HomeMy WebLinkAbout777 Airport Blvd - CEQA Documents (2)C
[�
�
0 � � PROJECT ASSESSMENT
a � FOR THE PROPOSED
DAYS INPJ MOTEL, AiRPORT BOULEVARD
(~1, � BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
L�
��
�
'
�
C
L
��
C''
0
l�'
PREPARED FOR:
DAYS INN OF aMERICA
AucusT 1, 1980
EARTH METRICS IiVCORPORATED
859 COWAN�ROAD
BURLINGAN'iE, CA 94010
(415) 697-7103
�
�
�
�
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
� PREF�,CE ........................................................... iv
(") 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................... 1
U1.1 Location .................................................... 1
1.2 Project Characteristics and Objectives ...................... 1
� 2. ANALYSIS OF PROJECT SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES..... 5
� 2.1 Land Use and Planning .......:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 5
2.2 Traffic and Transportation.. 9
2.3 Visual and Aesthetic Patterns ............................... 16
n 2.4 Design Guidelines•for•Bayfront•Area .:::::::::::::::::::::::: 24
�� 2.5 Public Access 36
LJ2.6 Energy ...................................................... 38
� 2.7 Economics .....................................`............. 41
2.8 Geology.. 44
2.9 Air Quality ................................................. 47�
2.10 Archaeology ................................................. 53
a 2.11 Noise ....................................................... 54
2,12 Biology 56
(� 3. REFERENCES: ORGANIZATIONS, PERSONS, AND PUBLICATIONS CONSULTED... 58
U 4. PREPARERS OF THIS REPORT .......................................... 62
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
0
�
U
�
C
C
C
�
I
�
a
U
a
a
�
�
C
�
�
�
�
Fi ure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
�2.
13.
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Regional Setting ..................................................:``-�
Local Setting .............................. ......... .......... 3
Project Site Plan ................................................. 4
Adjacent Lagoon Areas ............................................. i
Visual Perspectives........ ..................................... 17
North and East Elevations ......................................... 21
Present Project Design Plan ....................................... 26
Alternative 'A' Design Plan ....................................... 27
Alternative 'B' Design Plan ....................................... 28
Alternative 'C' Design Plan ....................................... 29
Alternative 'D` Design Plan ....................................... 30.
Alternative 'E' Design Plan ....................................... 31
Alternative 'F' Design Plan ....................................... 32
R
ZZ
�
C
�
C
�
�
�
C
�
�
G
�
�
U
C
G
C�
C
�J
m
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Description of Level of Service for Intersections .............. 10
2. Existing Levels of Service at Major Intersections .............. 11
3. Projected Levels of Service at Major Intersections
, with the Proposed Project ...................................... 13
4. Computer Visual Analysis ..................................... 20
5. Setbacks and Apparent Widths ................................... 33
6. Compliance of Days Inn Project with View Corridor
Guidelines ........................................... ........ 35
7. Estimated Per Annum Revenues for the City of Burlingame ........ 42
8. Estimated Per Annum Fiscal Impact to the City of Burlingame .... 43
9. Maximum Concentrations and Number of Violation Days at
the City of Burlingame Air Quality Monitoring Station .......... 48
10. Ambient Air Quality Standards in California ............ ....... 49
11. Existing and Projected Emissions Rates for San Francisco
Bay Area Basin ................................................. 50
12. Projected Emissions Rates for the Proposed Project in 1990 ..... 52
iii
U
� PREFACE
) This Project Assessment has been prepared to comply with the requirements of
t:he California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, and the 1978 amendments,
j( for an initial project evaluation. This document has not been prepared to
u
comply with the CEQA requirements for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
n This report addresses those impacts of the proposed project which could have
u a potentially significant or substantial adverse effect.
� Mitigation measures marked by an asterisk have been committed to by the
' applicant as part of the project design. Other mitigation measures (not so
�; marked) are under consideration by the applicant.
�
�
lJ
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
;
�
��
�
a
�.
�
1.1
i�"1 _
�
U
�
U
�
i
l
�
�
l�
�
�
�
i
C
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LOCATION
The project site consists of approximately 2.9 acres located east of U.S.
Highway 101 in the City of Burlingame. The regional location of the project
site is shown in Figure 1 and the local setting of the proposed project is
shown in Figure 2. The site is bounded by Airport Boulevard to the north,
a lagoon area to the south, Anza Airport Parking to the east, and vacant
land to the west.
1.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES
The proposed project, Da�s Inn Motel, Airport Boulevard, consists of a motel
developmen�t with an appurtenant coffee shop, small game room, and office area
in a separate bi�ilding from the motel room structure. A pool and level lawn
area would also be provided at the project site for patron� of the motel.
The preliminary site plan for the proposed project is shown in Figure 3.
The principal structure of the development would be a five story building, approxi-
mately 46 feet in height, containing 214 guest rooms. The separate structure in
front of the motel would be a one story building, approximately 15 feet in height,
containing a coffee shop with approximately 43 seats. The coffee shop and gift
shop, and game room would be provided as a convenience to the motel �uests. Gaso-
line service would be provided to automobiles through on site retail pump facilities.
A total of 214 parking spaces would be provided around the motel building. Of
these spaces, 39 would be designated for compact cars, while the rest would be
full sized parking spaces. The motel building footprint, including the separate
motel office, would cover approximately 15 percent of the sit� area. Landscaped
areas, including a five foot green strip around the property and other green and
planted areas, would cover approximately 22 percent of the site. The pool area
to the rear of motel building would cover about three percent of the site. The
remaining 60 percent of the project site would be utilized as parking. The
appraised value of the project has been estimated by the applicant to be $6,250,000.
,
U
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
U
�
�
�
�
�
�J
�
�
G
� � •
� � N FIGURE 1. REGIONAL SETTING OF PROJECT SITE
SCALE
earth metrics 1" = 14 miles
� 2
�-�"�� �� C�� C� C"� C`� �`� C�� �) C� Ci7 C� C� C"� L`� C� C�7 C� C��
W
� � .
� � N FIGURE 2. LOCAL SETTING OF PROJECT SITE
earth metrics sca�E
1" = 2000'
�1
�
earth metrics
��
I=,,�I FIGURE 3. PROJECT SITE PLAid I
U
�J
2.
�J 2.1
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
LJ
�
�
C
C�
ANALYSIS OF PRO,TECT SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
LAND USE AND PLANNING
EXISTING SETTING. The 2.89 acre site is currently undeveloped and sparsely
covered with vegetation. Office,and commercial usage predominate in the A.nza
area, with warehousing, dist'ribution services, light manufacturing, office and
hotel/motel being the largest uses (Blaxney, 1977). The project site abuts
Airport Road directly across from the Purdy Office Building. To the north of
the Purdy Office Building are the La Baie restaurant, Southern Pacific com-
mun�cations building, and San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau.
To the south is a vacant parcel.
to the east of the site.
The Anza Airp�rt park and fly facility lies
The Waterfront Element of the City of Burlingame General Plan was adopted in
1969. The plan sets forth objectives for the Waterfront Area, an implementation
plan, and some specific criteria for waterfront developments. The objectives
that apply to the proposed project are: (.1) increase of public access to the
shoreline and Bay, (2).provision of sites for commercial uses that involve use
of waterfront opportunities by the public, and (3) improvement of visual qual-
ities of the shoreline.
One way to achieve the above ohjectives would be the development of a Specific
Plan for the Waterfront Area. A Specific Plan is defined by the California
Administrative Code as a portion of the General Plan that precisely locates
various types of uses within a specific area. Although a Specific Plan has not
yet been adopted for th.e area, the Burlingame City Council on February 7, 1979
approved a plan for the Anza Area of the waterfront that designates the project
site for hotel or motel development.
Design criteria specifically mentioned in the Waterfront Element call for
avoidance of: (1) long unbroken shoreline dikes that cut off ground level
views, (2) overhead utility lines, and (3) long expanses of buildings parallel
to the shore. The design criteria encourage clustering of buildings, varying
the heights of buildings, locating buildings to provide opportunities for visual
corridors from local streets and other buildings to the Bay, and using appro-
priate trees, shrubbery, and ground cover as part of the total landscape.
��
�
�J
�
�
L.l
�
�
l.J
�
�
U
l_.!
�
t'
J
�
�
�i
Zoning Ordinance. The existing zoning designation is Waterfront Co�nercial
.(C-4). The City of Burlingame established the Waterfront Commercial District
for "land uses, buildings, and structures that will benefit from their prox-
imity to the open water areas of San Francisco Bay and will be beneficial to
the public use of this irreplaceable natural resource". The city asserts that
". .. economic as well as aesthetic advantages accure to the land, the
occupants, and the public from the required controls and regulations," (City
of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance, 1977).
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The San Francisco
Say Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), created by the McAteer
Petris Act in 1965, has regulatory authority over development and use of the
Bay and its shoreline. Generally the issues of interest to the BCDC (on any
projects in their jurisdiction) are bay fill, uses on bay fill, and public
access within the 100 foot shoreline band. The San Francisco Bay Plan and the
supplement document provide specific environmental and land use studies and
develop conclusions and policies concerning use of the Bay environs. Regula-
tions supplementing and interpreting both the McAteer Petris Act and the Bay
Plan have been promulgated and provide permitting procedures for BCDC authori-
ties over Bay uses and development. The BCDC is assembling a Bay Recreation
Plan and is currently compiling an inventory of public recreation facilities
along the whole of the bay shoreline. The 100 foot BCDC shoreline band is
shDwn in Figure 4.
IMPACTS. The construction of the proposed motel would eliminate approximately
2.9 acres cf open space of marginal wildlife habitat (see Biology). A motel
usage would be in conformance with both the Waterfront Element and the specific
recommendations made by the Burlingame City Council. As proposed, a publicly
patronized commercial enterprise with a water oriented design would be consistent
with the desires of the City of Burlingame for continuing public, water oriented
projects in this area. The project would not provide recreation for the general
,
public, but would provide a pool for its patrons.
Zoning Ordinan�e. A motel use is permitted by the C-4 (Waterfront Commercial)
zoning designation, and therefore would not require any variances for type of use.
:
�
r�--� [�) �� �-� ��� ��' �� G--� c�- � c�.� C� � ��i r� �� �-� �� c� C�
�
- , N FIGURE 4. ADJACENT LAGOON AREAS
.� ��
ea�tt� metrics SCALE
1" = 300'
��
l.J
�
l_!
i_.:
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
l,.l
�
I'
�.
No variance is required. (A variance would be needed if setbacks were less
than 30 feet from the curb.) No special permit would be needed relative to
the city's criterion of building height exceeding 50 feet or floor area ratio
(FAR) exceeding 1.0. The building, as proposed, would be five stories (slightly
under 50 feet) in height. The proposed building coverage would be 17 percent of
the total lot. The FAR would be approximately 0.85. Since the FAR would not
exceed the prescribed 1.0 limit, no special permit would be required for coverage.
A special permit will be required since the project is not in conformance with
the Anza Area Design Guidelines (City Code 41.21.025f). Section 2.4.of this
report discusses the Design Guidelines.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The western tip of
the project site is situated within the BCDC 100 foot shoreline band as shown
in Figure 4.� Most uf this area is set aside for public access as a land-
scaped easement. A small proportion of the band would be used for approxi-
mately 16 vehicle parking spaces and would thus be paved with asphalt. A
BCDC permit would be required for this usage. The primary review criteria of
BCDC within the 100 foot band are public access, which is discussed in Sec-
tion 2.4, and design/visual factors.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The following mitigation measure is suggested to mini-
mize the planning impact of the project.
• Provide a connection across the southern edge of the property for
lagoon access by pedestrians from Bayside Boulevard.
E:3
�
� 2.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
(
��
�
EXISTING SETTING. Present access to the project site is via Airport Boule-
vard. Airport Boulevard is a four lane divided arterial with curbs and a
landscaped center median. The roadway narrows to two lanes in the vicinity
of the intersections with Bayshore H.ighway to the west and Coyote Point Drive
to the east. The center median is broken at numerous locations to allow left
turns with some protected left turn lanes. Airport Boulevard provides con-
nection to U.S. Highway 101� and Bayshore Highway at the Broadway interchange
to the north and at the Peninsula Avenue interchange to the south. These road-
ways are shown in Figure 2.
Traffic volumes along Airport Boulevard are presently well below the capacity
of this roadway. Large tracts of land along Airport Boulevard, also known as
Anza area, are either undeveloped or serving low intensity usage. However.
� traffic delays do occur during the peak traffic period (4:30 to 5:30 p.m.) at
the principal local intersections of Airport Boulevard. The intersections of
�
�
�
�
�I
�
�
�
�`
Airport Boulevard with Bayshore Highway and Coyote Point Drive represent the
most important local traffic constraints on development at the project site.
The intersection of Bayshore Highway with the U.S. Highway 101 northbound on
ramp and Broadway overcrossing is also important to such development.
Level of service analysis has been performed on these three important inter-
sections indicated. This analysis indicates the present degree of congestion
which occurs at these locations during the peak. traffic period. A descrip-
tion of the various levels of service is presented in Table l. The results of
the level of service analysis at the major intersections are presented in
Table 2.
The levels of service shown in Table 2 indicate that traffic flow is quite good
at the intersections indicated. Some delays do occur at the intersection of
Airport Boulevard and Coyote Point Drive, but these are the result of right of
way assignments and not inadequate capacity.
The City of Burlingame is presentJ_y studying the entire area along Airport
Boulevard in order to allow development of this area which is compatible
�
U
11
�
�f
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�.J
�
�
�
�
i
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF �EVEL OF SERVICE FOR INTERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF TYPE OF FLOW DELAY P4ANEL'VERABILITY
SERVICE �(VOLUME TO
A Free Flow No.vehicle waits longer Turning movements are
(less than than one red indication. easily made, and nearly
70 percent) all drivers find freedom
of operation.
B Stable flow The number of vehicles Many drivers begin to
(70 to 85 waiting through one red feel somewhat restricted
percent) indication is increased. within groups of vehicles.
C Stable flow Occasionally vehicles Back-ups may develop be-
(Design (86 to 100 may have to wait through hind turning vehicles.
Level) percent) more than one red indi- Most drivers feel some-
cation. what restricted, but not
objectionably so.
D Approaching Delays may be substan- Maneuverability is sev-
unstable flow tial during short per- erely limited during
(101 to 110 iods, but excessive short periods due to
percent) back-ups do not occur. temporary back-ups.
E Unstable flow Delay may be great -
(Capa- (111 to 120 up to several signal
city) percent) cycles.
F Forced flow Excessive delay.
(Greater than
120 percent)
There are typically long
queues of vehicles wait-
ing upstream of the in-
tersection.
Jammed conditions. Back- i
ups from other locations I
may restrict or prevent
movement of vehicles at
the intersection under �I
consideration.
Throughout the entire range of levels it should be realized that some
vehicles will arrive during a red indication and will have to stop. For
any single intersection, then, even the highest level of service may in-
volve some stops. These descriptions also apply to non-signalized inter-
sections, except for references to signals.
Source: National Academy of Sciences, 1965.
10
L��
�
�I
D
�
�!
�
L.i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.-,
U
�
i
TABLE 2. EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE AT MAJOR INTERSECTIONS
INTERSECTION
Airport Boulevard and
Bayshore Highway
Airport Boulevard and '
Coyote Point Drive
Bayshore Highway and
U.S. Highway 101 On ramp
0
VOLUME/CAPACITY
UTILIZATIONa b
.59
.39
�
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
A
A
3
a This figure represents the ratio.of the intersection peak
hour volume to the total capacity. A value of 1 indicates
' level of service C operation, while a value of 1.10 indi-
cates level of service D.
b This figure includes the effect of traffic generated by
the following recently completed projects:
• Legaspi Towers, 500 Airport Boulevard
• Victoria Station, 60 Anza Pacific Place
• Four Seas Center, 800 Airport Boulevard
• Mini Park, Anza Pacific Place
Source: Drachman, 1979 -
11
�
�
�
�
with the transportation network of the area. As a part of this program, a
methodology has been prepared which allows for a determination of impact on
the critical intersections for various developments in the area (Drachman,
1979). This methodology called the Drachman Traffic Study, has been incor-
porated into the discussion of traffic impacts of the proposed project. In-
formation concerning the number of lodging units per acre of site land was
included in this analysis. �
U.S. Highway 101 through th'e City of Burlingame carries peak hour traffic
volumes which are near the capacity of this facility. This regional roadway
r._, is presently operating at level of service D, which indicates that traffic
�i
service is adequate, but that momentary stoppages occur during the peak
traffic periods. These delays are most frequent in the northbound lanes dur-
�
�
�
�
ing the morning peak period and are most frequent in the southbound lanes dur-
ing the evening peak peribd.
The City of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance (1977) has requirements for off street
parking provisions of new developments. All spaces must be nine feet in width
and twenty feet in length, with a vertical clearance of seven feet,. exclusive
of access driues. Enough parking spaces must be provided to allow one space
for each lodging unit.
IMPACTS. The proposed project would generate motor vehicle trips which would
utilize the local and regional transportational systems of the area. Based
� upon trip generation factors developed by the California Department of Trans-
portation (CALTRANS), the proposed 214 room motel facility would generate
j`� appro.ximately 1800 trip ends per day. Approximately Z00 of these trip ends
j!
�••1 would occur during the peak traffic period, 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. (CALTRANS, 1973).
�., In order to assess the impact of project generated traffic on the local roadway
Z� system, the methodology discussed under Existing Setting �as employed. The
�
I
i
results of this analysis are presented in Table 3.
The levels of service for the major intersections shown in Table 3 indicate
that the proposed project would not change the �1eve1 of service at these
important locations. Traffic flow characteristics at these intersec�tions would
remain at the existing level.
12
�� C-7 �� Ci � �'� �--� �� �-� � � � �� �� �� `�) ' � �� ��
TABLE 3. PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE AT MAJOR INTERSECTIONS WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND WITH APPROVED PROJECTS
IN THE ANZA AREA (CUMULATIVE EFFECT�a �
i
I N T E R S E C T I 0 N
VOLUME/CAPACITY UTILIZATIONb� c
EXISTING TRAFFIC EXISTING TRAFFIC
+ PROPOSED PROJECT + PROPOSED PROJECT
+ APPROVED PROJECTS
Airport Boulevard and
Bayshore Highway
Airport Boulevard and
Coyote Point Drive
Bayshore Highway and
U.S. Highway 101 On ramp
�
w
.61
.40
�
:1
.49
.92
LEVEL OF SERV ICE� I
EXISTING TRAFFIC EXISTING TRAFFIC j
+ PROPOSED PROJECT + PROPOSED PROJECT
+ APPROVED PROJECTS;
A
A
f:l
B
A
C
a The projects that are included in this analysis of cumulative effects are as follows:
� Holiday Inn, 600 Airport Boulevard
• Communications Workers, 411 Airport Boulevard
• Seabreeze Plaza, 35 Bayview Place
• Intertelephon, 700 Airport Boulevard (not an approved project to date)
b This figure represents the ratio of the intersection peak hour volume to the total capacity. A value of 1
indicates level of service C operation, while a value of 1.10 indicates level of service D.
� The capacity utilization factors developed by Drachman were adjusted to account for the intensity of use of
the proposed project.
d No imnrovements to the roadway network of the area are assumed.
Source: Drachman, 1979
U
(!
�
L!
�
�
L�
��
The proposed density of rooms of the project would be 86 rooms per acre. This
is somewhat higtier than the development density assumed in the Drachman Traffic
Study of 65 rooms per acre. The trip generation rate for the proposed project
would therefore be somewhat higher than the nominal rate assumed in the Drach-
man Traffic Study for the project site.
The proposed project could have a cumulative effect on the major intersections
of the Anza area, as other developments are added to this area. In order to
quantify this cumulative impact, the methodology in the Drachman Traffic Study
was applied to other approved projects and new project applications in the Anza
area. These other projects are listed in Table 3(footnote a). As indicated.
by the resulting level of service values in Table 3, the cumulative impact of
the proposed project and these other projects could be significant. The inter-
section of Airport Boulevard and Bayshore Highway would operate at level of
service B and the intersection of Bayshore Highway with the U.S. Highway 101 on
ramp would operate at level of service C.
The City of Burlingame has established a development policy for the Anza area
that limits development to minimize traffic congestion in the area. Implementa-
tion of this policy will involve limitation of development to the extent neces-
sary to maintain a level of service b or better at all of the major.intersec-
tions (.City of Burlingame, 1978). For this reason, it can be concluded that the
� proposed project would contribute in a cumulative fashion to the reduction in
level of service of the ma�or intersections of the Anza area to level of service D.
,
�
�:J
This is considered an acceptable level of service in most urban areas, includ-
ing the City of Burlingame (Moore, 1979). The project sponsor would be re-
quired to pay a development fee to offset some of the costs associated with
roadway improvement in the Anza area. These roadway improvements would be
necessary as a result of the cumulative development of the area.
One of the roadway improvements planned for the Anza area is an overcrossing
' between U.S. Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard, across the lagoon area. This
overcrossing would include northbound on and off ramps for the freeway and
�
L'
�
�
would connect to Airport Soulevard at the northwestern corner of the project
site. The proposed project includes a secondary access point near the inter-
section of the planned overcrossing and Airport Boulevard as shown in Figure 3.
14
{
�
�As development occurs in the Anza area and traffic volumes increase along Air-
port Boulevard, turning movements along the roadway will become more diffi-
�� cult. The proposed project would necessitate such turning movements along
Airport Boulevard and along the overcrossing roadway and would create addi-
tional conflicts with through traffic.
Th2 proposed project would have an impact on U.S. Highway 101 traffic flow
during the peak traffic periods. Fifty to seventy percent of the 200 trip
f-; ends generated by the proposed project during these periods would utilize this
tlregional roadway. Since U.S. Highway 101 is already operating at level of ser-
vice D at peak hour, this additional traffic would cause further congestion and
� delays along this facility.
The initial site plans for the proposed project indicate that an adequate
number of parking spaces would be provided to satisfy the City of Burlingame
Zoning Ordinance. A total of 214 parking spaces would be provided. Of these 39
spaces would be designated for compact cars. The 175 full sized parking
spaces would exceed the number required by the Zoning Ordinance by two spaces.
The 21[, parking spaces should be adequate to accommodate the patrons arid em-
ployees of the proposed motel. The lack of coincidence of maintenance employee
shifts and maximum patronage periods would reduce the demands on available
parking spaces.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The following measures are suggested to minimize the
traffic impacts of the project: �
� � A shuttle bus service to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) will
be provided by the motel operator on a demand basis at the project site
� in order to reduce usage of U.S. Highway 101. This bus should run between
�,.= the project site and SFO when patrons request this service and not on a
regular basis, because of the expected low volume usage. The service
� could,be combined with other local major generators of airport traffic,
*
such as hotels and airport parking vendors.
i� �
�' �'he applicant commits to these mitigation measures.
�
15
�.1
�
LJ
�
• Establishment (by the project sponsor) of a temporary Anza Pacific boule-
vard to service motel access to the north if the proposed project proceeds
�
prior to the city's construction of the permanent Anza Pacific Boulevard .
2.3 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC PATTERNS
EXISTING SETTING. The site is visible from both nearby and distant locations.
In particular, the site is visible from Airport Boulevard (Figure 5, Plate 1),
U.S. Highway 101 (Plate 2), the exterior of.the buildings to the north of Air-
port Boulevard (Plate 3) and the row of apartments directly south of U.S. High-
way 101. The second floor of these apartments have views of the site, U.S.
� Highway 101, and San Francisco Bay. From greater distance, the site is visible
from the Burlingame Hills (Plate 4).
i.;
�
�
�
�I
L
�
�I
i
The present visual character of the surrounding area, called the Anza Area, is
a mixture of varied architectural styles and use of building materials. Con-
crete walls, brick exteriors, wood shingles, and glass facades all exist in
the Anza Area. Views to the west of the site are currently obstructed by a
high mound of earth. To the north and east are seen the buildings previously
described. The Bay is visible only to the east, while to the south lies U.S.
Highway 101, and farther distant foothills.
IMPACTS. Primary visual.impacts associated with the proposed project are
occlusion of existing views, change in the visual character of the area and
provision of new views. Little obstruction of existing views would result
from the project since the land surrounding the site is largely vacant and
primarily of low intensity daytime use.
The proposed views to be affected by the project would be for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motor vehicle passengers along Airport Boulevard, the pro-
posed Haliday Inn Building east of the project site, and distant locations in
the Burlingame Hills. In none of these instances would existing views be
blocked to any substantial degree, however. The site is not visible from the
�
The applicant commits to these mitigation measures.
16
a
�
r�
c�.
�
0
��
-�,
��
�
�
C
C�
C
�
�
�
�
u
�
���,
earth metrics
FIGURE 5. VISUAL PERSPECTIVES OF PROJECT SITE
17
�VIEE,1 FROM AIRPORT BOULEVARD LOOKING NOR7'HWEST.
(Project site is behind trees lining street median)
� VIEW OF PROJECT SITE ACROSS LAGOON FROM U.S. HIGHWAY 101, LOOKING �
NORTHWEST.
0 o c� � c� � o� c� � r�..�- � o 0 0� c� o�
�
�
,�
=1,�
earth metrics
VIEW FAOM FRONT OF PURDY BUILDING EAST OF PROJECT�5ITE, LOOKING WEST.
. " __...,
FIGURE 5. (continued) VISUAL PERSPECTIVES OF PROJECT SITE
�
�VIEW FROM BURLINGAME HILLS LOOKING EAST.
(Project site is visible in the distance)
�
��
�
�
L!
�
l�.l
�
interior of the Purdy Building, directly north of the project site, since the
building windows are oriented away from the site.
The proposed motel building would be approximately 46 feet in height, from curb
elevation to the building parapet. The building width along Airport Boulevard
would be 58 feet, and would have a length of 278 feet. The proposed structure
would be rectangular, occupying approximately 17 percent of the site. The
building would be situated approximately in the center of the site surrounded
on all sides by parking spaces. A smaller building would be located along
Airport Boulevard, containing an office and coffee shop. A forty foot pool
would be adjacent to the motel to the south.
Because of the project location and linear orientation to the building on site,
the building would be perceived as an object of significant size only from
certain locations. This is supported by the computations of ares of vision and
relative field of view for the proposed building, from a vantage point on Anza
Pacific Boulevard, the roadway proposed to the west of the project site. The
arc of vision is the angle (in degrees) subtended by a structure from a par-
ticular observer position. An arc of vision of approximately 90 degrees would
indicate that a structure approximately fills the entire field of view (in a
particular sense, horizontal or vertical) of an observer at the specified loca-
tion. The relative field of view is a comparison of the ares of vision of dif-
�j ferent structures. Bayside Boulevard was chosen as a vantage point for these
Lt
calculations, since this roadway would bel�eavily traveled when the connection
between Airport Boulevard and U.S. Highway 101 is completed; this vantage
� point also represents the aspect of greatest numerical visual impact.
�
�
f'!
�I
Compared to other local buildings, the horizontal arc of vision spanned by the
motel (as viewed from the curb of the new street) would be among the largest
in the area. The vertical arc of vision and relative field of view would be
less significant because of the lack of height relative to other area struc-
tures. Table 4 summarizes the result of the computations. I3ew views of San
Francisco Bay to the east and the foothills to the south would be provided to
motel patrons from the interior of the motel.
The proposed building exterior would be of glass, concrete block and brick
veneer construction. The side elevation of the proposed building, stiown in
�
19
i�
�J
�
11
�
�
f
�,
�
�
L�%
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
I
L;
Figure 6, indicates that a majority of the building would be glass windows and
doors. A continuous aluminium railing with vertical bars would span the
entire length of each floor along the outside walkway. The small non glass
areas of brick veneer proposed between each room would serve to break up the
length of the building. Three large rectangular brick covered areas are
shown in the side elevation. The center block area would extend from ground
level to beyond the roofline, while the two other block areas on both ends
would extend only to the fourth floor. These brick covered structures would
also relieve the glazed areas.
TABLE 4. COMPUTER VISUAL ANALYSIS
BUILDING
Proposed Days Inn
Motel
Proposed Holiday
Inn Hotel
King Building
Sheraton Hotel
Wells Fargo�
Airport Marina
Hotel
Legaspi
APPROXIMATE HORIZONTAL
HEIGHT TO ARC OF
PARAPET (.FEET) VISION
43
124
158
117
96
92
87
48
110
100
39
157
56
152
VERTICAL
ARC OF
VISION
32
84
55
15
79
23
50
RELATIVE
FIELD OF
VIEW
0.15
0.75
0.44
0.05
1.00
0.12
0.61
The horizontal and vertical ares of vision have been computed at the point
of observation from the nearest curbside point from which a pedestrian
could view each structure; horizontal and vertical arc of vision are ex-
pressed as a percentage of relative human perception (i.e. relative hori-
zontal or-vertical periph.eral vision).
�n
-L� - -
a
� �
0
�
0
� .
�
a
a
0
0
0
a
� :
a
� .
u
- =���
" eartt� metrics
u
FRONT END ELEVATION 1/8"=1'S"
0
FIGURE 6. NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS
�
21-22
SITE ELEVATION �
1lIEW FROM FUTURE BAYSIDE BLVD. 1��=26� '
�,-%
�
�
�
�
�
The architectural style of the building would be somewhat different from
any others in the immediate area, although the rectangular design would not
be architecturally unusual. The portion of the motel which is to front on
Airport Boulevard, shown in Figure 6, would be a'windowless facade of brick
construction. The name of the hotel would be placed in the upper left hand
corner, as viewed from Airport Boulevard. The outside stairway and railing
would also be visible to one side of this brick facade.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The following mitigation measures are recommended to
alleviate visual and aesthetic impacts that may result from the proposed proj-
ect:
• Plant evergreen trees initially approximately 15 to 20 feet in height
�, visible from the street elevations. The landscaping plan is to be
reviewed and approved by city staff.� �
�
�`
l�
�
,L:
i
��
V
• Provide mounding along Anza Pacific Boulevard a.pproximately four to five
feet in height and landscape to soften the parking area.*
• Brick towers on the Anza Pacific frontage are designed to provide depth
and break up the mass of the structure.*
• Insure that the proposed aluminum railing is of anodized color, earth
tone, or other neutral color, along the length of each floor.*
XThe applicant commits to these mitigation measures.
23
��
�-., 2.4 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT AREA
EXISTING SETTING. Burlingame City Council Resolution Number 9-80,adopted
February 19, 1980,sets forth Design Guidelines applicable to land developments
��. in the Anza Area. The Besign Guidelines apply to building height, setback,
�-=
view corridors, public access, landscaping and parking. Building height and
�
L,.'�
�
I,
�
�
�
�
t.�',
�
L
�
landscaping are addressed in the foregoing visual analysis section of this
report; public access and parking issues are addressed in planning and trans-
portation analyses. �
The principal matters analyzed in this section are setback and view corridors.
Section 3 of the Guidelines provides that (i) street setbacks should not
be less than the building height, (ii) the minimum setback should also be not
less than half the apparent width of the building for the adjacent street,and
(iii) in all cases a 30 foot minimum setback shall apply to any portion of
each building.
Under Section 4 of the Guidelines (applicable to view corridors and visual
access to the shoreline) it is specified that (i) a building located within
one half its apparent width should not obstruct more than 40 percent of the
frontage; (ii) a building located at a distance greater than its apparent
width (from the street) should not obstruct more than 60 percent of the
frontage; (iii) buildings, structures, parking lots and landscaping of new
shoreline projects should be planned so as not to detract from views of the
bay from nearby public thoroughfares; and (iv} shoreline development should
be clustered to allow bay views and access between building clusters. The
City Council further interpreted the Design Guidelines•in May, 1980 to apply
on multiple sides for a parcel having exposure to two or more streets.
IMPACTS. The proposed project plan has been analyzed with respect to Sec-
tion 3 and 4 of the Design Guidelines and comparisons are made with alterna-
tive building footprints to provide further insight to design alternatives.
levard at the nearest protrusion, and 62 feet at the farthest wall. From
a
Setbacks from Streets. The restaurant is set back 56 feet from Airport Bou-
Anza Pacific Boulevard, the restaurant is set back 30 feet at the nearest
24
�
�
l�.!
�
�
L�
]
�
�
�
�
1t�1,
�
�
!�
�
protrusion, 34 feet at the next wall, and 84 feet at the final wall. Com-
pliance or non compliance with the minimum setback required by the Guide-.
lines is as follows:
• Not less than
building height
(46 feet)
FROM AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Complies
FROM
ANZA PACIFIC BOULEVARD
Complies
• Not less than one
half apparent
width
s 30 foot minimum
Complies
(Apparent widths are:
22 feet and 77 feet)
Complies
Complies
(Apparent widths are:
17 feet, 34 feet, and
45 feet)
Complies
The motel structure itself is set back 174 feet from Airport Boulevard and 79
feet from Anza Pacific Boulevard. �Compliance or non compliance with the
Guidelines for minimum setbacks is as follows:
FROM AIRPORT BOULEVARD
• Not less than
building height
(46 feet)
Complies
FROM
ANZA PACIFIC BOULEVARD
Complies
� Not less than one Complies Does not comply. (Appar-
half apparent (Apparent width is 56 enr width is 276 feet; set-
width feet) back deficiency of 59 feet)
• 30 foot minimum Complies Complies
The present project design and six alternatives to the design are presented
in Figures 7 to 13. Setbacks and apparent widths for the motel alternatives
are given in Table 5. The restaurant is not shown since its location is
not changed for any of the alternatives from the project design discussed
above. The height in all motel design alternatives is 46 feet. Al1 six
alternatives are in compliance with the guidelines with respect to height.
25
�) C� C=� C7 C�i � [� [�J C`�"� C� L`-1 C�7 � L� G� E� [� E� C�
�
a
F
�
�
i
N
�
PRESENT DESIGN �
� J
\ _ ����-�
` �I �
` � '
_� /
` . /� �
` �I
� ��
` , /
`` �� NOTE: Sketch does not reflect latest site plan
� / - modification which moves the restaurant
� building to a position 30 feet from the
curb.
= �,�
earth metrics
�
N
SCALE
1�'=�� �
FIGURE 7. PR�SENT PROJrCT DESIGN PLAN
[_=� C� C� L� C� C� C� Cl [� 0 C� C� 0 � � C=J C� L. _� L�
U
�
A1T�RNATIVE'A'
�
1
1
� --- - �'_
�
� ����
\ ��
\ �-� �
� ��
��
� ��
� ��
� � NOTE: Sketch does not reflect latest site plan
� � � modification which moves the restaurant
`� building to a position 30 feet from the
curb.
�� N FTGURE 8. ALT�RNATIVE `A` D�SIGN PLAN
_ �� ,
earth metrics SCALE
1''=77'
�� c� o 0 o c� c� c� o� o� o c� o r� c� c�
m
�
�
�
�
Z
ALTERN�TIVE` 8'
� ��-
\ '��i
\ , ���
� ��
\ ��
� ��
�' �
� �
� � NOTE: Sketch does not reflect latest site plan
� � modification which moves the restaurant
`� building to a position 30 feet from the
curb.
� ��
�
earth metrics
�
N
SCALE
1"=77'
FIGURE 9. ALTERNATIVE 'B' DESIGN PLAN
C7 f� L� � C7 C� O C� �? E� C� O��� C� O C] C�
�
�
�
�
1
N
�
AI.TERNATIV� � C'
- //
�/
` ' J ��
` ' / /'
` /� .
` � '
` �` �i
� ��
` / .
�` � NOTE: Sketch does not reflect latest site plan
` � modification which moves the restaurant
� building to a position 30 feet from the
curb.
�0��
earth metrics
�
N
SCALE
1"=77'
FIGUP.E 10. ALT�RNATIVE 'C' D�SIGN PLAN
�7 C� C7 C� C� C� C� O C] C� C� C_� � C� � i� � C� C� �
�
t
ti
1
W
0
AL7ERNATIVE `D'
� ��"
� �f�
� 'i
� ��
��
� i � ,
� �'
� �� � .
\ /
� � NOTE: Sketch does not reflect latest site plan
� � modification which moves the restaurant
� �
building to a position 30 feet from the
curb.
=1>>
earth metrics
�
N
SCALE
1''=77'
FIGUR� 11. ALTERNATIVE 'D` DESIGN PLAN
C� l._ -� C� �� C� C] C� L�_1 �� C� C� C�� �� (�) �� �� C> C� �
1
1
1
W
�
At.TERNATiVE'E'
\ � f�
� � ��
� ��
� ��
�f
� �'
� ��
��
� ��
� / NOTE: Sketch does not reflect latest site plan
\ � modification which moves the restaurant
`� building to a position 30 feet from the
curb. �
=�y�
earth metrics
�
N
SCALE
1"=77'
FIGUR� 12. 11LT�RNATIV� 'E' DESIGN PLAN
r_� c-� c� �a c� r_� � n c� � � � � � � � � c� �
�
�
i
W
N
��'-
` . f /
/ /
` ''�
` . ' -i
/ /
\ ', /
\ ��
` �
� / NOTE: Sketch does not reflect latest site plan
�
� % modification which moves the restaurant
`� building to a position 30 feet from the
curb.
ALTERNATIV� ' F'
�1,�
earth metrics
�
N
SCALE
1"=77'
FIGUR� 13. ALT�RNATIVE 'F' DESIGN PLAN
�
C
�
�
l_.J
�
C
�
�
�l
�
�
�
�
�
a
a
LJ
�
TABLE 5.. SETBACKS AND APPARENT WIDTHSa
Project
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
Alternative F
AIRPORT BOULEVARD ANZA PACIFIC BOULEVARD
SETBACKS APPARENT SETBACKS APPARENT
WIDTHS WIDTHS
174 48 79b 276
130 43 77 149
226 106 137 255
144 120 53 96
125 178
149 115 48 48
72 135
289 125 87 149
132 195
154 67 53 101
193 116 99 193
130 255
142 94 50 100
255 132 77 149
135 212
149 48 75 149
265 106 135 250
aMultiple setbacks/widths for any alternative indicate: (1) walls set back
at different distances from the streets; (2) cross sections of building at
different points if walls are not parallel to the streets.
bDoes not'comply with guidelines as setback is less than one half apparent
width.
33
�
�
�
View Corridors and Visual Aceess to the Shoreline. Compliance and non com-
pliance of the project and the six alternatives with the guidelines is shown
in Table g, The project is not in compliance with the view corridor guide-
line. All alternative designs will be in compliance with the guidelines if
Alternatives B, C, and D are madified to correct the slight deficiencies
indicated in Table 6.
Function and Aesthetic Comment on Alternative Motel Footprints. Alternative
motel footprints set forth in Alternatives B and C do not allow convenient
�;' parking near an appreciable number of rooms; it is an important marketing
4J
consideration in the motel industry to provide parking immediately adjacent
i
�
�J
�
U
�
C
�
��I
�1
to a maximum number of units.
Alternative D, with the pool situated at the southeast end of the motel struc-
ture, would allow almost as much close in parking as the applicant's proposed
plan; view corridor access from U.S. 101 would be narrowed slightly; and fire
protection access to rooms on the southeast property side would be somewhat
inferior to the proposed plan.
Alternative A or F(provided that the pool is located at the southwestern
side of the motel structure) would offer less parking convenience than
the applicant's proposed footprint. Its view corridor intrusion, as seen
from U.S. 101, would be greater than tfie proposed plan. Circulation and
fire protection areas would also be hindered relative to the proposed
plan. The energy efficiency of these plans is less than the proposed plan
due to energy losses associated with hot water transport.
MITIGATION MEASURE
� The applicant is in the process of preparing a supplementary analysis
of Alternatives A and F and will submit a separate report on their
viability to the City of Burlingame. �
34
TABLE 6. COMPLIANCE OF DAYS INN PROJECT WITH VIEW CORRIDOR GUIDELINESa
AIRPORT BOULEVARD ANZA PACIFIC BOULEVARD
% OBSTRUCTED ACTUAL % % OBSTRUCTED ACTUAL %
ALLOWED OBSTRUCTED ALLOWED OBSTRUCTED
( er Guidelines) ( er Guidelines)
Motel:
Project 60% 29% b 40%
Alternative A (p/ 22/ 42� 2Z�
. 60% 55% 42% 37%
Alternative B. 50% 62%� 42% 14%
48% 26%
, Alternative C 60% 60% 60% 7%
60% 65%� 42% 20%
44% 22%
48% 29%
Alternative D 60% 35% 42% 15%
60% 60% 42% 28%
42% 37%
Alternative E 60% 49% 42% 15%
60% 68%� 42% 22`r�
� 46% 31%
Alternat�ve F 60% 25% 42% 22%
60% 55% 42% 37 %
Restaurant 60% 29% 60% 2% �
52°0 32% 60% 5%
60% 7%
aThe Guidelines allow a greater percentage of obstruction of view from front-
age (i.e., apparent width as percentage of frontage) as the setback increas-
.es. The walls or cross sections chosen to determine the view obstructions
allowed correspond to the same walls or cross seftions used in Table 5.
bThe project design is.not in compliance with the sett�ack guideline. The
view �orridor guidelines do not provide a guide to "% Obstructed Allowed"
unless the project is in compliance with the setback guidelines.
�Non compliance with view corridor guidelines; sketches would require slight
. modification.
�
35
�
�
�
;
�
�
�
L.'�
�
L_.1
C�
�
C.J
lJ
a
�
�
�
�
2.5 PUBLIC ACCESS
EXISTING SETTING. At present, the project site is vacant but fenced so that no
public access to the lagoon area adjacent to the site now exists. There is,
however, no designated public access corridor through this site. Public access
in the Anza Area is one of the objectives of the Callander Plan. This plan,
designed by architect Peter Callander for the Anza Shareholders Liquidating
Trust, seeks to provide a landscaping plan for the entire Anza Area. This
plan shows a pedestrian path along the north, west and south boundaries of the
project site.
IMPACTS. The completed motel would remove an open space corridor to the nearby
lagoon. Corridors would be required through the project site to the shoreline
easement. One mode of designated pedestrian access to the lagoon area from
Airport Boulevard would be via a proposed five foot wide green strip around
the property. Other modes would require pedestrian access through the parking
area. The site plan currently under study does not indicate that such modes
of access would be clearly marked to a pedestrian, but such markings could be
incorporated into the site design.
In terms of access, motel usage of the site is considered to be a public rather
than private use by the City of Burlingame. For this reason, the city con-
siders a motel to be preferable shoreline use to private use, such as office or
residential development.
The BCDC, which has jurisdiction over the 100 foot shoreline band bordering
the lagoon area, has responsibility for maintaining public access to the shore-
line. Determination of maximum feasible public access to the Bay would be re-
quired by BCDC before approval of a shoreline permit for the proposed project
would be granted.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The following measures are suggested to mitigate the im-
pacts previously discussed:
• Provide a clearly marked public access pedestrian pathway through the pro-
posed project, from Anza Pacifid Boulevard to the lagoon area. The path
�
�
� should be signed, and it should be designed with surface material to
�--,, clearly delineate the path's presence to pedestrians.
C_.1
�
U
�
l_.i
�
�
�
�
�I�
�
37
L�
U
�
2.6 ENERGY
EXISTING SETTING. The energy setting of California and the nation in general
is a critical one of increasingly higher energy costs and depleting nonrenewable
i energy sources. The energy problem is compounded by increasing demand for
energy resources. State and federal policy seeks resolution through energy
(�� ' conservation and development of alternative energy sources. The degree of suc-
U cess of this strategy depends on coordinating local and regional policies
Q
�J
l�.J
�!
�
�
�
i
�
and fostering public awaren�ess.
The Warren Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act
(1974) created the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Cotmnission (CERCDC). The State Energy Conservation Action Plan was prepared
by CERCDC, under provisions of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (FL 94-
163) and the Energy Conservation and Production Act (PL 94-385). Energy con-
servation standards f or new residential buildings were adopted by CERCDC on
March 11 and March 23, 1977, and are enforced by local building departments
through the existing building permit process. Motels are included in the resi-
dential standards. The energy consexvation standards for new residential build-
ings have been placed in Title 24, Part 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub-
chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code.
The standards are intended to provide energy savings through the design of the
component parts of these buildings and the building envelopes. The envelopes
must have good thermal resistance and low air leakage, and mechanical and
electrical systems providing heating, cooling, lighting, and hot water must
use a minimum amount of energy. Compliance with the standards necessitates
various indicated calculations and the completion of special compliance forms.
State energy policy also includes measures to reduce regional vehicle miles of
travel by automobiles, and thus gasoline consumption.
At present, no energy consumption is associated with the project site.
IMPACTS. The proposed future development of the project site will have two
impacts on energy consumption: the operating energy cost of the motel and the,
energy cost of construction. Development of the proposed project will entail
38
�
l�
�
�
�
[_.!
�}
�
the use of earth moving and grading vehicles, electric, and pneumatic tools,
and various other energy consuming equipment. Additionally, the commuting of
construction workers and hauling of construction materials leads to transporta-
�
tion consumption of energy. This demand phase of construction is short term,
and is not as taxing as the long term operating and maintenance energy con-
sumption. ,
The operational energy needs of the proposed project will be supplied by avail-
able natural gas and electricity lines maintained by Pacific Gas and Electric
Company. Energy will be required in the operation of lighting, air condition-
ing, space heating, water heating, and appliances in the proposed structures. As
discussed in the visual analysis, the exterior materials, will probably be con-
crete and glass. The overall amount of glazing and the type of glass used in
the motel will greatly affect the energy consumption associated with the total
project. However, energy consumption must meet the minimum requirements set
by the state residential and non residential standards. The impact of the
project on energy conservation ef.forts will depend largely on conservation
measures practiced beyond the scope of the state minimum requirements.
0
�Energy consumption associated with the proposed project will also result from
.�„� site generated traffic and the consequent demand for gasoline. Gasoline con-
sumption of trips attracted to the project is estimated to be 1350 gallons
� �
per aay, based upon an estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 27,000 miles
per day. A composite gasoline economy of 20 miles per gallon for vehicles in
1981 is assumed here.
s
�
MITIGATION MEASURES: MOTEL
�he following mitigation measures are suggested for energy conservation:
•'Use double,glazed windows to reduce the amount of heat loss through
these areas.*
�
�
L_.:�
• The penetration of solar radiation through windows can be controlled
through the judicious use of awnings, i�terior draperies or special
39
�
i
blinds that can be drawn between the two panes of double glazed windows,
I or by a variety of types of externally projecting shades which may take
the form either of vertical fins or horizontal "eyebrows" that cut off
�� high angle summer sun but allow low level winter sun to enter (Steadma.n,
_..
1975).
� � Use weatherstripping around doors; windows, vents, or other areas where
r-� warm or cool air may escape.
• Install time clocks or photocells adjusted to control outdoor or
�
l safety floodlighting, or other non localized controlled lighting.
j; • Locate water heaters as close by as possible to the demand locations.
��s
�• Position the swimming pool to take maximum advantage of direct solar
�
illumination.
�--' Building Materials and Construction
�' • Utilize local sources of building materials wherever possible to
U
mini.mize transportation related expenditures of energy resources.
,
• All equipment should be properly tuned and have reasonable energy
�i efficiency. Idling time should be minimized.
• Prior to construction of the project, detailed energy consumption
�
analysis is required under the CERCDC residential energy code.
*The applicant cammits to these mitigation measures.
�
�i
���
40
�
, , 2•7 ECONOMICS
l�
�, EXISTING SETTING. For the City of Burlingame, the two relevant taxes that af-
�
` fect the general fund tax base are real property tax (secured and unsecured)
and the retail sales tax. Revenues other than those that accrue to the general
� fund (such as building inspection fees) are not described, as those are de-
signed for direct payment of specific services rendered.
1
Passage of the Jarvis Gann initiative in June, 1978 reduced property tax reve-
� nue to all local governments in California. The reliance of local governments
�� on real property tax revenues has been reduced only to the extent that the lost
�
revenues have been replaced through state (subvention) allocations, increases
�� in local fees, and other revenues.
j The market value of the project site is currentl
y $829,905, representing an
assessed valuation of the site at $207,476. In accordance with Proposition 13
� (the Jarvis Gann Initiative), a one percent tax rate is assessed against the
property. The property in its current vacant state, contributes $8299 to the
countywide tax base of which $500 is distributed to the City of Burlingame.
�
IMPACTS. The continuing expansion of San Francisco International Airport is
� expected to generate market support for a variety of commercial ventures of
which hotel/motel activities and the associated restaurants are noteworthy
� (Blayney, 1977).
) The proposed 214 room motel would generate approximately 30 to 32 new permanent
jobs for the immediate area (,Tames, 1979). These jobs are considered to be
� basic new jobs that would be created by the motel. According to the Association
of Bay Area Governments (�1BAG), 1.08 service jobs elsewhere in the economy can
be expected to be generated for each basic job (ABAG, 1978). Therefore, approxi-
�
,�, mately 35 service sector jobs.could result from the proposed motel or a total
of 67 new jobs. This could translate into approximately one million dollars
� of payroll to be added to the mid peninsula economy. Temporary economic bene-
�
�
�f
fits would also result from the motel construction. The total construction
payroll could be as high as two million dollars, a portion of which would be
received by the local economy. _
41
�
�
I
�
�
i
�
Municipal Revenues. Property taxes per annum are now equivalent to a tax of
one percent of the fair narket value of property. The project proponent has
estimated the fair market value of the motel, including the land, to be
$6,250,000. This would generate an annual property tax revenue of $62,500. ,
Such tax revenues would accrue to the county, with the portion allocated to
the city being $4281 annuallyl. Sales Tax revenues to the City of Burlingame
of $91 per room per year is expected from the eating and drinking establish-
ments within the motel (Blayney, 1978 Revision). This would total $19,474
per year to the city. Transient lodging taxes, currently at eight percent,
would yield revenues of approximately $800 per room per year or a total of
approximately $171,200 per annum2. These revenues are presented in Table �.
L_..� . ,
TABLE 7. ESTIMATED PER ANNUM REVENUES FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME (1979 DOLLARS)
�
�
�
l�
�j
��
r
�
�
��
��
ITEM
Real Property Tax one percent
Sales Tax @ one percent
Transient Tax @ eight percent
Total -
REVENUES PER ANNUM
$ 4281
_19,474
I71,200
$194,955
The expenditures associated with the delivery of public services would be
shared with subsequent developments. The services that would be tangibly af-
fected by the motel project are police, fire, and public works. The police
department is reported to have estimated that the area north and east of U.S.
1SB 154 provided a formula that translated into a tax factor of .0685 for
the City of Burlingame.
2
$35./unit/day at 80 percent capacity
42
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
r
�
�
��
t
�
Highway 101 would require one patrol beat, when the area achieves full devel-
opment. Currently, the area operates on one half of one patroT beat. The
cost to increase from one half of one beat to a whole beat is estimated at
$87,000 per year (Blayney, 1978). Fire services were estimated by Blayney
to be approximately $6040 per million dollars of assessed valuation, thereby
giving the motel fire protection at a cost to the city of $36,000.
The capital costs borne by the Public Works Department would include the costs
for construction of roadway'improvements along Waterfront Area, estimated to
be two million dollars (Kirkup, 1979). The city has.already adopted develop-
ment charges to defray the cost of 40 percent of these expenses. At present, the
city is responsible for the remainder of the cost, which it expects to be paid
from gas tax revenues and grants (Argyres, 1979). The applicant would have to con-
tribute $11,770 toward the improvements to the waterfront roadways as Burlingame
City Ordinance Number 1151 establishes development fees of $55 per room for new
hotels (Kirkup, 1979). �
The cumulative fiscal imp�ct shown in Table 8 would provide a net annual sur-
plus of $689,955 to the City of Burlingame. Other projects located in the
Anza Area would probably increase the surplus to the city.
MITIGATION MEASURES. No mitigation measures are required.
TABLE 8. ESTIMATED PER ANNUM FISCAL IMPACT TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME (1979 DOLLARS)
REVENUES
Soliday Inn
Days Inn
Total
EXPENDITURES
Police Services
Fire Services
Total
SURPLUS
$612,000
194,955
$806,955
$ 87,000
30,000
$117,000
$689,955
43
�
r--.
� 2.8 GEOLOGY
EXISTING SETTING. The project site is situated on fill material that was
placed over land reclaimed from marsh and tidal lands in the early 1960's. A
soil boring study conducted in 1977 on an area one half mile east of the proj-
� ect site (Crandall and Associates, 1977) found that the existing fill is four
to five feet in thickness and consists of silts and clays containing some de-
�.
t�
L�t
molition debris. The natural soils immediately beneath the fill consist of
highly compressible soft clays (bay mud) four to nine feet in thickness. Be-
low the bay mud are deposits of stiff clays and dense gravelly sand approximately
30 feet in thickness. Below an elevation of approximately minus 40 feet,
dense gravelly sands were encbuntered. Based on these soil borings and gener-
al information on the geology of San Francisco Bay, it can be assumed that be-
neath the fill layers on the project site is a thin layer (4 to 5 feet thick)
� of highly compressible bay mud underlain by more competent soil layers com-
posed of alluvial material.
I
U
�
L_,)
�
Because of the low elevation of the project site, groundwater elevation should
be anticipated to be shallow. Crandall and Associates (1977) found ground-
water levels, below a similar filled area one half mile east of the site, to
be 5.5 feet below the ground surface. Other previous investigations in the
project area indicate that groundwater may be as shallow as one foot below the
surface.
The principal geologic hazard at the project site is ground shaking associated
with seismic activity. The project site (as well as most of the San Francisco
Bay Area) is situated within one of the most seismically active regions of the
United States. At any time during the next 50 to 100 years, one major (magni-
tude 8 plus on the Richter Scale) and possibly several moderate (6 to 8 magni-
tude on the Richter Scale) earthquakes can be expected in the San Francisco
Bay Region (Jahns, 1972).
Structural damage could result from the transmission and earthquake vibrations
from the ground into overlying structures. Buildings construr•ted on uncon-
� solidated, water saturated materials (such as those beneath the project site)
generally experience greater ground shaking intensities than buildings sit-
�I
,
�
,
uated on more firm ground. However, in the event of an earthquake, structures
44
�
�I
�
�
i...!
�
�
ii
U
�'
�
�
�
�
with proper seismic parameters incorporated into their construction may dis-
play minimal damage.
Liquefaction is a form of ground failure in which cohesionless, granular,
water saturated material is transformed from a solid state into a liquefied
condition. The generally cohesive clayey subsoils within the project site
area indicate a low potential (low risk) for liquefaction to occur.
Surface rupture usually occurs along lines of previous faulting. Since there
is no evidence of active faulting in tIie i�ediate vicinity of the site, the
chances of surface rupture across the site are remote.
IMPACTS. The propos.-ed project would b.e constructed on ground that has not
previously supported heavy building loads. Approximately 18,100 cubic yards
of earth fill would be imported to bring the site to elevation of the present
curb level. The building foundation would probably be supported on piles driven
into competent alluvial layer below the Bay Mud. The Bay Mud beneath the project
site has been compressed by the weight of tfie overlying fill for more than 15
years. Analyses b.y Seid (1969) and Crandall and Associates (1977) indicate that
the settlement within tlie mud may be considered essentially complete under exist-
ing conditions. The placing of additional fill and structures supported by the
fill on the project site would cause the underlying soft Bay Mud to compress
further, resulting in additional settlement. The magnitude of settlement is
expected to he approximately 0.75 inch per foot of fill placed. Total settlement
of pile supported building would probably tie less than one half inch. Differ-
ences in the amount and rates of settlement between pile supported structures and
structures. supported on tfi.e fill could cause damage or operational problems where
utility lines, stairways, walkways, ramps, gravity drains, and other structures
supported on that fill are connected to pile supported buildings. Settlement
problems on the project site, albeit present, are not critical and can be mi-
tigated with normally accepted engineering practices.
Severe ground shaking can be expected at all of the project facilities in the
event of a moderate or greater earthquake in the area because the entire proj-
ect site is situated on generally loose, unconsolidated deposits. This ground
shaking could cause extensive damage to buildings, roadways, utility lines, and
other structures that are not properly designed.
45
�=
i
� MITIGATION MEASURES. The following recommendations are presented as guide-
lines for subsequent stages of development of the proposed project.
• A detailed soil and foundation engineering investigation should
be conducted for the development prior to building construction
or site grading. The investigation should provide detailed
recommendations for foundation design, site grading, drainage, and
road construction.
• Flexible connections should be used for all subsurface utility lines.
�( • The risk of significant structural damage to buildings and injury to
�
building occupants can be significantly mitigated with proper struc-
i' tural design, sufficient lateral bracing, an adequate foundation sys-
tem, and good construction techniques. The 1976 Uniform Building
�'� Code requires that seismic design parameters be incorporated into all
� new building plans. �
• To minimize effects of differential settlement activity on site, special
attention should be given to the following considerations during the
design of foundations and paving support to:
1) underground pipe connections to pile supported structures;
, 2) structural connections from pile supported to non pile supported
�
structures;
i!J 3) ground supported walks, stairs, and ramps serving pile supported
structures; and
i.,�
4) gravity drains serving pile supported structures.
�J
--,
�
�l
46
LJ!
I�
2.9 AIR QUALITY
EXISTING SETTING. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated a non-
attainment area for oxidant, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulates. Non-
attainment refers to those areas that, by virtue of past air quality monitor-
ing.or air pollutant emissions growth trends, violate the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Local, state, and federal agencies are currently
involved in the formulation of plans and policies to reduce pollutant levels
in such nonattainment areas. '
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQNID) operates air quality
I monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area and in the City of Burlingame.
�'� .
Recent records of this monitoring indicate that very few violation days for
�� the air quality standards occur in the City of Burlingame, as compared to the
LJ
rest of the Bay Area. Table�9 presents a summary of the air quality monitor-
� ing performed in the City of Burlingame for the period 1975 to 1977. This
table indicates the maximum concentrations of pollutants that occurred in
� the City of B.urlingame each year, and the number of days that the ambient
� air qualit}� standards were exceeded. The air quality standards for the State
�I�
1
�
�.J
�
�
�
�
i
�
of California are presented in Table 10.
The California Air Resources Board compiles inventories of the primary pollu-
tant emissions for existing and future years for the air basins of California.
Table llpresents these inventories for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
These values indicate that mobile sources, of which private automobiles are
the largest component, account for the majority of the carbon n}onoxide, reac-
tive hydrocarbons, and nitrogen dioxide emissions in the air basin. Reactive
hydrocar.bons and nitrogen dioxide are precursors of oxidant. (Particulate
and sulfur dioxide emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are
largely the result of non motor vehicle sources.)
IMPACTS. The proposed project could affect local air quality during the
construction and operational uses of the project site. Construction activi-
ties can produce high local levels of particulates if not mitigated. The
transporting of materials to and from the project site also contributes to
regional motor vehicle emissions.
47
(_�.`� I~`_? � f_`�`) � �`1 �l �"l � �l C-`"_l C� � C_`�� C�..1 �_�_� �1 �`�) �
TABLE 9. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS AND NUMBER OF VIOLATION DAYS AT CITY OF BURLINGAME AIR QUALITY
MONITORING STATION.
POLLUTANT (Units)
Oxidant (ppm)
Carbon Monoxide
CO (ppm)
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 (ppm)
Sulfur Dioxide
S02 (ppm)
Total Suspended Particulants
T�� (ug/m3)
�
EXPLANATION
Maximum Concentration2
Days3
Maximum Concentration2
�7ays
Maximum Concentration2
Days
Maximum Concentration2
Rate4
Mean4
Rate
1975
.09
1
8.4
0
.11
0
.054
1.7
33
0.0
1976
.15
3
9.5
1
.22
0
.018
0. fl
49
7,0
1977
.07
0
7.8
0
.16
0
.007
0.0
34
1.8
1 Based on the standards in Table 8, .
2 Maximum concentration refers to maximum one hour average value for oxidant and NO2, maximum eight
hour for CO3 and maximum 24 hour for 502.
3 These violation days are based on the older, more stringent,Federal oxidant standard of 0.08 ppm
for 1 hour.
4 Percent of observation days when State air quality standard was exceeded.
5 Refers to annual geometric mean.
Source: BAAPCD, 1975, 1976, 1977.
�I
I,
�
I
�.-�r
I
r
�
I
�
I.
i
�i
��
�
�i
1.J
�(
�
�I
i
�
�
TABLE 10. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS IN CALIFORIvIAl
POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME CONCENTRATiON AGENCY
Oxidant (as ozone)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Sulfur Dioxide (S02)2
Total Suspended•
Particulates (TSP)
Lead (Pb)
Sulfates
Non Methane
Hydrocarbons (NMHC)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
Visibility Reducing
Particles
l hour
8 hours
1 hour
1 hour
24 hours
Annual geo-
metric mean
24 hours
30 days
24 hours
3 hours
(6-9 a.m.)
1 hour
1 observation
0.12 ppm
9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
0.25 ppm
0.04 ppm
60 Ug/m3
100 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
25 ug/m3
0.24 ppm
0.03 ppm
In sufficient amount
to reduce the pre-
vailing visibility
to less than 10
miles
Federal
Federal
Federal
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
1 This table was developed so that the more stringent of the federal or
California air quality standard only is presented except in the case
of the oxidant standard. Federal standards are not to be exceeded
more than once per year; California standards are never to be equalled
or exceeded.
2 In September, 1977 the State Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted a new S02
air quality standard. The standard is 0.05 ppm during 24 hours in com-
bination with oxidant levels over the state one hour standard of 0.10 ppm
or particulate matter in excess of the state 24 hour standard of
100 ug/m3. The new S02 standard was adopted to prevent the synergistic
effects of combinations of these air pollutants on human health.
�
L� A
�.
�� � � �
TABLE 11• EXISTING AND PROJECTED EMISSIONS RATES FOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
BASIN (TONS PER DAY).
��
l.J
�J
�
U
�`
L
�I
POLLUTANT INVENTORY �EAR
• SOURCE TYPE 1975 1980 1985 1990
Carbon Monoxide
• Mobile 2850 1620 1110 1030
� Stationary 260 280 310 340
• All � 3110 1900 1420 1370
Organic Gases
• Mobile 420 290 190 150
� Stationary 440 400 440 500
• All 860 690. 630 650
Nitrogen Oxides
• Mobile 410 380 300 290
• Stationary 220 280 310 360
• All 630 660 610 650
Particulates
• Mobile , 60 50 50 50
• Stationary 110 140 150 180
• All 170 190 200 230
Sulfur Oxides
• Mobile 40 50 50 60
• Stationary 180 280 320 390
�• All 220 330 370 450
Source: ARB, 1978
�
�
sn
��
!.
� ,
! Assuming an average trip length of approximately 15 miles, the operational
use of the project site would generate approximately 27,000 vehicle mi�les
��, of travel (VMT) per day. Although this would not cause a significant increase
in motor vehicle related emissions in the Bay Area, it would have a cumula-
�}�� tive impact on regional air quali'ty. Tablel2 presents the amounts of pollu-
I� . .
tant emissions that,would result from the proposed project. These figures
(�' indicate that the project would add less than one tenth of one percent to the
� daily emissions of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
i..-' MITIGATION MEASURES. The following measures are suggested to minimize the
construction and operational air quality impacts of the proposed project:
�
• Wet down areas of soil redistribution to keep dust from blowing.
�
• Use,properly tuned construction vehicles.
• Avoid unnecessary idling of trucks and other equipment during
construction.
• Use locally available materials, where practical, to minimize emissions
attributable to hauling.
�i • See mitigation measures under Traffic and Transportation for means
� of reducing operational air quality impacts of the proposed project.
�
�
�
�"1
� 51
�
�
�
�
�h
I
I
�:
�
�
�
,
�
I
�
�
I'
..�
��I
�
�
U
�
.j
�
�
�
l..l
��
U
�
TABLE 12• PROJECTED EMISSIONS RATES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN 1990
POLLUTANT TYPE 1990 MOBILE SOURCE PROJECT RELATED PERCENTAGE OF
EMISSIONS FACTORa EMISSIONSb 1990 SAN FRAN-
(GRAMS PER MILE) (TONS PER DAY) CISCO BAY AREA
AIR BASIN MO-
BILE SOURCE
EMISSIONS (%)
Carbon Monoxide
Organic Gases
(�on reactive
hydrocarbons)
Nitrogen Oxides
Particulate
Sulfur Oxides
11.5
1.08
1.98
0.25
0.13
0.340
0.032
0.058
0.007
O.00G�
0.03
0.02
0. 02
0. Ol
0.01
aComposite emission factors representative of the vehicle types in use at
the project site in 1390.
bThese values equal the product of the emission factors and the project
related vehicle miles of travel.
Sources: EPA, 1978
ARB, 1976
ARB, 1978
52
'i
� 2.10 ARCHAEOLOGY
EXISTING SETTING. This discussion of the archaeological sensitivity of the
project site is based on information included in Environmental Documents for
development previously proposed in the project vicinity. The most compre-
� hensive and pertinent of these reports was prepared for a proposed office
� building to be built on the northern side of Airport Boulevard, approximately
�' 1200 feet east of the project site (City of Burlingame EIR-45 P, 1977). A
field reconnaissance and a review of archaeolo ical records on file with the
g
State Parks and Recreation'Department in Sacramento and San Francisco State
University was perfromed for the above cited EIR. The literature search indi-
cated that there are no known archaeological resources on the office building
�, site, the project site, or in the immediate surroundings. The field survey
for the office building site revealed no surface evidence of archaeological
L�
resources at that location. The probability of encountering unknown archaeo-
logical resources on the project site is low, since the site is composed of
� landfill and little evidence of cultural resources has been detected in bay
ti�1
muds and landfill in this general area (City of Burlingame EIR-45 P, 1977).
� IMPACTS. No known archaeological resources would be affected by the proposed
project. There is a small potential for disrupting unidentified resources
� during excavation activities.
� MITIGATION MEASURES. The following measure is suggested to reduce the proj-
ect's effects on unidentified archaeological resources that may occur at the
project site:
• If archaeological materials are encountered during excavation of the
site, construction work should cease until a qualified archaeologist
can assess the find and provide appropriate recommendations. A member
of a Native American group should also be consulted, since any potential
resources found are likely to be indications of previous Indian habi-
tation of the area and could be important to the Native American heri-
tage.
�
� 53
�
I
L.i
I'
.�.i
2.11 NOISE
EXISTING SETTING. The Noise Element of the Burlingame General Plan was adopted
September 15, 1975. It contains land use planning criteria that specify the
maximum acceptable indoor and outdoor noise levels for various land uses. The
applicable criteria for motel developments are a maximum indoor noise level
of 45 CNEL and a maximum�putdoor 1eve1 of 65 CNEL. The CNEL noise level is -
a weighted average of daytime and nighttime noise levels. The 1975 noise con-
tour maps presented in the Noise Element indicates that part of the project
site nearest U.S. Highway 101 is presently exposed to noise leyels between
65 and 70 CNEL.
IMPACTS. A 1990 noise contour map is presented in the Noise Element that
��1
t_.l
�'
�
�'
�
provides projections for noise levels at the project site. These contours
indicate that only the portion of the project site within 100 feet of Airport
Boulevard will be exposed to noise levels above 65 CNEL. Beyond this dis-
tance, the noise levels will drop below 65 CNEL. This improvement in the
noise environment of the project site over 1975 conditions would be the re-
sult of legislated and expected reductions in motor vehicle noise emissions.
The proposed motel structure would be set back from Airport Boulevard approxi-
. mately 150 feet, so that exposure to roadway noise in excess of 65 CNEL would
be ininimal. If the proposed lagoon overcrossing between U.S. Highway 101 and
Airport Boulevard is completed (see traffic section of this report), future
noise levels at the project site would be higher than those indicated in the
1990 contours. Large portions of the project site would be exposed to noise
levels between 65 and 70 CNEL. Proper acoustical design for the proposed
structure would be necessary to reduce interior noise levels to comply with
the 45 CNEL planning criteria.
Exposure to aircraft noise is not a significant contribution to noise levels
at th.e site. The nearest flight path to the project site is over one mile to
the north.
The motor vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would not have a
significant e.ffect on the local noise environment. The increase in noise
54
�!
!1 levels along Airport Boulevard caused by project generated traffic raould not
„�, be noticeable to any observer along this roadway.
� �
MITIGATION MEASURES. The following measures are suggested to minimize the
� noise impacts of possible lagoon overcrossing on the proposed project:
,_, I. .
• All doors and windows on the west side of the proposed motel build-
ing should be thoroughly caulked and weatherstripped to insure that
air leaks are eliminated. The doors and windows of the motel office
should also be treated in this fashion.
• All roof/wall interfaces should be thoroughly caulked to prevent air
Zeaks. The motel office structure should also be treated in this
f ashion. �
�a Conduct a detailed acoustical analysis of wall effectiveness to determine
I the measures required to bring interior sound levels to a level of 45 dB
CNEL. This analysis should be conducted prior to issuance of the build-
�
�� ing permit.
.. `
1�
�
��
��
� -
��� � 55
Ij
L�
L 2.12 BIOLOGY
EXISTING SETTING. The natural habitats in the project vicinity have largely
been replaced by urbanization. The 2.5 acre project site consists of un-
developed land bordered by Airport Boulevard, parking facilities, and a
large lag�on area.
Vegetation. Approximately one third of the site is nearly devoid of vegeta-
tion. This barren area con�sists of a paved parking area and adjacent unpaved
L,,! area which have been denuded by vehicle movement. The remaining two thirds of
the site support low, sparse grassland. Species composing this grassland are
�- primarily introduced annual grasses and herbs that are indicative of a disturbed
habitat. Frequently occurring species are: rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon mons-
�) peliensis), wild oats (Avena fatua), annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum),
�..
� farmer's foxtail (Hordeum leporinum), lamb's quarter (Chenopodium album),
� brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), mustard (Brassica sp.), sow thistle
(Sonchus oleraceus), bristly ox tongue (Picris echioides), and saltbush (Atri-
� plex sp.), Brass buttons, saltbush, and rabbitsfoot grass are characteristic
of saline soils. No trees or shrubs exist on the site.
�
i,
I
Wildlife. There appears to be a low number and diversity of wildlife utiliz-
ing the site, based on an Earth Metrics site reconnaissance of July 3, 1979 and
information contained in Environmental Impact Reports prepared for previously
proposed developments in the project vicinity. Factors that contribute to the
low habitat value of the site include: lack of vegetation for food and cover,
lack of adjacent, natural open spaces and terrestrial outlets to such areas,
noise related to traffic on U.S. Highway 101 and airport operations, and other
effects of human intrusion. The only wildlife observed by Earth Metrics on '
the site was blacktailed jackrabbit and killdeer. It is probable that other
common fauna that are tolerant of human activities occur on site, such as:
Norway rat, black rat, house mouse, Botta pocket gopher, house finch, gulls,
starling and house sparrow.
�� Rare and Endangered Species. No plants designated as rare and endangered by
,�;
the state or federal agencies, or the California Native Plant Society inhabit
�the project vicinity (Griggs, 1979). Of the four rare or endangered wildlife
�I.
�.
Sti
�
L species known to occur in San Mateo County, none have been identified in the
project area (San Mateo County Planning Department, 1973 and the California
Department of Fish and Game, 1974).
IMPACTS. The proposed project would replace 2.5 acres of disturbed habitat
with approximately 0.5 acres of landscaping and two acres of impervious park-
ing areas and buildings.
Vegetation. The sparse coverage of common annual grasses and herbs would be
replaced by the proposed facilities. No unique, particularly productive, or
aesthetic plant growth would be removed. Landscaping would reestablish vege-
tation on 21.25 percent of the project land. Although cultivated turf areas
are proposed, there is not yet a detailed landscaping plan for the proposed
I project. Landscaping that includes exotic trees, shrubs, and grasses often
requires irrigation, pesticides and fertilizers and is of low habitat value
to wildlife.
Wildlife. The proposed project would not affect any valuable or unique wild-
Ilife habitats. However, the proposed facilities could be of even less value to
wildlife than the existing low quality habitat. If landscaping utilizes plants
i
� that provide wildlife food and shelter, some habitat would be available for use
by tolerant animals, primarily common perching birds.
Rare and Endangered Species. No impacts to rare or endangered plants or ani-
mals are expected to result from the proposed project.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The following measures are suggested to enhance the habitat
value of the proposed project:
• Landscaping should include plants that are of food value to wildlife,
are wind resistant, drought resistant, and/or tolerant of soil salinity.
� Some recommended species are: autumn olive, Monterey cypress, myoporum,
cotoneasters, coyote brush, hollyleaf cherry, sagebrush wormwood, Brewer's
� saltbush, and pyracantha.
,(� • Topsoil should be imported to improve soil fertility and displace local
� saline soils. Planting holes and beds should be carefully prepared so
that the compacted fill is broken up to improve drainage.
�� � � 5 7 �
L
� 3 REFERENCES: ORGANIZATIONS, PERSONS, AND PUBLICATIONS CONSULTED
Argyres, Dennis, City of Burlingame Finance Director, personal communica-
tion (1979).
Association of Bay Area Governments, (ABAG), Regional Statistics (1978).
, San Francisco Bay Area Environmental Management Plan (1978).
�
�� Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, Air Quality Data (1975, 1976, 1977)
Blayney, John and Associates, Burlingame Bayfront, Report l, Basic Data and
Issues.(September, 1977).
, Memorandum: Bayfront Alternatives (1978).
, Proposed rt�laterfront Element, Burlingame General Plan (August, 1978).
7
�
I, I
Burlingame, City of, Develo ment Policy, Anza Area, Progress Report
(November 30, 1978).
, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Burlingame
Bay Club Condominium Proiect, EIR-44P (.October, 1977).
, Draft Environmental Report, One Waterfront Office Building, EIR-45 P
(November, 1977).
�' � , Environmental Impact Report, Charles King and Associates Proposed
Office Center, Burlingame, California EIR-40 P(1977).
�
, Ordinance Code, Title 25 Zoning (1977). - �
�,
�;
California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic and Engineering Aspects
of San Francisco Bay Fi11, Special Report 97, Prepared for San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (1969).
58
O
��
�
�
�.
�'+
�
�I,
n
�.J
t�`1
��
:� ,
�I
!
�{
California, State of, Air Resources Board (ARB), San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin Summary of Emissions Inventories and Forecasts (1978).
, Emissions and Air Quality Assessment (1976).
California, State of, Department of Fish and Game, At the Crossroads (1974).
California, State of, Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), Eighth Progress
Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts (1973) .
California, State of, Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Control Plan
Report, San Francisco Bay Basin (].975).
Crandall and Associates, Legaspi Tower Foundation Investigation (1977).
Drachman, J.D. and Associates, Burlingame Bay Front Traffic Study, Manual for
Land Use-Transportation Impact Analyzer (1.979).
Earth Metrics Incorporated, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed
Holiday Inn, Airport Boulevard, Burlingame; California (1979). '
, Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of Burlingame (1975).
East Bay Discharger Authority, Preliminary Survey for Bay Outfall Predischarge
Monitoring Program (1977).
Griggs, Tom, California Native Plant Society, telephone communication (1979).
Harding Lawson and Associates, Physical Characteristics, Anza Pacific Master
Plan (.1974) .
Harding, Miller, Lawson and Associates, Report on �oil Investigation for
Sewage Treatment Facilities San Francisco International Airport (11 July 1969).
Jahns, R.H., et al, Report of i-.he Seismic Advisory Board to the Council, Seismic
Seismic Advisory Board, Redwood City, Califor'nia (1972).
��
�
� James, Max, Days Inns of America, Project Sponsor, telephone communication (1979).
� Jenes, William F., "Preliminary Soil Study of Project Site", letter (August 9,
�
1978).
U
U
1
�
�
l;
�
�?
�
�I
I'
L;f
f�
I
King, Charles and Associates, Environmental Impact Report, Proposed Office
Center (November, 1977). `
Kirkup, Ralph, City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Burlingame,
personal communication (1979).
Lam, Tai, Architect, Raiser Architectural Group, telephone and personal
communications (1979).
Moore, Thomas, Traffic/Civil Engineer, Public Works Department, City of
Burlingame, personal interview (.1979).
Munz, Philip A. and David D. Keck, A California"Flora and Supplement (1959
and 1968).
National Academy of Sciences, Highway Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual
(1965).
Powell, Robert, California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and En-
dangered Vascular Plants of California (1974).
Raiser Architectural Group, Initial Study, Seabreeze Plaza (February, 1979).
Rantz, S.E., Mean Annual Runoff in the San Francisco Bay Region, California,
1931-70 (,1974) .
, Precipitation Depth-Duration-Frequency Relations for the San
Francisco Bay Region, California (1971).
Rebarchik, Tony, Assistant City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of
Burlingame, personal communication (1979).
.�
�
� Ritter, J.R. and W.R. Dupre, Map Showing Areas of Potential Inundation by
Tsunamis in the San Francisco Bay Region, California (1972).
C
San Mateo County Planning Department, Conservation and Open Space Element of
the San Mateo County General Plan (1973).
a Seid, H.B., "Seismic Problems", Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San
Francisco Bay Fill, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Re-
port 97 (1967).
L
C�
Storrs, Philip N., Robert E. Selleck, and Erman A. Pearson, Sanitary Engineer-
Steadman, Phillip, Energy, Environment, and Building (1975).
�� ing Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, A Comprehensive
�' Study of San Francisco Bay, 1963-64 (1965).
� Twiss, Nancy, Planner, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Com-
�, mission, telephone communication (.1979).
L�f
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Executive Office of the President
� Energy Policy and Planning, The National Energy Plan (1977).
� , Mobile 1, Mobile Source Emissions Model (1978).
L__l
�r
Yost, John, Planning Director, Planning Department, City of Burlingame,
personal communication (.1979).
� 61
�
�
�
�
�
LJ
�
C�'
�
l�J
C
C
C
�
�i
�
C
��_
;�:
4. PREPARERS OF THIS REPORT
This report was prepared by Earth Metrics Incorporated. Earth Metrics has no
financial interest in�the approval or disapproval of the proposed project.
The Earth Metrics staff who participated in this work are:
C. Michael Hogan, Ph.D., Project Director
James A. Kellner, B.S., Project Manager
Ronald R. Rose, M.A., M.C.P.
Virginia 0. Pfeifle,`B.A.
Stephen H. Yokoi, M.U.P.
Peggy Iler, B.A.
Peter Prendergast, M.A.
Russell B. Leavitt, B.A.
�
62