B., Map showing Liquefaction Susceptibility of San Mateo County,
8 California, United States Geoloc�ical Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1257-G, scale 1:62,500.
9 January 30, 1997, Preliminary Plans of the Site Development Proposal.
70 City Engineer's memo of February 18, 1997, regarding truck turning radius and entrance driveway.
11 Fire Department Memo dated March 3, 1997 regarding Fire Alarms and sprinklers.
Public Access Guidelines for the Anza Area, adopted by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission on
12 January 21, 1982.
13 Burlingame Traffic Analyzer, 1988 Edition.
Map ofApproximate Locations of >00-year FloodAreas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood
14 Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981
Traffic lmpact Study for 765 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, California, prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates,
15 February 14, 1997.
16 Environmental.Site Assessment, Hilton Garden lnn, 765 Airpoit Boulevard, Burlingame, California, prepared by
Harlan Tait Associates, March 11, 1997.
20
� �
�;-;,'• �', �
�'Text Endnotes
1. Dave Conncll, President, I-iarlan Tait Associates, Consulting Engineers and Geologists, mcmorandum to Bob
Sauvageau, Architect, RYS Architecture, 13 March 1997, HTA Project Number 1304.010.
2. The dcfinitions of liquefaction, ground lurching, landsliding, tind settlement are provided below.
■ Liquefzction occurs in loose, saturated, cohesionless soil such us fine sands with no silt or clay
•content. USGS mapping shows liquefaction susceptibility at this site to be "low to high," defined as
"generally low to moderate, locally high near active and abandoned stream channels." Because this
site is adjacent to a lagoon and channel, it is expected that the susceptibility �vould be toward the
upper end of Ihe 1 to 10 percent probability range estimated by the U5GS.
■ Ground lurching occurs in stifT� soils or fills underlain by Bay Mud or liqucfiable soils, �nd adjflcent to
a free-stlnding soil slope (hillside, trench, river baril<). It is characterized by a sudden horizontal shift
of the ground surface to�i�ard the fi-ee-standing slope as a result of earthquake vibration. Although this
site is adjacent to a lagoon and channel, it is protected by an armored levee, which reduces its
susceptibility to damaging hoi-izontal ��ound movements.
■ Landsliding of levee faces can be t�-iggered by earthquake vibration, especially where liquefaction is a
concern. USGS mapping sho�vs slope instability potential at this site to be "very low," defined as
"less than 3 percent of area likely to fail in a major earthquake." Because the levee slopes at the site
are protected by large slabs of concrete rubble, they are less susceptible to failure than similarly
situated unprotected fill slopes.
o I,ateral spreading is an horizontal ground movement which can occur in Bay Mud as a response to
severe groundshaking or rlpid loading. Because Bay Mud has such a high water content (sometimes
as much as 50 percent), there nonnally is little or no lateral support to prevent the mud from bulging
out fi�am under a heavy load during seismic vibratibn or rapid filling. Levees sun•ounding Burlingame
Lagoon have compressed the undcrlying Bay Mud and provide lateral support for the layer of mud
beneath the projcct site, thus minimizing the possibility of lateral spreading.
Settlement (subsidence) can be caused by densification of loose sediments or in response to
liquefaction or lateral spreadin� (�,round lurching). Densification occurs when loose soil particles are
shaken into � more compRct condition and consequently occupy less space. Because the fill at the site
is of ii7egular and mixed character, it is not possible to predict it's general strength and
compressibility. Hence, it may be susceptible to densification.
David 1� reyer, Architect, Reimer Associates Architects, telephone conversation with G.J. B�.utivasser, Geologist,
�IP nssociates, Comprehensive Environmental and Planning Services, 19 March 1997.
4. Dave Coru�ell, President, Harlan Tait Associates, Consulting Engineers and Geologists, memorandum to Bob
Sauvageau, larchitect, RYS Architecture, 13 March 1997, HTA Project Number 1304.010.
5. Close-up views of the project �vould Uc available fi•om Airport Boulevard, but the project would be visually
compatible with the adjacent five-story Rcd Roof Inn, would not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic ef%ct,
nor adversely afiect scenic views of the lagoon or San Francisco Bay as described in the follo�ving text. As
noted below, the project is similar in height, scale, and mass to other nearby development, so that it would
create a negative visual efTect. Close-up views of the lagoon are not readily available from project site
viewpoints along Airport Boulevard because of the project's site relatively small frontage Along Airport
Boulevlyd (appro�cimately 230' and the vegetation along the perimeter of the parcel. For motorists or
pedesirians traveling along l�ii-�ort Boulevard, the project would inteirupt distant views of the ridgeline to the
west and south. This orientation of the structure (�vith the nairower 45-foot building elevation along the
Airport Boulevv-d fi-ontagc) helps to minimize the extent of view blockage, but it would still exceed the
21
t �
� � � ���� � �� � �
allowable view obsti-uction defined Uy thc City's Waterfront Commercial Design Guidelines (see earlier
discussion under L�nd Usc and Planning).
Specifically, looking �vest along Aiiport Boulevard, the wooded hillsides and ridgeline are visible in the
distunce and the Red Roof Inn and the st�-eet trees along Airport Boulevard aze visually prominent in the
fore�-ound. The hotel project wouid obst�-uct westerly views of the Red Roof Inn, but would itself be visually
screened by the e�isting sh•ect trees along Aimort Boulevard r�nd the proposed evergreens Along the site's
eastei� boundary. I,00king south and southeast along Airport Boulevard, the project sitc is obscurcd by the
DouUletree Hotel and the Red Roof Inn. The proposed hotcl proposal would become visible along Airport
Boulevard 100' northwest of Anza Avenue. The hotel would obstruct distant views of the ridgeline to the
south from this point to the western properiy line of the project site, a distance of about 700'.
The hotel proposal would also affect views from nearby development, specifically from the Red Roof Inn
immcdiately to thc west; from the two-story office building to the north across the street At 711 Airport
Boulevard; from the four-story ofTice buildings to the north at 1 I 1 Anza Avenue, 700 Airport Boulevard, and
800 Aiiport Boulevard; and fi•om the mid-levcl floors of the Embassy Suites, also to the north of the project
site. The most direct effect �vould be for the Red Roof Inn rooms facing eastward. These rooms have existing
views of the Sanchcz Creek Lagoon and the PG&� transmission lines, the airport long-tenn parking lot,
development along /titport I3oulevard, and more distant views of Highway 101 and the hillsides. For a
majority of thesc rooms, thcsc vicws would be Ulocked by the lenbth of the hotel building; there would,
�however, remain ingled vic�vs. For all other identified, nearby development, the panoramic viewshed to the
west and south, includes the vegetated hillsides and ridgeline of Burlingame and Hillsborough. These views
would be partially blocked by the proposed hotel.
Close-up views of the project site fi�om the San I'rancisco Bay and vice versa do not exist because of
intcivening buildings.
6. Mid-range vie�vs of the project site are available fi-om Highway ] O 1, approximately 700' to the south, at its
closest point. The vicw fi-om the fi-eeway, northwa�-d across the lagoon, is churacterized by a relatively
continuous ro��� of mid-rise offices and hotels, from the Doubletree Hotel at the western end to the Empress
Court at the eastc�n end. 1'he approsimately 80-foot proposed hotel �vould be similar in height with the nearby
hotels, from west to east: Doubletree Hotel, about 75-80'; Red Roof Inn, about 50'; Embassy Suites, about
85'-90'; and Cro�vn Plaza, about 130'-135'. The office buildings range from about 25' at 711 Airport
Boulevard to about 105' at 577 Airport Boulevard (Bay Park Plaza), with the majority being 50' to 60'. From
mid-range viewpoints along the fi-ee�vay, the proposed hotel would not be incompatible with the suirounding
building heights and massing, nor ���ould it obstruct scenic vistas of the San I'rancisco Bay further to the north.
The project site is visible from higher elcvations to �vest and south in Burlingame and Hillsborough.
Cucrnavaca Park ulong Alcazar Di-ive is one of the highest points in Burlingame and offers panoramic views of
the San Prancisco 13ay and the East Bay. At 525' above sea level, the park is nearly rivo miles west of the
project site. Vic�vs of the project site fi�om this public recreational area are screened by the eucalyptus trees
along the perimeter of the baseball field. However, direct line of sight to the project site is available from other
vantage points in thc vicinity. At this distance from the project site, the project site occupies a minimal portion
of the viewshed. The proposed hotel would not project above the horizon; it would barely be visible and views
of the Bay and �1st 13ay hills would not be affected. Prom the Burlingame and Hillsborough hillsides, the
structure's height and mass would appear to be similar to the surrounding development along Airport
Boulevard.
22
04/21/1997 11:34 510-286-5513 C�LTRANS PL�NNING �4 PAGE 01
�Z�S-'[�5�3�t'7� �EISS-�Sz•lo�sl ��
vLI9-r�5.7.31SI%� =FLI4�SZ (OXS) ' �Dd-'�''1J
:��7 asuaJd'�;ajdiun�ut sc Jv1�Isysua.r=��j �l �.'r`�i!'�.,4'K-}(f' Sd�''� -�' � �g��
rtl �r �rrW �-V � t,t1`� 4 � s� �W/��S -Y-2.l�i+ 'G b 61 '--t►1 •�.� �-�4
�sy 5�.3-�d � ��ld s 1� �'W/�'� .l'y`�d,►-+1 �+ow(,�v� ��x.v1.,.��1( �
'�Sf�5�4 sl � .:.�►1 .� h)'+W�? '.NU`i-�1M tn�5 �{L N � ���� tk�Wd •
,��a?dN3' 4 `��Y%�?�j► R�(�.4L ' �-{iL (�'I$ �VriCs')')�J '
st� 1ttivN�/ � '
�y�..,� .�J�t � �� �N �3i1 � -fU�9`'� r�M�� �J .�Fii �W �J�"�y,.,�^^'°"� -�wJ
• s �-%� � /: �� r �.-�.J+ `�/'� E/ �FC�"�'�/ r� �� �+ •
. .."'"�_ Morio� v� sa��d 3� r TEaa.L
. �..� ' 98Z {O�S) �auo�id
0
0
�
��OZSSIYIISI��d'2I.L �'SXS�I�IS�'�'3
� t�au�x� �u�uu��� uoi���,xt��su�,z,z,
� � }�u�.sz� .
�o��a,�.co�sz�r�.�,� �'� .�r��x�s.�c��a� ��u.co�('z���
s����.���� .
'ld3a 9NINNdId
' 3V'�yJfvl-12�f18 �U �lll�
L661 Z � �dd
���������
�� .��o� .
� ,� ..� q r» �'y.,j . auzex
. - , • - 1.� ���,�� � Csr� �#�1j . •
� . �_r-�. � �.� -- q � � ��, #��a��
. � � � • ��.�o � r�ry r,.� ���30
S'�lnrnyq rc�t�3�t"�/ 3 �'t�I'ia'hr �t��� ��N
:iuos3
,, .
:o,Z
�� :
, �,�' ,, SZ ,
r �
04/21/1997 11:34 510-286-5513 CALTRANS PLANNING 04 PAGE 02
� b � � � , :pa1sod a�EQ
•��� aq Y�c(s ua�e��cu.�a�ap aq� `paasod a�ep aqa 3oaiay s�f�p pT u?t{atM pa�add� ssaju[l
pau�is .���Q
� �♦ �.
.� - �; ��
+/
�coi�3O �uzssa�o�� 3o azna�eu�ts
•�uautuosTnua
a�� uo ��a3;a ������u��s E an�q iitM i�afoad aui a�e� a�uap�na �tau�sqns ou s� axat{� a�� puno� si �t
's�u�put� �up�oddns s�a�3 saylo I� io3 �Cpn�s �er�ta� aqa o� �urua�a� 'v�isap a�a[old a� u�noxt�
�aw uaaq aneu s�uauca�mba� apo� �utuoz i� 'anoq� pa�oa s� �da�xg •u�d �ar�d ��I�adS �uoa��C�eg
au��dutj�ng au� puE uEi,� jeiaua� a� u�in� 1ua1s�suo� sr »aiosd s�q�, ., �
•}uacudojan.aQ �uoi�Cgg io� sauT�apin� u�tsaQ au� 3o s�uawas�t�bai �utdE�spu�j au�. uio�� y�n
o� pug °����au �urp�tnq au� u�u� ssal s� q�tunn uoo�gl a��. uio�� �oeqaas au� io� `suoil�?�u?� uaTzarwsqo
nnatn au� paa�xa a� paamba.� os�� aa� s�?uuad l�r�adS •sauciapin� cc�?s2p ac�i �Cq Pa�nba.� �aa� OS3�
�q�tau umuincgcu jis.�ana ac�� paa�xa pu� `uot��psunC�CT�S un�atnn xc���aq utncu�tu ,S£ 2u1 spaa�xa
��rc�nn `��{�tau ut ���-�LG sc �u�pj�nq pasadpsd aq,� •;i�uno� �i�t� aq� �Sq pa�dop� �uacudoianaQ �uoi,�ieg
io� sauTiap�nca uSisaQ aui paaaxa a� pu� `(���gJ uotss�uacuo� �uauidotanaq pue uoi��ensasuo�
�t�g o�sr�uEs,� u�es 2���.o uo���psimf aya �iu�u� �y�cau uznurc:cEui ,S£ au� paa�xa uoiunn s�utp�tnq
so� s�ituaad jEi�ads�o �no�dd� saimbas ��afosd aus •p1Ena�nvg �odiiy uo a�e�uo� p� o� ssa��E
s�q a�ts au,1, •u�ed a�rq pan�d � pu� �u�d�aspu�f sure�uo� uorunn uaa��� aw�8ur�ang aq� o� �ua�Bfp�e
a�is au}�o d��s �oo,�-�j�'� oS�E si aiat�y •$u�xi�d �odix� cu.�a�-�uoj so,� pasn �Cj.�aLu�o3 senn �a�� sius
•pnnajnog �.rodi� 01 �sasoj� au,s a�3o uotuod aqi uo �u�n�d zjEudsE pal�Iovalap u�Tm ��re u� st
a.�auy •ltre��n. nc�ou st 2lYs att,Z. '1�-a Pavoz `p�najnog �zod�?� S9L a� 'ape,z3 �� sxe� Z£i Io� ��:zed
qaznn �aiptmq ia�ou i.uoo=-Z£� `�it� N�-�LlJ �S.iols-xts n�au �: sY a�afoid auZ •.. •
�pa�mba� st aIoda� 7��dusI �uauluoijnug oN (�)
�uauzuosrnua aq� uo ��a3�a �u��3��?s � an�q aou TI���Z iX�
� ' ;lEt� pat�iur�al�p pu� ��afoid pasodo�d
au� �o nnainas E pa�a�cir.uoo `G66I `�UO . �Cq aure�urfmS �p �j� aLi.L
.'ld3a JNINNHId �,- •o�j aj��
3U�b'Jivll2if18 �0 �lll� ' '
L661 I � bdb
� � '� ��I����
�'!
� � � ���.
�`�i���'Q�,-�
L�
� � - ; - � � -- �.
r� � �� :r � • �
�"�1'1°j���
�� ��� � �
�
��•` � y�
' �t '� '�.�� �
RESPONSE TO 4/14/97 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
Hilton Garden Inn, 765 Airport Boulevard
Prepared by Callander Associates, April 18,1997
Issue: Landscaping within 30' front setback, parking area and beyond BCDC's
jurisdiction is less than prescribed by City guidelines.
Response: Total compliance with the City guidelines is difficult to achieve because
a disproportionate amount of the site falls within BCDC jurisdiction.
(Shoreline frontage: 350 feet, street frontage: 130 feet). Compliance with
BCDC guidelines reduces the area available to satisfy City guidelines.
Despite this obstacle, the majority of City guidelines have been met, and
where the guidelines have not been met, the deficiencies are slight.
Overall, the site landscaping exceeds the City guideline by almost 40%
(see Landscape Comparisons, 4/17/97).
To mitigate for the slightly lesser area of frontage and parking lot
landscaping the plan offers: specimen size trees planted at the street, turf
planted from sod (instead of seed), the use of a majority of larger size
container plantings and well thought out placement of plant material to
maximize impact (see attached "Preliminary Planting Plan" dated
4/17/97).
Issue: Was the alternative of a beach considered in lieu of the existing rip rap
shoreline?
Response: No. No alternatives that would result in any modification to the existing
shoreline were considered. The existing shoreline is outside of the
property. Modifications would require the approval of their adjacent
property owner. Any modifications to the existing shoreline would
trigger an extensive permitting process and result in delays that would
jeopardize the project.
To provide a more complete response to this issue a schematic plan
illustrating a possible beach was prepared (see attached "Beach
Alternative" dated 4/18/97).
Other concerns associated with the beach alternative are environmental
impacts, the attractiveness of a beach in this location, and difficulties
associated with breaching the existing rip rap levee including
engineering and liability issues.
Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture
311 Seventh Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401-4259
415375-1313
Fax 415344-3z90
Callfomla Ilcrnse x1308
96.067 ResptoPlanComm
�� � � c�'� , �
LANDSCAPE COMPARISONS
Hilton Garden Inn
April 17, 1997
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
� Guideline Total 21,558 s.f. 100%
Provided Total 29,751 s.f. 138%
Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture
311 Seventh Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401-4259
415375-1313
Fax 4153443290
Californla Ilccnsc +� t 3�
96.067 slide.b/w
Front Parking Outside Within Total
Setback Areas Shoreline Shoreline
Band
� i
msrNo evuurrrus sooeoxn.oM—�
a/ t'�
` � s.
`.E_��. .r
, , . . . , �
..,; �� I i! i � 1 7 � � � � �� � I � � � �
� • � I
;1�.��:�1!��.'►�ili�l��lilll
� ,�\ ee
��
S �
4t,y
Rj
C �
4F�t �• ,�
�7
CO
0,�, t`
NOTES
, . Y���a��/rwrw����w�w��ua.usrc
• �i�� '��wa r� i� � �iw
• 6/RJ! wa M�' ��atia �s ari.i wa�u
. ��ss..w.wr..r�..�.o...rm�w�
. s� �...rY.o..�...+.s..�..�..r....
• �0Rl.Q� �+ ��n�Y w �+-y
� _ ...�s.�n � as+a
a�m.a��sw��.ws+�� ��
�� a e
� .."�
\\
�
� — � �a� i
� � \�
a���.
E7�STM0 Y'IOPORUY LEATW
� � � u � �, 9�P
o 'O
, oP
, � �
=�`/ '� .
�^ J , t
�j � �Y - a ��c
j � �n
.C' t o
// \ a �.�..�
�
',/ \
' � � �_
r
('
YOUNDEO, SODOEO LAYN OENEATM TRE[t ��
" � �,l ANNUAL COLOR 8 ENiR1
�•
.. _ `. ,\. �. it
�,- .'�) \ . ,.` �
-��! ��•\ ' \ � FLOWERINO TREE! KANTED filOM 2�' OOII
�• :c� i � � � �.
. ' \ ` �� 4
\ ,` •.
J�\`\\ \ �\ \ RIVER COBSLE MI PARKINO ISIAND
.
� ` \ EVEROREEN fREE9 WrtH
� ECNEENINO 9MRU0 MAS! SELO�Y
\/�"7�� `�. 1 ,
PLANT LIST
�1��M �OT�MCLL M4Y! COYYOM M�Y! �tI! /��Ol �OIwrYY� LO�O�YI1�
�[0 ��s ❑ a Y�� �� K���
�W�� �CQRilYY
�
O �.,,�, � M Tr�.. ur��wr
'�'�r' � �
� �r� �
. �.�. �v�. u.
o�or .. � � �..:.�...�.
O.�... r .. �� .��.....
��� � �I�V
� ti��� _ _
r.w�o�... �_�
� �
6(YRe�Lm) � � o.�.c�.
{y� 'w M� �wu�� ti� r..�,�rw
W/ '+"'��
�
�r r�... rew M ._��'i...r
..���.r.
«vn
.� 4 f�Ow
"" Aw
� N O�t
� � ` �
• N • ARR
NO[Tll
�e
$
Y�
E i°
]w
� �
Z �
F Z
2 W
0
� Q d
} J
Q � �
_ � L
W O �
¢ = r
�r
. . -
, ' ' � �' - �
, �
OBSTACLES TO BEACH ALTERNATIVE
I. Encroachment: Beach encroaches on adjacent parcel.
2. Attractiveness: Aesthetic appeal of beach at this
location is poor due to:
• overhead high voltage transmission lines
• noise from freeway
• mud flats
• no wave action
3. Environmental Impact: Degrades wetland habitat
value by encouraging human use in environmentally
sensitive area.
4. �'ermitting Hurdles: Permits would be difficult to
obtain from BCDC, Corps of Engineers, Fish &
Game, and Water Board because it would represent a
substantial altemation to an exisring body of water.
5_ Engineering Hurdles: Breach of Anza area dike
presents substantial engineering challenges including
Flood Contro] and liability issues.
6. Project Delay: Addition of a beach would delay project
by a minimum of two years due to permitting,
engineering, and construction difficulties.
I
CallanderAssociares BEACH ALTERNATIVE �
ldndsCape Architecture
HILTON GARDEN INN, 765 AIRPORT BLVD. BURLINGAME, CA
3�i Y•rnmAvm� DqOJ. / OATE SGALE DRAWN er DflAWING NO.
sa�Ma�ro.c..9.wi g6.067 4/18/97 NONE
�i' 3�S�i313
T . i • � �
.. .
x ; �Rd,,6 ',�� r,s,�; r't''`�" i
�
� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 696-7250
7E5 AIRF'ORT POULEVARD AF'N:0�6—s44-1�Q�
Application for negative declaration and
conditional ttse permits for a 132—room hotel
at 765 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4.
The City of Purlingame F�l�nning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, December 14, 1998 at 7:00 P. M. in
e i y a ounci ambers located at
5Q�1 F'rimrose Road, R�arling�me, California.
Mailed Dece�ber 4, 1998
(Please refer to otlaer side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the apphcation andip��ns for ti��s pro�ect may be reviewed prior �;y.�.:3 �
to the meeting at t�i`i�` Plaiining �D�artment at;;� 501 Primrose Road, �
Burlingame, Califortiia,�� '°�'°"�"' � � � ��` � � �
b - � � .>
��;��,. �' ���. �. �., _�� " �. � .
��.� ; �
If you chal
raising onl
described i
at or prior
Property o
tenants ab
696-7250.
i3e '.
raised a�
__�. _ . _
\.. :'x, s, �1 :'� i ' fY . « ,.. ...
4- ��
Margaret Monroe � `�-�:'�`-`%:.
a .a�r
City Planner �- � r ���, _
; �:
be limited to
blic hearing,
;d to the city
ming their
call (650)
�
i.
t,
,
;
�
- ;
�, � „� s ; r �: �
: .
n-�,.w�,.�.�.��.�.,,����,a, ., .w:��}.. � ,
, . PUBLIC 1-�EAR(NC NOTICE
, , , . .. .
� ,�: . (Please refer to other side)
. `' . . � . . . . . , . �_ .,
� � � � - __..,.,___,.... .,...,.,r,,, _ vwtui.c.i.t �G$�','tis'. �`,:. .;v...
� t z �'} � m � ;.` a: r�',
,r; �' 'c^.,V r � r� � ^�P �
. � ::.�� � '} sl� '` . �.�T J F r ��, r t � ` �t r , j �'�";'' .
. _ .r'. r �� r a � J
� �`r� .. '� V� +.2 c.3::7'�zr# i Fr {'. rtf' �.k_ :',:..
: {� ,�� : a. .xs�- � .�»''-.
°_::- _ ... w� Y ,� ;;f f * t�. .
� `� �� s A,: �.,,, � f F t���,.:V e.± fr S+` �`�
�.�{ f � ",�"`' �K WM' d µ :� � ` ' "� �
���f;;;.- .�t �"�`d �`i b � .� a � � �� -> ;` � � �
-`, . ::it::.y�;:: �` . �:; �, ¢ *rz , ,� j�f'�' � ,�wf �t �k';if �fi
v r
�����f�� �Q� ,J FA�. ��[ Y' 1*j74 �• t��g .. .
� % ^ � ��
� t? �� I �� � 1.>�.�
.�.;> �a c�pi'. yF.�r ���� � °�.C�►� � e ?'�� ..�7 ; .?,"� ��.
` � A J �:yJ
h �.' �y+'�7. .7 - r ',�SY�r'S'i. ' � . ..�
x . �,4 "� � � f J' i a � �^ f -o �t , s�, . .
�+ P 4�t /,' 'r �n*v
� �. �: � �G�..��.; '"� i .^ � ���� .._� � �� � '�5',� . � ; �ic� r�rFi+s; k� *�,'s � s §� �, 'tl�i�� �e:�
, . .. �.' � � ... . . �'
d " : . 3 . . va.
m ' � ,, . � y. ��„ ' � � � r ; � ; �� a ���k J 2 �,��r�� ' � �� .w ,s�,� :
. , , �I� �1'�a'� ..�a � �; ^�`.s
W ' � Y -Z5 � f+*, � � j ;� � 4+f�, ,.i�,�� � ���r� *� x :�� y � 4 �(iy�.njx t"�w �s'�n � �'�'�.
++ s
`"'- �� �i �.t c S. „f:r � � ;.:. . - � ^`.�s��� ¢' } � � ; x� � � �4 : .
'� � tr.�� ^�. � pt } �-. • �. i� r W . � � �`.;�.
�a 1Pk�r,� � , �� i.p ,'� :..1��1' •d +A� ..(>:P 'XR. 4 � i`'�Y �
` *��r '.� y '�° �� �"'� �'7',_ ����y.�� .�:1� , ����� r `' • _ `' ."�'�+s
. �t y) ?� � i� � �!�, _) } �M�F��+� ���: � .� . :.Y Y"'
I `
.�"v. � e+� �� : , ". . `1�.� 7 : iti'1�.^ � . l i � � � %°i� ' .t � �r b , �� -..
. .«� v
'� " � •� r a � „a„x�,y �.
�
+
�L f Y
� I }
""i�. �:;.: . �. _tr�g..,,�,;�^aw y. �"L. � � � : . ��I � 8 3'� u'x.�, z;' ' .; �:�,� �. �
� {W
�h,^.r '�. tn. ����.h t�,�.. . � `• tit e a ��
DOL � �-�� '° � � � '�� � ., . ��'���`"` ,�°"
,
�.4 '9 `�,�, w FF' �i ;i� '��� .r;�'c�
, � y'� ..... ;�Y*M��.. ! f. 4��..,.'r ��Y
� ,.
t
a t
.
':s a
f r,',� .�:zF ? i �k• ��y �y1� 'r�^+� `�.a
�"�' �*n�'sr ,`_ z �'+ 'F -,L" .X ^�" -
�� 4. � .
x �`�;-��, � a � � �' c
�� � a � `� x u:�-
^.
41�, �r���.�:� , <' ` �' ,•,.
,., �, w�,
.
b.., ���. � `.. ' �pE 4 r . tl � x
"- �,, .�., i, .'�... , , 1� ..
`{ y,� � `P
....�... �*X . �' .'. � pPt �tY�� y "`�j4,�� ''' {^�
" ^ a�
" /R./ b . � .i'. . t i}�� - yy'}` .
���j�`' Is, . �,; xar� I ' �j� a' `� 'b '� � � U �, ""'*t .
�^! � , ..�. ', 'Tlll•y q(y ty�,.1 i , a ..
.� �' _ .���..� t{ 7'.. f_�� 'u���i�fi'w 4i 7 R '�'y� �47
�
���� r��,r'��a �y✓. �p'�. � (� '�`� �`y,�,:� 3 F '' b��.w.s : �'�
"'"T="a�"'�e. � � r .�� � F �hf t � ''i},'� �'�t3h � ry�,s
'�,q ,� �� Y<. 4t'_ 4r.,:� �� k�� � x �i..
� �,> �� ��.� . �/
,,� �,..;-,. . � �° , �
�. � � � � . . . 1 y . . " ^ �' � -•y, .+ ? i' .: !� :'! � 7�a. ,
� r k �
♦ ��+ x yI �) p � ��
a � � F�r *� I'�R �'�W� V. F � .i A �� q � � q � M � .
... � � � :N ' S � / . j` �' pM1
._.___...� . ....J � x }i t. . � �. ,�� � ry -. . _ .,. k � !:� i �:. ,, � w � I
T'.. � ' � �� S J��n� � 5�
.. � .
�. ,, x: Y`v, '
� .� i b r ,y. . �'A- ia� �9F`` �i,'s3 �' Yac �. ��.1 rc
v p,�'�� .µ � � i.
� .!� ,� � ,� � `�:� ��i�
�,
/ . �� ,�„ ;F�. .Y sr�vi.: y �;x +. 'n4�Y �'�'��� '��. �al'�.',u.1 �.En.• %•
E > �
� %�.V � � � �c,::�-�..:.. �:� ..:.".� ��%'j`��;,✓•s,.�V� �rt �'x "'�t�:d.. �� , , .��: . . ,
, ` �, �+' 'ii����' ""i'y � ,. r � ,! �.�,�,3*�w � " `
.` ♦ e rt, Y,pr ;� �;, �+ra •�„- �'W � �y
� ` 4 nty, .
�JG3h?�+____�I� `♦ . �� 3 � ... .. .5�• ^�y � .t � +a� + r"� f d �.,�'Aa, i� r '}.1'�'i���'► yiai•pl��+�� '1
��+� �,' .y OA , � � '.• �. .
..k� ., i �.h�' $ti: .y, 4 ✓M .. '',.'�A:�.tn � .e� � ` 'a..� ` Fu b ,.ro°.v, L.a�.,x°r`-'ry„ta''r�w� . �w;"". . �"'�, m ` �.,..,...� «�.��'�
� ' � ! � �
. '
• ,- RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
' -•. �- � �-- � ��� -� � .r� • �-- .�- •
_��� e��, ' �: n� � .�� �r. ��� • �r �•�� �• - • : ���� i• � •�-_�
� • � ��.�� i• " . 1 11 �� �!�1" 1 � i C"'" � '1 . i� .� ir.l• � �'��•
� ��"y ••1� ��� � • �� �
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
December 14� 1998 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all 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
receiverl and addressed by this commission, 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, per
Negative Declaration No. ND 485P is hereby approved.
2. Said condirional use permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permits are as set forth in the minutes and recording of
said meedng.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I, Dave Luzuriaea , 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 14th day of December , 199g , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
- � � � �
• �.
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval negative declaration and conditional use permits
765 Airport Boulevard
effective January 4, 1999
1, that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped November 12, 1998, Sheets A1.01 through A-10 and Sheets L1 and L2;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and City Engineer's November 16, 1998
memos and the Fire Marshal's April 3, 1997 and November 16, 1998 memos 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) shall be 77'-4 'h";
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 except that the hotel manager may live on the site;
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 arrangements;
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 opportunities 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 shall follow the procedure established by
a qualified landscape azchitect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control;
2
" � � � ,�I►
' ,-
'' Conditions of approval negative declaration and special permits
� � 765 Airport Boulevard
effective January 5, 1999
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 project;
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;
14 . that the project shall conform to any seismic requirements of the State Architect's office;
15. that seismic-resistant construction shall follow the recommendations of the site-specifc
geotechnical investigations;
16. that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City
Engineer; �
17. that all runoff 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 NPDFS permit for the site shall be adhered
to in the design and during construction;
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 construction prior to the wet season; and future discharge from
the site shall meet the applicable Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and storm
drain maintenance;
19. that an oil separator shall be installed to reduce pollutants from runoff entering the storm drain
system;
20. that project structures shall be built on piles, as mitigation for static and seismic forces, and the
office buildings shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation 9.5 feet
(+9.5 feet MSL), or 2.5 feet above possible flood level if a levee should break;
21. that emergency power for the storm drainage system for this site shall be provided;
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;
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; _
3
" +1r 1 � • wy
, ,�
Conditions of approval negative declaration and special permits
� 765 Airport Boulevard
effective January 5, 1999
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 conect the spreading and shall take appropriate action,
in compliance with the requisite regulatory agencies, to prevent further damage from occurring;
25. that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion into the adjacent lagoon will be minimal;
26. that backflow prevention for storm drainage to the lagoon shall be provided;
27. that a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans
shall be provided at time of permit application;
28. that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed;
29. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and
construction;
30. that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQIVID) and a BAAQMD permit shall be obtained before
a building permit is issued;
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;
32. that the project sponsor shall provide an airport shuttle service, which includes connections to
Caltrain to accommodate employees during shift changes;
33. that the required parking azea shall not be used for long-term parking as a part of a hotel
promotion;
34. that there shall be no charge for customers or guests to park in the parking lot;
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
classify the material for appropriate disposal;
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; �
37. that interior noise levels shall be reduced to a maximum of 45 dBA;
4
�,, � -� • .�
�'� Conditions of approval negative declaration and special permits
' 765 Airport Boulevard
effective January 5, 1999
38. that the proposed hotel project shall be required to meet the City's exterior lighting standazds,
as well as the tree planting provisions of the City's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection
Ordinance;
39. that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics as defined in the Negative Declaration aze
discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated
and proper protecfion measures, as determined by a qualiiied 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; 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.
5