HomeMy WebLinkAbout777 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 9.22.1980� _� ,
y 5 � � .,. _ ._
e. ._. . �;Y+ ,
P.C. 9/22/80
Item No. 1
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 214 ROOM MOTEL WHICH
ENCROACHES 59' IN A DESIGN GUIDELINE SETBACK
This application by C. B. Day Realty of California for Days Inn of America is described
by the attached Project Assessment, the August 1, 1980 report by Earth Metrics Incorporated,
and the July 7, 1980 preliminary site plan prepared by Blunk Associates, A.I.A. Negative
Declaration ND-254P was posted September 2, 1980 after circulation to the State Clearing-
house for comment from other agencies.
Hotels and motels are a permitted use in the C-4 District; the City's Specific Area Plan
for the Anza area designates the Days Inn site for a hotel/motel project. The proposed
five story design is less than the 50' maximum height established by Code Sec. 25.41.
025(f) and close to the City's assumed average development density for hotels (a project
density of 74 rooms per acre vs. the 65 rooms per acre used for traffic generation
estimates). However, the Design Guidelines for the bayfront area (recently established
by Council Resolution No. 9-80) require a 138' setback from Anza Pacific Boulevard
(the proposed new connection between Airport Boulevard and Bayshore Freeway); the
project will have a setback from�this future street of only 79', a 59' deficiency.
The three principal issues raised by this application are:
1. Is the proposed orientation of the 48' x 275' motel structure reason.able,
given other view corridors and site relationships in the environs? (the
proposed encroachment into a Design Guideline setback from Anza Pacific
Boulevard may open up alternative views from Airport Boulevard toward the
lagoon and western skyline; reference Figure 5, pp. 17-18 in the Earth
Metrics report).
2. Are there substantial advantages to on-site circulation, parking patterns,
emergency vehicle access, landscaping and general open space with the
proposed site plan? (compare Figure 7, p. 26 in the Earth Metrics report
with Figures 8-13, pp. 27-32; consider the "Supplement to the Project
Assessment" prepared by Blunk Associates, especially page 2, paragraph 2
and page 3).
3. Have other Design Guideline minimum requirements been exceeded, to offer
a"trade-off" for the proposed setback encroachment? (review the other _
Guidel.ines listed in Appendix B of the Zoning Ordinance).
Copies of the Earth Metrics report and July 7, 1980 preliminary site plan were circulated
for staff corr�nent. The August 29 memo from the City Engineer lists a number of conditions
to be satisfied if the project is approved. The August 25 memo from the Chief Building
Inspector lists additional requirements to be���.satisifed at the time a Building Permit .
is issued. The August 7 memo from the Park Director notes :that a final landscaping and
irrigation plan will be required once the general site plan is agreed.
After reviewing the materials filed with this applicati.on, the above staff comments,
and those received from other agencies, it appears that there are a number of alternative
designs to the proposed site plan, several of which offer greater benefits to view
corridors and building bulk from Anza Pacific Boulevard; careful consideration of the
5 �, ,
i
r.-' ' ,
�`Z�
several site plans will be necessary to allow findings that the alternatives to the
proposed project have faults of greater significance. If these findings are made, there
is no strong staff objection to the proposed 79' setback from Anza Pacific Boulevard*.
It should be noted that the Special Permit requested (under Code Sec. 25.41.025f) is
not a variance (and does not require the standard variance findings listed in Code
Chapter 25.54). The Design Guidelines for bayfront development are an expression of
City concerns about building height, bulk, open space and view corridors; to allow
design flexibility, the guidelines were adopted with the understanding that "trade-offs"
between different project features could allow a superior final project. If it is
found that the present project is a reasonable solution, with design advantages to the
several possible alternatives, this application can be approved. Recommended conditions
for Commission review during the September 22 public hearing are:
1. that the permit be approved to C.. B. Day Realty of California, and be
non-transferable;
2. that all construction and site improvements be consistent with the plans
and Project Assessment filed with this application;
3. that the conditions recommended by the August 29, 1980 memo from the City
Engineer and August 25, 1980 memo from the Chief Building Inspector be
satisfied;
4. that public access be provided between Airport Boulevard and the lagoon
adjacent to the project site, and that the area between this lagoon and this
project's.on=,site parking be landscaped, provided with a paved pathway and
other amenities consistent with its maximum feasible public use;
5. that prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by the City of Burlingame
the following requirements be met:
a. all permits required from other responsible agencies be obtained,
such permits to include (but not be limited to) the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission;
b. a parcel map establishing the project site be filed and approved,
and a copy of the recorded map submitted to.the City;
c. all landscaping and irrigation systems be approved by the City, and
so designed that the maximum feasible on-site parking spaces are
screened from adjacent public rights-of-way; and
*Other issues have yet to be resolved. The present site plan shows a"gas island"
next to the motel office; a further special permit application will be required
for this facility (Code Sec. 25.74.020). In addition, the August 19, 1980 letter
from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission advises that the
proposed landscaping in the 100' shoreline band may not be the "maximum feasible
public access consistent with the project". The final design of this area will be
developed by Days Inn with BCDC after City approval in principal of the general
site layout. .
� , S �
� N � , '
-3-
d. a site development fee be paid to the City for off-site road and
intersection improvements consistent with the adop�ed plan for the
Anza area. The fee will be $55 per motel room, and is presently
estimated at $11,770.
JRY/s
9/16/80
cc: G. B. Day Realty of California
601 University Avenue, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA. 95825
Attn: Max F. James, Vice President
Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust
770 Airport Boulevard
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Attn: David H. Keyston
Robert Blunk
Blunk Associa.tes, A.I.A.
533 Airport Boulevard
Burlingame, CA. 94010
.��,�. �
John R. Y
City Planner
�
��� � 9� �r •
� t . y _ �...:._. .. . _ _... ..� __.... ..___....:..: _._.�.._ _..__ ..,.....�...-..._.... __....____ . -
� ������r� ��������1�� ��`�X �rY' °'" 777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD .
�: �'�:
_ �Ps��1 fl d��'[''��L�1��1��aT gu:°�"'j�A"�� Project address
�L�l3.t-'� t-u3'`i�t34.if41l�I�9 1 ���;; �'r�''�
,.� L oo. DAYS INN OF AMERICA
project name - if any
Application received ( 7/28/80 ) �"�"�'"`��
Staff review/acceptance ( 7/30/80 ) '
1. APPLICANT_ C. B. Day Realty of California (916) 920-4427
name telephone no.
601 University Avenue, Suite 150, Sacramento,�CA. 95825
applicant s address: street, city, zip code
Max F. James, Vice President (916) 920-4427
contact person, if different telephone no.
Bob Blunk, Blunk Associates, AIA (415) 342-5224
2. 7YPE OF APPLICATION
-Special Perr,:it ( X) Variance� O Condaminium Permit O Other
�Attach ietter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
' 3: �=PROJECT DESCRIPTION -
SPECIAL PERMIT to construct a 214 room motel which exceeds a Design Guideline
(.recently.�-established by Council Resolution No. 9-80) requiring a 138' setback from Anza
,Pacific Boulevard. The 46' hiah five story r�otel will be a sim�le rectangular block, 48'
_ ;
wide (with 5' dPep balconies on each side) by 275' long. It will be located at right ____
angles t� Airport Boulevard to allow a maximum view corridor over the site toward the
.inner la�oon. Its long axis will parallel the proposed future road connection to Bayshore
Freeway:i.This side setback should be 2 the "apparent width° of the 275' length; the
� {attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) proposed side setback
; is only 79', a 59' .
' .Ref. code section(s): ( 25.41.025f )(Council Res. deficiency. �
� 40 ;PROPERTY IDENTI�ICATION � 9_80��
Portion o.f Lots
( Parti on o:f 026-344-010/020 ) ( � 5&6 ) � ( 5 )
�APN 7ot no. block.no.
f • C-4 � ) ( 126,000 SF ;
.-; zoning district land area, square feet
Anza Shareholders' Liquidatinq Trust ,
..land owner's name �
,
� Required Date received
• �� (�o) ( - )
. ��IISSIfJG (yes) � ( - )
�
(Anza Airport Park Unit No. 7 )
subdivision name
. . . _ -
770 Airport Boulevard
address
Burlingame, CA. 94010
city zip code
Proof of ownership �
Owner'S consent to application
- �. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ' _
" Barren, low-lying land fill �
;
r� f
� . �
0
.
-Required Date received
�(yes) �a�� (7/2$/80 ) Site plan showing: property lines9 public sidewalks and
.. � curbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on-site parking; landscaping.
(yes) �a�� (7/2$/$0 ) Fioor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of us � on each floor plan.
-(yes) �r�s�. (7/28/80 ) �8uilding elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
-��r��k (no) - ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant)o
other) �7/28/80 ) Proiect Assessment �repared bv Earth Metrics
Incorporated
�`Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
5. PR�JECT PROPOSAL � '
Proposed construction, Seiow grade ( 0 SF) Second floor ( 13,200 SF)
�ross floor area First floor ( 16,200 SF) Third floor ( 39,600 SF)
& ab ve .
Project Code �'ro�ect Code
Pr000sal Requirement Proposal Requirement
,---
Front setback 60'
Side sethaCk 30�
Side yard �p�
Rear yard 100'
�
�
Lot coverage 16 % -
Buildina height . 46' .SP over_52'
� Landscaped area
, � On-site p�Cg.sQaces
--_�
F1oor Area Ratio
214
0.85
214 _
SP over
1.00
- -
. ,.
�, , , , , � � ,
, ,_ . _ _... .._ _._ . . .._ . _ ._ .... ......_. .
� ,
• f � : -
, .,
, 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
�
.;
�
,
i
Full .tir�e emaloyees on site 20-25 8-10
�P�rt time employees on site VdC n t - - No Cha
�it�isitors/customers (weekday) 200-30030�-400
`� Vi.sitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) res t 150-300 50-400
•Residents on property - -
- Trip ends to/from site* 1200 600
� Peak hour trip ends* 200 100
Trucks/service vehicles 10 ± _
,
*Show ca7culations on reverse s�ide or attach separate sheet. ,
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Older office/warehouse directly across Airport Boulevard. Four Seas
Center and La Baie restaurant to the north. Vacant land to both the
west and east. Anza "inner lagoon" to the south.
-..Required Date received
=(yes) (� ( 7/28/80 ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
�s� (no) ( _ - ) Other tenants/firris on property:
_:_.no. firrns ( ) no. employees ( )
Days Inn. of America will _floor area occupied ( SF office �pace)
be the sol e occupant of ( SF other)
this 2.9 acre property. no.-employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. company vehicles at this location ( )
� 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 (X ) Other application type, fee $ ()
�Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 O Project Assessment $ 25 (•X)
Variance/other districts $ 75 O Nega�tive Declaration $ 25 ( X)
�_-Condominium Permit $ 50 ( ) EIR/City & consultant fees $ ( }
- TOTAL FEES $ 150.00 RECEIPT N0. 1521 Received by A. Sprague
I herehy certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and cor�.�ct to #� bestJof �tnowl edge�nd bel ief. .
Signature �j�,',�',�.� �"�� Date,
STAFF USE OAILY '
- --��VEG�4TiVE D�CL�RRATIOv _ F;-,e No. ND-�54P � •
� The City of Burlingame by John R. Yost on July 30 , 1980 ,
��-completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( X � It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is requireda �
Reasons for a Co�clusion:
SEE SEPARATE EXHIBIT B FOR TEXT OF PJEGATIVE DECLARATION
Signature of Processing Official Title Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final.
` '.DECLARATION OF POSTIPJG Date Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City C1erk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Negative Deciaration at the City Ha1T of said City near
the doors to the Council Ghambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California on ______ , 19
:Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No
EVELYN H. HILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLIN6AME
IN 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
EXI5TING
after
8-5 3 YM
IPl 2 YEARS
� . after
8-5 5 PM
�, ., . � . n , � ; � - . �-----� ---, .-_
, :
,
' Sl'A� F �EVIE1�11
1. CIRCI,�ATION OF APPLICATION
' Project proposal/plans have been circulated.for review by:
date circulated reply received
Ci ty Engi neer ( 8/ 1/80 ) �Yes )' =�r�c�k
• Building Inspector ( g/1/gp ) : (yes); =��k
Fire Inspector ( g/Z/gp ) (yes:) =��k
� Park Department � � 8/1/80 ) ��Ye��),� =��k .
City Attorney ( - ) (yes) (no)
;.
. i
, . �
, . i
, �
�
i
�
memo attached
iYeS) ����
(YeS) _����
(Ye5) _#���.
iYeS) _����
(yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Concerns � Mitigation Measures
Is.the proposed site plan of the -Review the alternative.site designs
motel reasonable, given the setbacks discussed in Section' 2.4 of Earth
required by the Design Guidelines? D9etrics' Project Assessment.
� -Are the functional advantages and
design benefits of the proposed site
plan significantly greater than
those of �the alternatives?
-Consider the advantages/disadvantage
to view corriddrs from alternative
locations.
Are there:any Fire or Building Code Request review of the preliminary.
concerns with the proposed design? plans by the Fire Department and .
� � � Chief Building Inspector.
Are there any engineering or traffic Request review of the preliminary
concerns with the proposed design? plans by the Department of Public
Wor ks . . .
0
e
�
3. CEQA REQUIREMEPlTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project: .
Is the project subject to CEQA review? See Negative Declaration ND-254P .
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
� Initial Study completed
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
� RFP to consultants
� Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR accepted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
c
c
�
i
i
�
i
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
. ,
)
Study by PoCo -
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
i
i
�
�
�
i
�
)
�
)
)
)
)
)
' 4< APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 7/28/ 80 }
� ; Accepted as complete: no( } letter to applicant advising info. required ( )
;
Yes( X) date 7/30/80 P.C. study ( g jg�gp _)
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) ���� Recommended date ( g�22�gp )
REVIEW PERIQD. EN DED Date staff report mailed �t'aoplicant (9/17/80 ) Date Commission hearin ( 9/22/80 )
9/5/80: ,� Application approved (t/ ) Denied ( ) 'Appea7 to Council (yes) (no)
. � Date Council hearin ( ) Appljcation approved ( Denied ( )
� 9 1 r � ���D �i��,�.v� - /�S��vS)
. I �� �. � 9/16/80
; . signed date
� �
j
a. _ . ...
4 , ,• '
a
EXHIBIT B - NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Tentative Procedure
5/10/73, Subject to Revision
¢, c iry
.T��;�`�.,., °.c. '
.c q,�,:•.^''',��:
eUR��;���,�''!E T0: . STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
-��•'7 1400 - lOth Street
'�.,p'"'" ;� "4�• Sacramento, CA. 95814
�AAT¢D JVN[6
Project Title: DAYS INN OF AMERICA
.
777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Project Address or Location
File No. ND-254P
Type of Permit: Special Permit to construct a 214 room motel which exceeds a
Desiqn Guideline (recently established by Council Resolution No. 9-80� requiring a
138' setback from Anza Pacific Boulevard.
Legal Description: Portion of Lots 5 and 6, Block 5, Anza Airport Park Unit No. 7
(portion of F4PN 026-344-Q10/020).
� . Zone: C-4
� � � "Waterfront Commercial"
Property Owner:
Name: Anza Shareholders' Liquidating
Trust
Address: 770 Airport Boulevard
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Contact Person: David H. Kevston
Area Code: 415 Phone: 342-5711
:.
. ;
.
•' , •
I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �
Applicant:
Name: C. B. Day Realty of
California
Address:. 601 University Avenue
Suite 150, Sacramento, CA. 95825 •
Contact Person: Max F. James, Vice
� President
Are Code: 916 Phone:. 920-4427
The site consists of approximately 126,000 SF of barren, low-lying land fill
in the western end of Anza Airport�Park, adjacent to.both Airport Boulevard and
a road reserve for a possible future connection to Bayshore Freeway. The project
is a five story motel, 46 feet high,.with 214 guest rooms. The motel office will
be in a separate one story building, containing a gift shop and sma11 coffee�shop
with 43 seats; an attached canopy will shelter several gasoline pumps, provided
as a convenience to motel guests.
The motel, offices anG coffee shop will•cover 16� of the site. Approximat�ly
75,000 SF (60� of the site) will be paved to provide 214 parking spaces, 39 of
which will be for compact cars. The remaining 30,000 SF (24� of the site) will
be planted with trees, lativrr and shrubs, and developed with a swimming pool.
The southern boundary of the property, adjacent to the Anza area's "inner lagoon",
will also be landscaped, and will include a pedestrian walk and bicycle path.
Separate permits for these improvements will be required.
The City of Burlingame by John R. Yost on July 30, I980 ,
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( X) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required. �
m
�
0
0
�----
F2
�IN � �S c�
SA N
� a �� � '
�� '- � St�
. � .,'�,,a� ' ppYS t� �
.
�� ���`° �(a�1.°�� �� ``� �� v� �y°�U�`�
, y Oi` P � , WHirE�� � �3� 'pp!!/�(/S ,�740
o`
�'R' Q. � �
Cf' ' 4a � � F :, ,�, v �•A'�,q
�/ �- e l, C��j 4?�, �,'�' y A� i
, �" �/ e � �.� UCq
% "'�eo a ti OP� YiSr
.� J .v � � ,p A
� a�l i \ <o � �
Fr 'l'a '�sy a�E- �F
r�4 "�F cv,�c � O �
���o � �'9C � �i'Lo AvF e � �
� 4'rF � O� AVE F
� � ��oo . ,��.
l� q ,
� � Q��,o\ o � �
nO o C� ��\ � ��r,�
� <
� sa W v � C�
�ti s �
� G�
A� ��� �
I � � `� E
W c .�� � . �.
q O
�, � 0 ��
��-� �:, . � �
�� �. � �
�.�� ``�'e/ � o�j�--,.i �i •
��tiilo �r� �o� f ' �;
� ;�, i �� ✓ _ i\�� .�%���
�� .�_���1
` ��. �
�� �.
E �;
lr;I ! L�, �L � � � �i�.�
� Q�� �qGDON
aJ���
9p �
a ��avo
�.� •
• •
� e
• •
s
$•••
BAYSI�E
�
p � �
� �Qj �F9�
>��� .PF�"9 � fT��
�
�� �g� v ��
OC� �'Y A/r�e . OP�
,�\N/q � µ
Fp
�
��y
,
�
,
'
;
�
;�
;
'
� ' .
Jaoao ��
>��� O�
�
�P{ —�� P(�, �'�
� O 'YsC\
��% �� ;v� St � �'LG'
G � -f�
<� � '� \�' F!- C
�� � �� C
o�� �-y �
O �J \�
¢
O ��� \ i
4i..�, �l �'fb , `,
O� �
O
�
. \�/i
�� �l ,, v� �
Sr� 9 �PQ .
�° %"� �� �
�^o ya
i � � � � ^�
�N�V� \/ � �
�. -.,.� �,� �
�
�1� �
�
J�� ��
O . .
�� '
`; .
� U� c � ��;� %u' � � �qt� �.002!$i4�"i
r �� , � � �� \I . .
.�� �^� �c� North
� /��/� � , r I' �,
. . � . � . . _
. � - , . ' • � � Sar► FranNsco �ay . . � � . • . - •
- -- --- 1--� — - - - _ - - — - . .
i i'� I�; ;'�i ji` ,���! '���i� `� � � -.
� ������ ii• i�: ��:�E � .. . � � .
� . �i1!<<Inl��� �:;:ili�: . .
ExFsting Oflice/ . " -
W rehouse Use '
. i . . . � • �_
� � Proposed Oif(ce Use
ex�s��r� oiri�e, � f � .
Restaurant Use - . • •
�. . � ��;► � , ,�� � . � .
�s � �, � I, tagoon .
. `a � . .
J`e� � . .; � I I ( � � I , I I � . .
. . . � i'.~ � . I I . , . . ' .
. �a � �'' .
' \r
' = � �:���•::-. - _
� =•�.;,. ,� �
, � ; : :�,��� � �
.���;`., , .;; . • �
: ���\ti''� Existing 41ice/
� �'' War �ousp Us
' �0 ; �
. A� • . ' � '
• 6�
I ��� ' . . /
• �� ��� . : . . . . . . � ` f /
� � ' .�
� � `.. ..� �
_ 0m � 0
�� �� .. : A►rport Boulevard . . . ' �
O� �� 0� �- ' .
0 � ��
�� � . _ .
�� � "��� � Multipte Automobf Parking & Stora e FacHlttes . .
� � ��� ' � • • . .
� 61 � A . . .
. •. , .
�_�_ � . '
� ---- --
-- _._�:---._._
� _ _._,.. _._�_.._ . ..
. :.._.�....� :,:-...r_=--�._. _. .. ...�_.....
.._.._.`. .. _-..._ __.- :.Le9oon � _..._"�`"".,.--„�� �...;�--�...���
� . "�--�.._.� �,--�`_"•-- -_
. . . ����� �l�� �g����C�l�
• . . Narth �
� r • ' �. . . . . . � .
�g� � + � . . . - , - . .
� �t ``' �� PROJECT SITE PLAI1 .
earth metrics . �
. ,
. . ;
�
_ ' ;..
I
f
�
,.
. I
�
, ,
i
I �
i
�
�
-2-
REASONS FOR CONCLUSION: � � .
An Initial Study was prepared for this project, and it determined that the project,
as modified, will not cause any of the following effects:
1. Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the corr8nunity
where it is located; .
2. Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect;
3. Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or .
the habitat of the species;
4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory ,
fish or wildlife species;
5. Breach published national, state, or local standards relating to solid waste
or litter control; � •
6. Substantially degrade water quality; .
7. Contaminate a public water supply; . ,
8. Substantially degrade or deplete.ground water resources;
9. Interfere substantially with graund water recharge;
10. Disrupt or alter an archaeological site over 200 years old, an historic
� site or a paleontological site except as part of a scientific study of
the site;
11. Induce substan.tial growth or concentration of population;
12. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relatian to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system;
13. Displace a large number of people;
14. Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel .
� or energy; �
15. Use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner; �
16. Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas;
17. Cause substantial flooding, erosion,or siltation; -
,18. Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards;
19. Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development;
20. Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants;. �
� 21. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; •
22. Create a public health hazard or a potential public health hazard•, ,
23. Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific
, uses of the area;
24. Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations.
July 30, 1980
�
��. �i1
Signature of rocessing Official
City Planner (Title)
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final.
Date Posted: September 2, 1980
DECIARATION 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 Burl ingame, Gal ifornia. on �,r���e.-,.,,� --e-�' r,' ., 1980
Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No ,
, � � - A. � ,. , �,� �,.�.��^
EV YN H. HIrL ,
CITY CLERK •
Y , 1 � i
a`�;,��,u '�e
a
�"�� '�,
uo
-.`a° ..
�9LIFOPN�1�
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
GOVERNOR
September 12, 1980
�#�x#Q .a� C��1r��xx��
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFF'!CE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814 �
. � � � � e � � �
s
SEP 15 ��$�
�� p�NNING`DEPTM�
Mr. Dennis R. Yost, City Planner
City of Burlingame
City Hall, 501 Primrose
Burlingar.:e, C� • 94010
SUBJECT: SCH# 80080510 DAYS INN OF AMERICA
Dear Mr. Yost,
The Sta+e Clearinghouse submitted the abovP listed environm�ntal
document to selected State agencies for review. The review is
complete ard none of the State agencies have cenunents.
This letter verif:�es your. compliar�e with er�vironmental review
requirements of the California Environmental c�ual�ty Act.
Thank you for your coopera 'on.
/� Sincer ly
��
5tG . � S�2
e��t�e c� (¢�vS .
Stephen L�illianLsr�r_
State Ciear�nghouse
ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST
770 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
(4I5� 342-57fi
GEORGE N. KEYS70N, JR.
DAVID H. KEYS70N
TRUSTEES
September 2, 1980
John Yost
City Planner
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear John:
��������
� � P 3 �,��Q
(�97Y QF BpU�pR�L(�INGAd�
���sL'M R!'�!�A
With regard to the application currently being considered by the
City for the Days Inn facility, this letter will constitute our
approval of this application as the land owne� of the property
involved.
Please let me know if there is�anything further I can do to
expedite your prompt consideration of this.
Sincerely,
ANZA SHAREHOLDERS" LIQUIDATING TRUST
DHK:pg
�
.�I����'� �T����1�'T �R�Y �T' II�T��-L9EP�1��Rr���iT F'���C�RAND�J� I BROWN JR., Governor
. i' �
�.' `
TO ���Q A. M. -,;y_,-
� \i �i� � DATE ��3 7 9�(� P. M. s.�'•�'
�
��s ��n �'� �CLi.. .. . _ . , . . .. ;
J 7� ► _ �
7 �v, �f $o�.�� .
i
. �1V�T�
�- �-���d . � � � �.t.�f � � �� S
� 2 9 1980
raytc.P�t,,cu� '�c �cse . r',c'ci tic.� -�v. �cd�,Z, G.���e•�,.� „ BURLt1!GAME �
. � . �: • � . . � � U i1NG t3EF'.T„
�Qa.e, ►+t�cT�/Li�,l S Cs+.r� �i2 dQ+t� � --� �`���+'°� '-Ot�...e�$b� .
. . 1 :
.5- ��, rq �. S �� �. ,� J . . _ :�.�: ; _
� -�. . _ . . � . � . . . . .
. _ _ .. � _ _. � . ;.� . .
Y . � �.�.�.� ... : �so �.
.
... .... . . . , -: . . _ ... , _.�ti . , v ,.. ,. ... _. . ibed
. .. - _
.. .. ... ,. . . :�.� ..� � _ :: . . . _ 1._. .
_ ... . . . ., ... ,.�, _ _ . , �... ....., ., .,. ... . 3 :
;. . � , _ � .;_ . ,_. , . .
REPLY ON THlS SHEET ` _ -. s ._ � FROM .> . . .. . - . .- 'n : .
WIIMER '$EqY1CC(jJIE � � � . ' ' � STANOAfiD INTERbEPT. MEMO. FORM I I-2�: � ' .
�� The proposed development may have an impact on the �
development of the,extensive State land holdings in the
.• immediate vicinity. While the existing C-4 (Waterfront
�. Commercial) zoning allows a variety of uses, we believe that
� . consideration should be given to more extensive and adequate
� • planning for use.of the nearby State parcels. • .
�, We do not obj ect to the subj ect proposal, however, we do
� bel.ieve that extensive (and intensive) use of the private holdings
at Anza Airport Park could be detrimental to the future �
: development of the State's parcels. Future projects in the �
� area should take into consideration the devel.opment of these
.'. lands:consistent with local and regional plans. �.�
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Negative
� � Declaration.. We interject no opposition to the development
� and we appreciate the receipt of the information.
' • � � Sincerely, . , .
. � . '. /f�?� �� � .
. . �>�-i
"/ . ,. ,
. . ESLIE H. GRIMES .
• � � �eputy Chief . :
Division of Land Management -
.. � � ' and Conservation
, . ,
STA7E OF CAIIFORNIA—STATE LANDS COMMISSION EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
STATE LANDS COMMISSION • : ��=;�•
1807 13TH STREET " tB�'``�
SACRAMENTO, CALIfORNIA 95814 � � ��,��
August 26, 1980
File Ref.: SD 80 8 4
t�c��;.�.t���
�
Mr. John R. Yost, City Planner
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010.
Dear Mr. Yost:
0
AU G 2 9 1950
CllY Or. E3URLINGAME
Pt�fV�iiiVt� A�6'T„
. .
RE: Days Inn of America, 7'�7 Airport Boulevard,
. Burlingame, San Mateo County �
This is in response to yaur letter dated August 1, 1�80
addressed to Herbext Maricle, concerning the above-described
project. The project appears to be located outside the
area under jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission and
as such a permit or lease from the State Lands Commission
will not be required. . :
The proposed development may have an i.mpact on the
development of the extensive State land holdings in the
immediate vicinity. While the existing C-4 (Waterfront
Commercial} zoning allows. a variety of uses, we believe that
corisideration should be given to more extensive and adequate
planning for use of the nearby �tate parcels. •
We do not object to the subject proposal, however, we do
believe that extensive (and intensive) use of the private holdings
at.Anza Airport Park could be detrimental to the future �
development of the State's parcels. Future projects in the .
area should take into consideration the development of these
lands consistent with local and regional plans..
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Negative
� Declaration. We interject no opposition to the development
and we appreciate the receipt of the information.
� Sincerely, .
, .. �����:`iC�=�'iv�
�, .
�ESLIE H. GRIMES
eputy Chief
Division of Land Management
and Conservation
e
I
�� i � J � � 1 . � �
S7ATE OF CALIFORNIA ' EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govornor
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT CC�MMISSION � �:
30 VAN NE55 AYENUE ",l�'�=r.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 � '
PHONE: 557-3666 .
����.6�1��
('C : f'>G�' �3�Eu�lEC -- ��a�(�'� August 19, 1980
;� ia � �,. ��� .
cir�r a� �u�L���,sE
��f�e�.� ��
Mr. John R. Yost , �
Planning Department •_
City of Burlingame ,'
501 Primrose
Burlingame, California 9�4010 ,
SUBJECT: Negative Deelaration for Days Inn Motel, Airport
Boulevard, Burlingame, California, SCH �80080510
, (BCDC Inquiry File No. SM.BU..6620.1 and BCDC Permit No. 3-79)
Dear Mr., Y+�st:
I am writing regarding the Negative Declaration and Project Assessment
for the proposed Days Inn Motel to be located on Airport Boulevard in
Burlingame. The Commission itself has not had the opportunity to review the
document of the .project, and these are staff comments only. They are,
however, based on the McAteer-Petris Act, the Commission's law, and the San
Franeiseo Bay Plan, which the Commission has primary state responsibility to
implement. StafF has reviewed the Negative Declaration and the aecompanying
project assessment prepared by Earth Metrics Incorporated, datesi August 1,
1980, and have the following comments.
BCDC Jurisdiction
The project assessment addresses BCDC's shoreline band jurisdietion and
states that portions of the project would be located within that
jurisdiction. However, from information on Figure 3, it app•�ars that more :
than half of the swimming pool and approximately 47 parking spaees are
proposed for construction within the shoreline band, as well as the pedestrian
walkway and publie aecess easement depicted in the same figure. The text, on
page 8, states that only approximately 16 parking spaces and additional road
areas would be constructed within the Coramission's jurisdiction.- Only about
25 percent of the shoreline band is availab).e for publie aecess.
Public Access
As condition of every BCDC permit, maximum feasible public access
consistent with the project is required. Regardless of the City of
Burlingame's designations, the Commission does not consider a motel a public
use for purposes of evaluating public access. We are pleased that the project
assessment discusses public aceess in context of the proposed project, but
staff does not consider the 25-foot-wide easement proposed for the lagoon edge
as maximum feasible publie aceess consistent with the project. In addition,
.�, ,�
Mr. John R. Yost •
August 19, 1980 '
Page Two �
there must be a link between the public access and the nearest public road,
and commonly parking spaces are made available soley for the visiting public.
Benches, litter containers and signs are commonly provided. Staff would be
pleased to discuss with the project developer additional ideas regar'ding
public access in conjunetion with this project which may meet the Commission's
approval. � �
Traffie and Roadways . �
The project assessment diseusses the possible construction of an
ov.ercrossing linking U. S. Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard, across the
lagoon area (page 1�). The Commission has previously taken the position that
construction of a new roadway over the A�nza Lagoon would not be consistent
with the McAteer-Petris Aet and the San Franciseo Bay.Plan (see BCDC Permit
� Nos. 3-80 and 3�-79). The applicant should be aware that the Commission has
previously taken a position regarding this proposal. .
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed project, and
associated environmental documents. Staff would be pleased to discuss further
' any aspeets of the proposed projeet as they relate to BCDC's jurisdiction.
Please contact Margit Nickell of our staff if you have any questions �
FB/MN/mm
Very truly
FRANK BROADHEAD
Staff Counsel
ce: State Clearinghouse, Attn: Anna � _
Resources Ageney, Attn: L. Frank Goodson _
' Anza Shareholders' Liquidating T9�ust .
' C.. B. Day Realty of California
Department of Water Resources, Attn: Dorothy Wilson
t
SYATE, OF CALItORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BRO�YN JR., Governar
i � :.... � :::. 1 �' i�:. l.�.i
DEP,4RTMENT aF 71�ANSPORTATI01�6 ��
�`.;
P. O. BOX 3366 RINCON ANNEX ' �-C� .
SAN FRANCISCO 94119 • J t � � � ��5� . -y� ' � .
(415) 557-1840 CITY 0� BURUNGAME '
PLANNING (?EPT,
September 3, 1980 �
0 �4-SM-101 PM 16+ �
SCH 800805].0
CS.ty Fa�le No. ND-254P
Mr. John R. Yos�., C�ty Planner ,
Czty of Burli.ngame '
C�ity � Hall, 501 Primrose Road �
Burli.ngame, CA 94010
Subject: Caltrans Di.s�rict 4 commen�s on the Proposed Negati.ve
Declara�i.on and Projec� Assessmen� for the Proposed
Days Inn Motel.
Dear Mr. Yost:
The second paragraph on page 15 of the assessmen� should also disclose
that, i.n add��i.on to �he �raffa.c i.mpac�s on Rou�e 101, project
genera�ed traffic wi11 have a s�gni.f�can� �mpact� on PM peak hour
�raff�.c operat�ion on �he Broadway/Rou�e 101 �nterchange.
In order for us �o veri.fy �he contents of Table 2, page 11 and Table
3, page 13; we should be furni.shed the capaci.�y analysis calcula�ions
for �he i.ntersecti.on levels o.f service. .
There a.s no men�a.on of bus �ransa.t servi.ce to �he area.� In add��a.on
�o the proposed shu��le serva.ce �o �he airport, there may be
opportuni.��.es �o reduce au�o tri.ps by prova.di.ng bus service and
appurtenant turnouts and shel�ers at �he projec� site and general
developi.ng area. The proximi.ty of the si�e �o �he Southern Paci.fic
Depot may make shut�le or bus servi.ce desi.reable, no� only for
customers, but also for employees.
At tha.s poa.nt �in ta.me, Caltrans canrio� be commit�ed �o a new
connectzon to Rou�e 101 as partially shown (but no� so noted) on
Figure 4 on page 7. In th�s regard,'the word planned on �he first
line of the last paragraph on page 14 should be proposed (by Ci.ty of
Burl�ngame off�.ci.als ) .
As we read the document, parti.ci.pation by the developer i.n traffi�c
m�ta.gati.on measures w�ll be di.rected to Airpor� Boulevard and to a
proposed new connecti.on to Route 101. It may be approprza�.e to
da.scuss the poss�b�li.ty that the new connecta.on may no� be approved or
that agproval and construc��on may be long after developmen� that
requires ma.tigati.on to i.ntersecti.ons wi.th�in freeway znterchanges.
There may be developer respons�bility i.n thzs regard si.nce Caltrans
has no project scheduled or planned that may enhance future traffi.c
operati.ons at the local �nterchanges.
Mr. Yost �
Page 2
September 3, 1980
It i.s requested �hat responses and other actzons by Burl�ngame on this
proposal be sent to Caltrans Di.s�ri�ct CEQA Coordi.nator, P. O. Box
3366, Ri.ncon Annex, San Francisco, CA 94119. Telephone 557-2448.
Si.ncerely yours, ' .
JOHN WEST . : .
- Di.stri.ct Di.rector � �
� . .
By �/(� / . .
R. N. KELLER, Chief
Enqzneeri.ng Servi.ces Branch _ � .
cc: State Clearinghouse �
�
I�JTER-OFFICE MEt�iO �Augus� 29, 1980.
T0: Mr. John Yost, City Planner � �,
FROM: Engineering DiVision � ��
' RE: Days Inn af America, 777 Airport Blvd.� �
� Comments on project assessment and preliminary site plan are as follows:
1. Street crossing is Bayside Blvd. not Anza Pacific Blvd.
2. Airport Blvd. median opening to be closed upon construction of
Bayside Blvd. � '
� 3. Opening at future Bayside Blvd. to be 250'+ from curbing inter-
� section with Airport Blvd. Temporary left turns into site
allowed from Bayside until Bayside Blvd. is extended to freeway.
� Actual time limits on any left turn on to site will be determined
a� time of site plan preparation.
� . 4. Page 12 indicates "1977" parking requirements.Change to present
". code date and parking ratios as necessar,y. In corporate sizes
and spacing for parking in accordance with current code as
, necessary in report.
� 5. Water service�to be from main in Baysi�de Blvd. right of way.
6. Tsunami discussion on page 44 et al should be considered. -
7. Provide discussion and planning for a pedestrian and bike path
connection across Bayside Blvd. at lagoon. �
� _
� �� 8. "High Rise Si��" to�meet code. •
. 9. Provide gravity drainage or sufficient "sump" storage for a.
rainstorm if any pumped drainage is without power.
' ,�,f� ���
. ,. ,<�' /��l �����-.
� G
� � Frank C. Erbache.r
. . � City Engineer
FC�/1n . ;
i
m
. . R � G �:1 �V +�. !.�
� AU G 2 9 1980 ..
CITY OF BURLINGAN9E
PU4NNING DEPT,
. , ��;.��:.��i�:�
INTER-OFFICE MEMO A��,7 ������ . • August 25, 1980.
To: John Yost Cit Planner ClTY Or 8Ui?IINGAME '
► Y �'iA�A�iF�G t��PT.
From: Building Division �� �
' Re: 777 Airport Blvd.
Days Inns of America .
If approved the building department will require all code requirements to
be met including; � �
l. Two complete sets of plans be submitted for plan check. Upon
� approva7. of plans all required permits be obtained before
beginning construction.
2. Copy of a soils report prepared by a State of California license
�. soils engineer.
. 3. Meet the requirement of the State of California Energy Commission,
' Title 24.
4. Meet the.requirements of the State of California for Handicap.
� 5. Provide a special inspector on site, during construction where
, required by 1976 U.B.C. section 305(a).
0
PKlln
MEMORANDUM
. ��
� Pete Kriner � .
Chief Building Inspector
�����`�:��
!'�41 �; '7 � 1�8C1
C�il( OF. BURLII�GA�
�t�1!?��. G��+
0
August 7, 1980
TO:� John Yost, City Planner
FROM: Larry Newell, Chief Fire Inspector .
SUBJECT: Proposed Day's Inn of America, 777 Airport Blvd.
We have reviewed the subject proposal and have no objection
to approval. ,
L.J.N.`
Augu�t 7, 1980
MEMO T0: Ci�y Planner � `
FRO�: Park Direc�or �
,
SU�JECT: REVIE� OF PERMIT APPLICATIOP� FOR CONSTRUCTION �F
QAY5 IN� OF AMERICA, 777 AIRPQRT BOULEVRRD
� Re�: 1) Preiiminary Sit� Plan,by Blunk Associat�s 7/7J8�
� 2� Rroject Assessment by Earth Metrics Inc. 8/1j80
My comments:
.]. A land�cape pian will be required. Park Department hiinimum
Sta�da�ds are avail�ble to the landscape architect upo� re-
� aues�. �
Z. If the landscap�ng is installed before the.proposed street
� is_constt�ucted (Anza Paci�ic Boulevardj, the l�ndscaping is
to be completed on the stre�t righ�-of-way alsa for proper
� . continuity of irrigation and p�ianting. The public sidea�aik
is to be comple�ed on �he Ania Pacific Boul.evard frontage also.
3. Development of �he propos�d pedestrian walk adjacen�C to the
� lagoon is. to meet city standards as established when the v��a1k
. was d�veloped adjacent t� the bay shoreline adjacent to Ai-rpo�t
� Boule�ard across from Bayside Park. It should include sea�i�g,
� vista paints and other landscape amenities.
�- 4. Tb� Project Asse�sment (Ref. 2) on page.23 previd�s for �he
� p�:�nting of "edergreen trees initiaily approxima�ely 15 to 20
, �eet� i n hei ght vi s i bl e from the str°ee� el e��ti ons .� TOte 1 ands-
. capfing plan is to be ,revie4�ed and approved by city st���°. i
�.expect to be a member of the city staff review team.
. � �. r _ ,
. � � . ohn E. No�fman ,
. � JEH:j ����f��.� .. • • .
4U G �3 - i9�a � ~��-
�� �try o� �,�u�vc�r�: � . .
, ��s.�Ci �..�['. � .
� .
.
,
v v
t
City�Council �
Study Meeting -
May 1►+, 1g80 .
. � �,� ,
• • . , �
�. . � �
a
Council discussed at length all of the above recommendations and
comments and the possible inequity to some residents because of the
removal of the syste:� from only the a�eas with oId wirir,g. k
majority o� the councilmenbers present concurred in directing Chief
Fricke to continue the program of removal of defective alar.m boxes
and the wiring system from the areas of original installation, with
schools, undergrounded areas and industrial areas to retain their
systems.
7. SELECTION O: FNGINEERING rIRM FOR �.IRPORT
$OULEVARD P72D�NING A�TD FREEbJAY CONi1ECTION
' Council unanimously concurred in the reconmendation of Mr. Kirkup
and Mr. Yost that THM be selected as engineers for the widening
of Airpert Boulevard and the freeway connection.
8. ACCESSORY BUILDING REGULATIOY7S � ' �
. � � .
City Pianner John Yost responded to Councilmembers' auestions
regarding subparagraphs 7 and 8 of Section 25.60.010 0� the pro-
posed ordinance regarding accessory building regulations, speci-
fically its reference to plate line. Council directed that the
, ordinance, with a.TM�endments, be placed on the agenda for introduction
• at the next reqular meeting. . ,
9. DESIGN GUIDELINE APPLICATiON
E'OR PROJECT AT BAYVIE;J AND AIRPORT BOULEVARDS �
, �
• City Planner Yost reviewed the Bayfront Development Guide�ine
restricticns adopted by City Council, particular`ly with regard to
setback requirenents and screer.ing of parking from the street. Iie
referred to drawings and maps submitted to Council caith Mr. David
• Keyston's letter. o£ May 5, 1980. The.proposed project for Days
Inns of America presents a problem because it will frent on Airport
Bou2evard but have a secondary frontage of.670 feet on �he proposed
Bayview Boulevard which will link the Freeway to Airport Boulevard.
.. It is Staff's positien �hat both frontages should Aro��ide the set--
back required in the adopted guidelines. The project, designed in
April, 1979, com�plies ��ith the guidelines when viewed from Airoort
Boulevard. Either the preject should be redesigned, an application
made to the Planning Commission for a special per.ni£,.or Council
determine that the setback provisions in the:guidelir.es aoply to
only one frontage.� Mr. Yost recommended that a specia2 nernit ap-
� plication be required. . •
• Mr: David H.. Keyst�n anc2 Mr. Robert Blunk, architect, addressed
Council on behalf of Days Inns. Their comr.ients included the.
following: This is an economy, family oriented motel. BLildings
• of the hatel chain fo?1ow a basic architectural design in which
specific criteria for parking access, elevator, location, etc.,
are mandatory. , � '
The City's code provides�that a building setback for a secondary
' frontage is typically only one-half or one-tliird the requirement
' foz the primary frontage. If the setback for the secondary frontage
of this project were one-half or two-thirds the ar.iount sDecified in
the Design Guidelines, the project would meet the reyulations.
'�The building need r.ot be redesigned bLt can be moved farther back
• on the proparty with two additional rows of screened parking on
the secondary frontage side. .
As planned the buildinq does not create a visual ir.ipact, but, if
moved farther back on the parcel or turned, it iaill intrude into
the view corridor from Airport E3oulevard.
The special permit process may take months and wi12 involve the
time and e:cpense of a negative cleclaration or enviror�iental imp�et
�report. Days Inns has indicated that they are pushed as far as
• they can go considering the difficulties in justifying land values
in Burlingame for this L•ype of pr�ject.
�
3.
�
i
�
�
, , , , . . . � . ,
* . Council and Staff discussed the matter at length. Cor.unents in-
�� cluded: Orientation of the building is preferable �s designed
. . because narrow side of the building points toward the City:
- • • . , . �
Side setbacks were not addressed in the"guitlelines. Council
� � could determine that two-thirds of the front setback applies. .
' • to the secondary frontage. . , ... •
• . It�was finally determined that Council wished to apply setbacks
� to both frontages. The developer may apply for a special permit
` � oz consider an alternate plan.
' • �. IO. CHANGES OF STREET NFIMES � ' ' :
� Director of�Public C•Jorks Kirkup advi'sed�Council that Mr.�Key"ston
. has requested that the name "Bayview Place" be-changed to "anza
Pacific Place," and that'the present "Anza Pacific Place" be
changed to "Victoria Station Place." Victoria Station restaurant
•'' � .� is the only present occupant of either street and joined in the
. •,'. r�quest. Council direc�ed that tne City Attorney prepa're a res-
.• ' � � olution for presentation at the�required public hearing.
. � ' � �� 1].. THREE FOOT FENC� REGULATION : �. ,. •
: - ON EL CAMZPiO REAL'� . _ � . ' . " : . '
� Mr: Yost explained that the proposed forn of ardinance designated
. ."A' provides that all property dn E1 Camino'Real shall be subject
� •' to a three-foot fence height limitation within 20 feet of�any
�: property line, and alternative"B"establishes the same limitation
� but exempts those properties without driveway a�cess on E1 Camino
. � � . � Real. , , . : . . . _ . � .
�•' .� : Council directed that an ordinance incorpora�ing alternative "B"
� .. be presented for•introduction at its meeting.of May 19th.
' . � yt� � � 12. taASHIPdGTON PARK IriP;20VEt•tENT PLANS . � . .: • • '
' ' . . , . � �. ! 41 . � • . . . . . . ... . •- - t . . • • : .
�'� • _ �. Paik Director John Hoffr�an reported he had me£ with forty neighbors
. " : }: , living near the proposed T�ashington Park impravements. 71 ne��r olan
� for location bf tables and bench�s away from proximity to V�rnon
`� , and Concord has been developed which is satisfactory to the r�s-
• idents and was unanimousiy aoproved by the Park and�Recreation
�`� Commission. The advisability of picnic areas which might draca
••= non-residents was raised. Mr. Hoffman stated that the concept
' •'.� of picnic tables was to serve senior citizens'and p:arents of child-
• • . � • ' . • re.n �rrhb use the recreation facilities. , �
•• ',. Mr. Dennis Huajardo stated that after the meeting of the Park and
�� • �' � Recreation Commission he became concerned about the compatability
• of rusti.c benche� and tables with the factory purcha�ed equip:aent
'- - ' located in other areas of the Park. •�
. , • .. . • . .. _ _ � •
_' '. •. ��• Council refe'rred the matter to the•Park'and Recreation Cor.itnission
• . . . .. . , far decision. . - '
�� � 13. � PARF: AND RECREATION COMbIISSION RECOrL'�SENDaTION � �•
, , • FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CITY LANB AT BA`ISIDE PT�RK• ••'
' • •The Park'and Recreation Commission memorandum of April 21, 1980,
• recommended that construction oz a driving range,to be operate3 by
� •. . .the City with a hired professional.commence and this time, and a
� �� • decision regarding tiie developme:t of the remainder oE the dunp
. �• site be put off until the property is ready. It also requested
a� � � that revenue from the driving range be allocated to the Park and
' � .. Recreation Fund. • ' '
, ' Council questioned the cost of closing the dunp site. Mr.•Kirkup
• ''• estimated approximately $400,000, dependent upon the amount of fill
�• ,. to be purchased, and not including the cost of relocating water
. lines. .
• • � It was suggested that Mr. iioffman investigate the costs of main-
�. ' tait►ing a driving ranqe, includinq maintenance of the area and a
�' sprinkler system. StaEf was directed to prepare an estimate of
. the cost oE buildinq a drivina ranqe and methods oE financing. Mr.
'' , Sherman.and his studies migi�t bQ of a�sistance. ,
, . . , . � .
i
i
�
i
H-
i .
• � � �� �� �.���� ,
. ' SIIPPI.EMENT TO
� � PROJECT ASSESSMENT � �,� ;� jj - ���Q � '
FOR THE PROPOSED � �
' DAYS INN MOTEL, AIRPORT BOULEVARD CIiY OF, BURLIN�kAqE
. : BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA . ��� ���"
• PROJECT WHEN CQNSIDERED IN ITS ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT ,
PREPARED FOR: ' .
. DAYS INN OE AMERICA .
.. � � ' � .. � , � .
� . � . . .
. � .. JtTLY 1, 1980 .
. ?.
� . o
. ' BLITI�C . ASSOCIATES . ARCHITECTS '
• 533 AIRPORT B(?ULEVARD �
� � BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 .
- (415) 342-5224 .
. � The proposed restaurant and motel as described in the project
' assessment dated June 27, 1980 by Earth Metrics, Inc., is but the first '
of two phases which will go to make a complete motel co�plex at this �
locaCiono The adjacent land is currently held under option by Days Inns
of America and a 184 unit motel addition is anticipated within two to
three years fol2owing the completion of Phase 1. It therefore seems im-
portanti to consider this development as a whole rather than as two individual
projects and it permits a better assessment of the overall impact especially
as applied to the Burlingau�e Design Guidelines for Waterfront Development.
As you will note by the enclosed plot plan, it is intended that there �
be two parallel motel structures which will be built 133 feat apart. They
will, most assuredly, provide a maximum view corridor.from the Anza Pa- '
� cific Boulevard approach road as it crosses"the lagoon and from the so�th-
� bound direction on Highway I01 as well as from many areas an the other
��� .� side of 101 in the city of Burlingame itself. When viewed from northbound
•101 there are several mitigating circumstances wi.th reference to the view
situation. First of all, the,northbound vi.ew is not directed toward the
.� bay but rather toward the existing city dumg which is hoped will soon
' . become�a proposed park. However, regardless of the configuration of the �
building in Phase 1, the amount of view blocked would be identical regardless
of whether the initial proposed building is used or an alternative such as A
� in the Assessment. If one were to consider Alternative A however as viewed
from southbound 101 or Anza Pacific Boulevard lagoon bridge, one would note
•• that the open 133 foot corridor between buildings would be reduced to 69
feet and there would be the sense of it being a blocking struc ture rather
than creating a view corridor. �
�,
, ; :,��:>
Page'2 . � � � � . .
The Phase 2 development, as shown, complete2y conforms to the.guideTinea
� , with respect to the Airport Boulevard frontage and of course is not-affected
� in any way by the Anza Pacific Boulevard frontage. When viewed as a total
, complex, this becomes a unified whole and much more reasonable in its
approach. The view from Anza Pacific Boulevard directly adjacent to the
property looking across the property also would not change whether the
Pl�ase 1 building were built as submitted or the stepped Phase 1 building.
as proposed in Alternative A. (The distance from the righ thand end of
the Phase l building (sauthwest end) to the Iefthand or northeast end of
of the building in.Phase 2 would be the same, and the entire frontage
would be�structure as seen,from Anza Pacific Boulevard regardless of the '
�,� alternative plans ased.) When Phase 2 is built there will be no further
need for additional driveway approaches to the buildings, and_though it is
recognized that a project assessment will have to be made oa this with
�eference•to its impact on traffic and other factors, we feel that this
knowledge of its future development better allows understanding of the
• present layout. It is regretted that the design guideiines have not been
� specifically directed to a corner frontage, and if tihe traditional approach.
to corner lots were applicable in this instance,.there would be great rea-
son for the present proposed approach.. The amount of landscaping and po-
tential planting areas throughout the overall site would be greatly enhanced
and would permit berming at street frontages to better conceal parking and
,' to make a more gracious approach to the buildings involved.
The various alternatives that have been addressed in the June 27th
project assessment by Earth Metrics wsre merely suggestions made by
. . .. .� � �
Page 3 ' •
the Planning Director of the Gity of Burlingame. This office has
reviewed them all, has found that most of them do not have a reasonably
� applicab2e use in our needs, and we have particularly addressed our-
. selves to the potential. of Alternative �1 and Alternative F'which most
nearly would approach our requirements. Of these, Alternative A is the
" only one that.wi.11 provide the required parking, though its design inhibits
.vehicle circulation and emergency vehicle access as w�ll as parking ad- �
� jacent to the motel building. For those reasons we have chosen to propose
Phase 1 as originally submitted rather than one of th� alternative schemes.
. , . . . � `
� � � � . • ,
,
.
;
.. t
� • � . �
. . ,
. �.
. �. �
2
G�IAS%i S ' . . . c
51'(� P�F�A :.... .� 1 �5 i 3'12 �T Z �
. Ui.G''a. Af'-EA : l9 � 3<00. � i ; . , ,
�c.c��o. i,ot co.t��� : i5.4/ ' � , . : - . . .
l oF t�M�o�.PiNro vJ1iN�t� . too� . � �r • • . � �
. .
6NoRLu� Ti..At�K7 � �-1 �o - �p �_ . ' , , .
. . , . � ,�'� . .o .
i �J(�;� � . r .
•' . � t�� jr r`� \ ., . . .
� � / ,
?F�►NCo SPO�S . 214�3Rc . �� �. .�� :\ _ .4,� . . .
, '.
. . : �'i: . � ; '������ �. • . . .
� /� � :- `���\� � � �'� '�-• , •
� " . ' . . �i, �,, �` �,> ` —�. . � .. . : '�
. . � :� � , � ��'� y ��4Y f � � \ , e '
: . �.:� � / /����f�J o-...� �4`'�''r / %��.* �; : � •� . ' �
��/ , " ' , , ;: ,. '\
• ��f/ ,i;,�/�/ , • , • '
� y� � �"�� '' .
Q�J�/'� // i7 r ; � _ i' I . . a ` `\ � \�.
i r. j�
(� N . , f� �� :� ' y /� �A - j i ��.\ . . . . .
dz 5p_p � ��.� ��l ! �' `� \� �, �• �? � �' '� - / �`�1 r��
ty/�/y \ J / �� �
. .. . . . . � f;' ,. '�• �• ��• ',��\ �� V/ i' \�/ � ✓����-�`��� .
;'>. i �1" . h • : .� . ' . -�
_ ,,%�''">' �r " ` � ; \ �' � ' Gj ! � j �p�'' � , �' `\�J � �A�M ��M ('�'CC.) .
° /�...: �'. , ��0 � � `.. ` •1'� � �„ /� �� .'V �L�
�/ y��; ,, ��y ' / .. \ ,
� � � ��� i : `.�i' '` . ; �� / �, ���� � ��fi . . � •
� `(.� �f , �� � � / � \ \ � � • .
i ��<- i�
/ '` �% / �
�;r , , O. � i �' . � ,,.� , " ;! n�� / /� j a,� %stT� AR�A y 98��f.�4 Ft�:
. / f..;�� �� ' �"" , :�•: � i
:l � ��� ��� • /� .� "r x' v' / i' i �. i� � / �.'� / ' � / ,r{'�' g',,,0(p, � • 1�' D52.3'3 �'fs' _
�� y� /� � � ��V .� hr�` i /.' / � �i / �/ 1
_ .i� � ,?��y, ' ' � , i / / �. � �•' / � % / / �/ i Ecti ;i
j/' y:�' i .' . �Dc � ��„ •'� � � � , ��o� � A r i . �.�0. !.� C%� � 1433%
/ ,��'%��% / , ' � �'� ,�; ��� / / ' .� h � � i /
ti� �„ \J � ;'` '�/j � /i � / i , V)_ �Q,` /• . ' / I � r � oF l�J� �.l.1h� �
� �' � �' •!h .' /' /� / � .
��(r�� . � l� � �.:� �'� //� �� � . 'i � r _ � ��2YJ8 •
I� iy / / ' / :. \ // , / // j / � % � '� �� .I. ( � � �. oF ��P.Pirs� wrtN�t�1
_ �( f%� ^ • � A � �o" ' � �, �' .'. �\ � / A�/ //�C I I � 13 s. 1CO� SHA�F.uN� 'EAr�fl= �32
,\ IZ 9.Sf�
;'���� c- . ,�/ a ��`,��. . �� `si ! " ; G\\ �\`ta� %� g � I , , = ?5.35y
. , . . ; F �f� f , ot �\ „r --, \ � � ti � 6'' I I � � . . . �
f�/ �& '� � �� , . y.�i'— � �
1K � ----€�---- --- � � � �g1Gr.Y� �PAG��: Itlt/33c �
�� �.�,�.' � {
��aJwSc%��/ (��e.:, _... _..- -- --- ---_._. --�---- ----- ---- ---- I � `!� , ,
aat+ �t;�ti f-;� ,•��7 ^�� 7�7-.___,_��..,.� .,�,:_y ' � _ q - — --- •t .
jL ------�-- Y �� �___ .'..�3._...""'�'', �� , _ �`_��--�-.-----,���,:%';��_�' . . ,. �� �� . ; .
. �--�� �_ F�yt�vA�, WA�.1L_ , � _'I� . • .
'� i.�P�Co oO }.S , � � . . . i
�� : � • � . . ' , -
S l`(E. Pt,�N . � ' � . . ,