HomeMy WebLinkAbout835 Airport Blvd - CEQA Documents' NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 1 �%L�i �C�
TO: ❑X Office of Planning and Research
P.O Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
� County Clerk
County of San Mateo
555 County Center Road, ls` Floor
FROM: City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burl' �,�C
1�� 1 ��I
� � ��,�*_� Pl
a�c o s 200�
Redwood City, California 94063-0977 W RR�iJ SLOCU'�9, Co ,�y Clerk
By .
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 211 S°Z o���ie �ubl Resources
Code.
ND 518P, 835 Airport Boulevard - DoubleTree Hotel Meetin�; Room Expansion
PROJECT TITLE �!
Mar�aret Monroe (650) 558-7250
State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Extension
(If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person
835 Airport Boulevard, City of Burlingame, San Mateo County
PROJECT LOCATION (include County)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project proposes the construction of a single-story addition to an existing 8-story, 392-room hotel located at
835 Airport Boulevard. The project includes adding 4,372 SF ofbanquet/meeting room space to the north and south
sides of the building, and would increase the total banquet/meeting room space to 14,017 SF. The proposed
addition would increase the floor area ratio of the hotel from 1.14 to 1.16 FAR. A conditional use permit for floor
area ratio is required for an FAR between 1.0 and 2.0. In this case the addition will increase the project FAR to
1.16, which will require a conditional use permit. An amendment to the conditional use permit is required to vary
from the landscape requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development for landscaping within the
parking area (9.1% existing, 8.2% proposed, 10% required).
The parking requirement for hotel use is one parking space for each hotel room (392 rooms), which results in a
requirement of 392 parking spaces for this project. In 1997, the Planning Commission approved a parking variance
for 277 on-site parking spaces where 392 spaces are required, and for number of compact stalls. The proposed
addition of ineeting room space does not require additional on-site parking spaces and there are no additional guest
rooms proposed to be added with this project. The meeting room addition will causc the removal of 15 parking
spaces. Three new parking spaces will be added adjacent to the addition at the north end, resulting in a net
reduction of 12 on-site parking spaces due to construction. A parking variance is required for 265 parking spaces
on site where 277 spaces were approved in 1997.
This is to advise that the City of Burlingame, the Lead Agency, has approved the above-described project on
November 26. 2001 and has made the following determinations regarding the above-described ro ect:
. I��C[.`i �c ��_
1. The pro�ect (❑ will � will not) have a significant effect on the environment. �- t�•-�
JAN 1 0 �UU�
CITY OF gl!�;_';'�GAM
PLANrIi ,,: vEP7', E
` Notice of Determination - continued
2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA.
� A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures (� were ❑ were not) made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations ( � was � was not) adopted for this project.
5. Findings (� were ❑ were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the above-described Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record ofproject
approval is available to the General Public at the City of Burlingame, Planning Department, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California 94010.
�� . �, �� �
Monroe, City Planner
Date received for filing at OPR:
Date
nod.form
California Department of Fish and Game
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location (include county): 835 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, CA, San Mateo County,.
ND 518P, Addition and Remodel to an Existing Hotel.
Project Description: This project proposes the construction of a single-story addition to an existing 8-story,
392-room hotel located at 835 Airport Boulevard. The project includes adding 4,372 SF of banquet/meeting
room space to the north and south sides of the building, and would increase the total banquet/meeting room
space to 14,017 SF. The proposed addition would increase the floor area ratio of the hotel from 1.14 to� 1.16
FAR. A conditional use permit for floor area ratio is required for an FAR between 1.0 and 2.0. In this case
the addition will increase the project FAR to 1.16, which will require a conditional use permit. An
�mendment to tYze cond'ational use permit is required to vary from the landscape requirements of the Design
Guidelines for Bayfront Development for landscaping within the parking area (9.1% e�sting, 8.2% proposed,
10% required).
The parking requirement for hotel use is one parking space for each hotel room (392 rooms), which results
in a requirement of 392 parking spaces for this project. In 1997, the Planning Commission approved a
parking variance for 277 on-site parking spaces where 392 spaces are required, and for number of compact
stalls. The proposed addition of ineeting room space does not require additional on-site parking spaces and
there are no additional guest rooms proposed to be added with this project. The meeting room addition will
cause the removal of 15 parking spaces. Three new parking spaces will be added adjacent to the addition at
the north end, resulting in a net reduction of 12 on-site parking spaces due to construction. A parking
variance is required for 265 parking spaces on site where 277 spaces were approved in 1997.
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
The City of Burlingame finds that on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received there is no
substantial evidence the proposed project will have a significant effect on wildlife or its habitat. The attached
evaluation provides additional documentation and support for this finding.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually
or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code.
c.�'
Chief Planning Official
Title: Ci� Planner
Lead Agency: City of Burlingame
Date: December 6. 2001
.. c��� E�
R�
. J AN ,1 p 2p02
OF BURL� EP�M�
- C1�p�PN�d�N�' �
i
�
�
J '
�y�
I m
Warren S ocu
Chief Elections Officer & Assessorf County Clerk-Recorder
RECEIPT # 63181. Clerk: MBRULEY
12/06/2001 ** REPRINT ** 04:03P
'. DOC TYPE: ENV_IRONMENTAL FILING FEE - E�R';'
FEE : 2 5 . 0 �1 ,.,
:,�;� :.
TOTAL FEE ---------------> 25:0�
�; ;;,;
CHECK 6669 ----> ���'.00
TOTAL PAYMENTS ----------> 25.00
,
Page 1
Assessor
phone 650.363.4500 fax 650.363.1903
email assessor@care.co.sanmateo.ca.us
Clerk
phone 650.363.4712 fax 650.363.4843
email clerk@care.co.sanmateo.ca.us
555 Counfy Center
Redwooci City, CA 94063-1665
web www.care.co.sanmateo.ca.us
Recorder
phone 650.363.4713 fax 650.599.7386
email recorder@care.co.sanmateo.ca.us
RE�����D
JAN 1 0 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
California Department of Fish and Game
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location (include county): 835 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, CA, San Mateo County,.
ND 518P, Addition and Remodel to an Existing Hotel.
Project Description: This project proposes the construction of a single-story addition to an existing 8-story,
392-room hotel located at 835 Airport Boulevard. The project includes adding 4,372 SF of banquet/meeting
room space to the north and south sides of the building, and would increase the total banquet/meeting room
space to 14,017 SF, The proposed addition would increase the floor area ratio of the hotel from 1.14 to� 1.16
FAR. A conditional use permit for floor area ratio is required for an FAR between 1.0 and 2.0. In this case
the addition will increase the project FAR to 1.16, which will require a conditional use permit. An
amendment to the conditional use permit is required to vary from the landscape requirements of the Design
Guidelines for Bayfront Development for landscaping within the parking area (9.1 % existing, 8.2% proposed,
10% required).
The parking requirement for hotel use is one parking space for each hotel room (392 rooms), which results
in a requirement of 392 parking spaces for this project. In 1997, the Planning Commission approved a
parking variance for 277 on-site paxking spaces where 392 spaces are required, and for number of compact
stalls. The proposed addition of ineeting room space does not require additional on-site parking spaces and
there are no additional guest rooms proposed to be added with this project. The meeting room addition will
cause the removal of 15 parking spaces. Three new parking spaces will be added adjacent to the addition at
the north end, resulting in a net reduction of 12 on-site parking spaces due to construction. A parking
variance is required for 265 parking spaces on site where 277 spaces were approved in 1997.
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
The City of Burlingame fmds that on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received there is no
substantial evidence the proposed project will have a significant effect on wildlife or its habitat. The attached
evaluation provides additional documentation and support for this fmding.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually
or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code.
v
Chief Planning Official
Title: City Planner
Lead Agency: Citv of Burlingame
Date: December 6, 2001
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. ND-518P
The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on November 6, 2001 , completed a review of the
proposed project and determined that:.
(X� It will not have a significant effect on the environxnent
(X� No Environmental Impact Report is required.
�
�
Projeet Deseription: This project proposes the construction of a single-story addition to an existing 8-
story, 392-room hotel located at 835 Airport Boulevard. The s�te is loeated on,the southwest corner of
Airport and Anza Boulevaxds, and is adjacent to the City of Burlingarne community park to the west.
Currer.tly, the hotel has 9,645 SF of banquet/meeting room space. The project includes adding 4,372 SF
of banquet/meeting roorn space to the north and south sides of the building, and would increase the total
banquetlmeeting room space to 14,017 SF. The proposed addition would increase the floor area ratio of
the'hotel from 1.14 to 1.16 FAR. A conditional use permit for floor area ratio is required for an FAR
between 1.0 and 2.0. In this case the addition will increase the project FAR to 1.16, which will require a
conditional use permit. An amendment to the conditional use pernut is required to vary from the Iandscape
requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development for landscaping within the pazking area.
(9.1% existing, 8.2% proposed, 10% required).
The parking requirement for hotel use is one parking space for each hotel room (392 rooms), which results
in a requirement of 392 parking spaces for this project:--,In 1997, the Planning Commission approved a
parking variance for 277 cara�site parking spaces wher� 392 spaces are required, and for number of
eompact stalls. The 1997 parking variance was based on the applicant providing 115 parking spaces for
hotel employee and guest use in the additional parking azea grovided on adjacent.city land. The enlarged
parking area also serves the city's Bayside Community Park including a driving range, soccer field and
baseball diamond. The proposed addition of ineeting room space does not require additional on-site
parking spaces and there are no additional guest rooms proposed to be added with this project. The
meeting room addition will cause the removal of eight pazking spaces along the south end of the building
and seven pazking spaces along the north end of the building. Three new parking spaces will be added
adjacent to the addition at the north end, resulting in a net reduction of 12 on-site pazking spaces due
to construction. A parking variance is required for 265 parking spaces on site where 277 spaces were.
approved in 1997. The DoubleTree Hotel provides valet parking in the northeast corner of the mai.n lot.
Vehicles are pazallel-parked at the end of the parking stalls. Approximately 14 to 16 additional vehicles
can be accommodated on the hotel pazking lot with the valet parking.
Reasons for Conclusion: The site is designated for restaurant uses by the General Plan and by the
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan: This land use designation is cumulative, in that those uses which
generate less traffic than the designated use are also permitted on this site in the pian. Therefore, the .
proposed hotel addition (meeting room space) is consistent with this plan land use designation. The C-4,
waterfront commercial zoning district permits hotels and motels. This proposal is consistent with these
plans and the implementing zoning. Except as noted above, all zoning code requirements have besn met
through the project design. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings, it is found
that with the incorporation of the mitigations proposed, there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. Referring to the initial study for a11 other facts supporting
findings, it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on
the environment.
r
Signature of Processing Official
t
1..� �
Title
� � Z��
Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final.
Date posted: November 6, 2001
Declaration of Postin�
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the
Council Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California on ��-v• �, , 20U1.
Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No
.-�-�, �E Pv �r Cs Tr C �� e k
,j,,�. ANN T. MUSSO, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
U-
�
I1�IITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
l.
Project Title:
835 Airport Boulevard - DoubleTree �iotel Meeting
Room Expansion
�
3.
4.
5.
�
7.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General PTan Designation:
Zoning: C-4, Waterfront Commercial
City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(650) 558-7250
Between State Route 101 and San Francisco Bay,
parcel with an address of 835 Airport Boulevard, City
of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California
Paul J. Gumbinger, Gumbinger/Avram Associates
60 East Third Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401 � .
General Plan, Waterfront Commercial; Burlingame
Bayfront Specific Area Plan, HoteURestaurant
APN: 026-343-430 & -440
8. Description of the Project: This project proposes the construction of a single-story addition to an
existing 8-story, 392-room hotel located at 835 Airport Boulevard. The site is located on the
southwest corner o� Airport and Anza Boulevards, and is adjacent to the City of Burlingame
recreational fac�lity to the west. Currently, the hotel has 9645 SF of banquet/meeting room space. The
project ineiudes adding 4372 SF of banquet/meeting room space to the north and south sides of the
building, and therefore will increase the total banquet/meeting roorn space to 14,017 SF. The
� proposed addition would increase the floor area ratio of the hotel from 1.14 to 1.16 FAR. A net of 12 �
on-site parking 5paces would be lost to accommodate the meeting room additions. With the approv�l;
of a 101-room addition to this hotel in 1997, the hotel entered into an agreement with City ot
Burlingame for use nf 115 of the 230 parking spaces on the adjacent public park site (former
sanitaty landfill) to be used for employee parking and self-parked guests. Planning staff would note
that field visits by the applicant and staff verified that there are currently 230 parking spaces in the
adjacent Iot. 'I'o offset the decrease in the number of parking spaces on the hotel site, the applicant
recently requested, and was granted, an extension of the license agreement for use of an additional
�.2 parking spaces in the adjacent public park parking lot. The 230-space pazking lot at the recreation
area would provide parking for both hotel guests and visitors to the 36-acre recreation area. In
addition, the hotel provides valet parking in the northeast corner of the hotel site lot. Vehicles are
para11e1-parlced at the end of the parking stalls. This valet parking will accommodate approximately
14 to 16 additional vehicles on the hotel site.
�
Three environmental documents are used as data sources and are incorporated by reference into this
initial study. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 59P on the original project for development
of a 310 room hotel certified by the City Council on June 20, 1983; EIR No. 66-P, for the City of
Burlingame Sanitary Landfill sealing, leachate barrier, public access and Airport Boulevard
reconstruction and expansion; and Negative Declaration No. 486P for the 101-room addition to 835
Airport Boulevard in 1997.
9. Surrounding Land uses �nd Setting: The site is bordered on the west by the former City of
Burlingame sanitary landfill site (Class IIn, which has been closed anc� sealed according to State
requirements and is now developed as a public recreational facility. The surrounding area is developed
with 3-5 story office buildings and hotels. Red Roof Inn is located across Anza Boulevazd to the
southeast, and the Hilton Garden Inn is located adjacent to the Red Roof Inn.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
approval will be required for any proposed storm drains extending into Corps jurisdiction. Bay Area
Air Quality 1Vlanagement District oversees any emissions guidelines, and may require a pernut at the
time building plans are r�viewed. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
guidelines and San Nla�eo County Pollution Prevention Program Best 1Vlanagement Practices would
need to be followed for any construction activities and for future management of the site. The site is
noi within Bay Conservation and Development Cammission (BCDC) jurisdiction.
��
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
4
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Mineral Resources G�ltural Resources �
Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation •
Materials
X Hydrology & Water X Noise Agricultural Resources
Air Quality Public Services
X Transportation/Traffic LJtilities and Se:
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
I find that tfie proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I%nd tliat although tfie proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
projeet proponent. A MITTGATED NEGATIVE DECLA�tATION will be prepared. - X
I fmd tliat the proposed project MAY have a' significant effect on tlie environment, and an
ENVIItONMENTAL IlVIPACT REPORT is required.
I imd that the pioposed project MAY have a Apotentially significant impact@ or Apotentially si�cant
unless mitigated@ impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on atfached sheets. An ENVIRONMEN'FAL IlVIPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tlie environment, beeause all -
potentially significant effects (lj have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATNE
DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eazlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATTON, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
��
Margaret onroe, City Planner
�
��1� br ��
Date
a
3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources I Sources I Potentially
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than I No
Significant Impact
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,4 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use. plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the generaI plan, specific plan, local coastal 1,2,4 X
program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,15 X
communiry conservation pIan?
2. POPITLATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Tnduce substantial population growth in an azea, either direcfly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or � ~
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other -
infrastructure)? 1,3 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of e�cisting housing, necessitating 3 X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the " 3 ' X
construetion of replacement housing elsewhere?
3. GEULOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 5,7,9 X
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 5,7,9 X
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State GeoIogist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,7,9 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5,8,9 X.
iv) Landslides? 5,8 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,5,8 . X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 1,5,8 X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be Iocated on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 5,8,9 X
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 5,7 X
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers .
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: � � �
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? 1,5 X
4
�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than I No
Significant Impact
Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such tliat there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local '
groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing 5 X
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or
azea, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would.result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site? 5,10 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage �attern of the site or .�
area, including through the alteration uf the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surfaee 5,10 X
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or 1,5 X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
� Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 5 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped 5,15 X X
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate .
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area struetures which 5,15 X X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a signifieant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the 5,15 X
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ta�udflow? 1,5 X
5. AIIt QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: •
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,21 X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1,21 X
projected air qualiry violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable riet increase of any 1,21 X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,21 X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,21 X
people?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources � Sources
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Significant I Impact
Impact
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to 14,17 , X
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a Ievel of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? 14 X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 10 X
substantial safety risks? -
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. 10,17 X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 10 X
fj Result in inadequate pazking capaciry? 2,10,17 . X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 10 . X�
altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Deparhnent of
Fish and Game or U.5. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,5,15 X
b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,5,15 X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the Califomia Depart�nent of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? . �
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as deixned by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act -
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) .1,5 X
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or �
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with ihe movement of any native or 1,5 X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,22 . X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
� Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1,22 X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources � s°°��es
Significant
Issues
Signifcant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than I No
Significant Impact
Impact
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1,5,7 . X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in ihe loss of availability of a locally important minerat
resouree recovery site delineated on a local general plan, 1,5,7 X
specifie pIan or other land use plan?
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazazdous
, materials? � 1,10 X
b) Create a signiiicant hazard to the public or the environment �
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 1,5,10 X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit fiazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substanees, or waste within one-quarter 1,9 X
mile of an existing or proposed sehool? �
d) Be �located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 23,24 X
G5962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a projeet loeated within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public 1 X
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safery
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
fl For a project within the vicin.ity of a private airstrip, would the
projeet result in a safety hazazd for people residing or working 1 X
in the project area? ; �
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 1,11 X
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death .involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 1,11 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands? �
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess 1 X
of standazds established in the local general plan or noise �
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 1,5 X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c} A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 1,5 X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Inwrporated
Significant I Impact
Impact
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,5 X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing withaut the
project? �
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 1,5,25 X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public �
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
fj For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 1,5 X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
exeessive noise levels?
11. PUBLIC„�SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical,impacts assoeiated with the provision of
new or physicalIy altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemment facilities, the construction of
which could cause signifieant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance abjectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire proteetion? . 1,11 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parlcs? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
12. UTII.I1�5 AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatrnent requirements of the applicable 1,10 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 1,5,10 X
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ... :
� drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the 1,5,10 X
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effeets? �
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 1,10 X
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1,10 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,10 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? �
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes a.�d regulations 1,10 X
related to solid waste?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5,10 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporuted
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 1,5,10 X
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? "
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualiry of 1,5,10 X
the site and its sunoundings? �
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,10 X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
14. CiJLTiTRAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,10 X
historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,10 - �
azchaeological resource pursuant to §15U64.5? .
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,10 X
or site or unique geological feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those intened outside of 1,10 X
formal cemeteries?
15. RECREATION.
a) Would ihe project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,10 X�
regional pazks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated? �
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 1,10 X
construction or expansion of recreational facilities whieh might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. � In determining whether impacts to agricultural resourees aze significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by ttie California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project: �
a) Convert Prime Farmland, i7nique Farmland or Farmland of 1 � X
Statewide Importance (Farcnland), as shown on ttie maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring -
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their Iocation or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X
to non-agricultural use? �
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIF'ICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the �
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
communiry, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X
�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 1 X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means �
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when "
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
� substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? 1 X
10
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 The City ofBurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 2S - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 1999 edition.
3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 1994.
4 Specific Area Plan - The Burlingame Bayfront, adopted by the Burlingame City Council on May 4, 1981.
5 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report No. 59P for Four Seas Hotel, March and May, 1983, State
Clearinghouse No.82071305
6 1990 Census
7 Deparhnent of the Interior, U.S. G��l�gical Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, Revised
1981.
8 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and 1VI. Bonilla, Landslide Suscepiibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
9 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, tJ.S.G.S.
Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. �
10 July 16, 2001, Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations.
11 Fire Marshal Memo dated April 16, 2001, regarding sprinkler coverage and fire alarm system requirements.
12 Recycling Specialist Memo dated April 16, 2001, regarding construction waste handling and recycling.
13 Public Access Guidelines for the Anza Area, adopted by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
on January 21, 1982.
14 Burlingame Tra�c Analyzer, 2000 Edition
15 Map ofAreas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State
Deparhnent of Fish and Game .
16 Map ofApproximate Locations of I00 year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood
Insurance Maps, September 16, 19$1
17 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.,Transportation Consultants, Parking and Tra�c Analysis for the Proposed
Expansion of the DoubleTree Hotel Meeting Areas, 835 Airport Boulevard, August 6, 2001.
18 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report No. 66P for the City of Burlingame Sanitary Landfill sealing,
leachate barrier, public access, and Airport Boulevard reconstruction and expansion, September and
December, 1986, State Clearinghouse No. 85020506.
1.9 Letter from Law/Crandall to Margaret Monroe, dated December 31, 1996, and attached reports for
environmental studies performed at 835 Airport Boulevard: Methane Gas Monitoring, Doubletree Hotel
dated September 20, 1996; Methane Considerations, Doubletree Hotel dated December 10, 1993; Subsurface
Methane Survey, Doubletree Hotel dated December 1, 1993; Methane Gas Considerations, Doubletree Hotel �
dated July 29, 1993; Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment, Ibis Hotel dated February 2, 1990; and
Methane Gas Sampling at the Ibis Hotel dated November 2, 1989.
11
12
1. Land Use and Planning Summary: The site is designated for restaurant uses in the General Plan and
in the Specific Area Plan - The Burlingame Bayfront. This designation is cumulative, in that those uses which
generate less fxaffic than the designated use are also permitted on tYus site in the plan. Therefore, the proposed
hotel addition (meeting room space) is consistent with this planned land use designation. The C-4, Water&ont
Commercial zoning district pernuts hotels and motels. Conditional use pernv.ts aze required for buildings and
structures which exceed the design guidelines for Bayfront Development. This proposal exceeds the floor
area ratio allowed in the C-4 zone (1.16 FAR proposed where there is a review line at 1.0 FAR which requires
a conditional use permit). A conditional use permit amendment is required to vary from the landscape
requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development #'or landscaping within the parking axea
(9.1 % existing, 8.2% proposed, 10% required). A parking variance amendment is also required for- the
number of on-site parking spaces (265 on-site parking spaees provided, 392 spaces required). �
The project site is locatec� within the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan boundary, and thus is subject to
Section 21096(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires that, if a project is
located within an airport comprehensive land use plan boundary, the lead agency use the Airport Land Use
Pl�..*��ng Handbook (Hodges & S.�utt, 1993) as a technical resource in the preparation of environmental
documents as they relate to airport-related safety and noise issues. The 1983 EIR prepared for the existing
hotel stated t�at the original hotel would not result in any safety hazards. Since the proposed single-sfory
addition would be 72'-8" below the height of the existing building, no airport-related safety hazards would
be expected, and no further diseussion is required. The project falls within the height restrictions and noise
and safety guideiines of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan adopted in 1994.
Noise impacts are discussed in Section 10 of this Initial Study.
Mitigation:
Before any development is allowed, a conditional use permit to exceed 1.0 floor area ratio (1.16 FAR
requested), a conditional use permit amendment to vary from the parking area landscaping requirements
(8.2% proposed, 10°fo minimum required), and a pazking variance amendment for 265 on-site parking
spaces where 392 spaces are required.
2. Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding areas aze planned for commercial
uses. There are no residents in the area. The project will have no impact which will result in an inerease in
resident population because the number of employees in the hotel will not be increased.
3. Geologic Summary: The proposed development is on a site which is a part of a roughly 240-acre
rectangulazly-shaped peninsula which was created in the 1960's by the placement of soil-fill and rubble
conerete within a perimeter levee. The filled area is separa.ted from the original shoreline by a 500-foot wide
lagoon known as 5anchez Creek Lagoon. The site is about four miles west of the active San �ndreas Fault.
Damage could occur at this site primarily from liquefaction in a major earthquake (although no major damage
occurred at this site in the Loma Prieta 1989 earthquake). The proposed structure will be built on driven piles
to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth shaking in a major earthquake. Seismic ground shaking
will occur at this site in a major earthquake. Ground failure by liquefaction could result in some settlement
and cracking during a major earthquake. Damage would most likely occur to site features such as at grade
parking lots. According to the approved Environmental Impact Report SCH #82071305 for this site dated
i983, active faults within the Bay area have predominantly horizontal movement and are not expected to
generate significant water waves in the San Francisco Bay. Therefore the EIR concluded that the potential
for site flooding from a sieche is minimal. The Burlingame Seismic Safety Element shows that the site is
within the tsunami inundation zone for San Francisco Bay, but further study in the approved EIR indicates
13
that the runup zone barely extends onto this site and even under the worst conditions it is unlikely a tsunami
would significantly damage the site. The first floor for the proposed building will be built over the parking
area at an elevation of 13'-6" above mean sea level. A preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site
conducted by LeRoy Crandall and Associates in 1981 for the approved EIR shows 5.5 to 10 feet of artificial
fill placed over 5 to 7 feet of soft, highly compressible silty clay known as bay mud'.
Mitigation: .
The proposed shucture will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth
shaking in a major earthquake. Any connecrions between the new structure and the existing structure
shall be designed with flexibility to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1998 edition of the
California Building Code and Cali%rnia Fire Code.
Flexible joints should be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground
settlement.
The finished floors for any shucture shall be at least 9' above the mean sea level or one foot above the
possible flood elevation, whichever is greater. The developer shall provide documentation ofctirrent
rnaximum flood elevation.
4. Water Summary: Groundwater was encountered at a depth of � to 3 feet below the ground�surface in
soil boring done in 1981 for the approved EIR. The groundwater is not potable and is high in chemical salts.
At the time of the EIR, heavy metal leachate might have been migrating in to the site from the adjacent land
fill. Since that time the City has capped the adjacent landfill slope and put in barriers to minimize any.
seepage. The project site is located in Flood Zone B, which is between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year
flood zone. This site has been graded to elevation 8' to 10'-6". Flooding could occur in a 100- to S00-year
storm.
The present storm drainage system for the Anza Area was built about 25 years ago. Because of the inward
bowl-shaped topography of the Anza A�r� tlie drainage system depends on a privately owned and operated
pump station located in the center of this site. The drainage pipes connect with this lift station and the
pressure created from the mechanism cames the runoff into the Burlingame lagoon (between SR 101 and the
filled Anza azea). There is no significant groundwater underlying the site, and the near surface groundwater
is brackish and contains about 26 parts-per-thousand salt. Municipal water supplies in the area are obtained
exclusively from Hetch Hetchy reservoir storage; groundwater in the project area is generally not used. The
primary impact that the proposed project would have on Bay water quality is the addition of contaminants
contained in surface run off water. However, since the area of the site on which the addition is proposed is
already primarily a paved parking lot, the change in runoffwith the development of the hotel addition would
be minimal. All of the surface water from tlus site will be required to drain to the street frontages. This
project is subject to the state mandated water conservation program administered by a complete Irrigation
Water Management Plan addressing landscaping and irrigation. �
Mitigation:
All runoff created during construction and fuiure discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Eliminaiion System (NPDES) standards.
14
Any new construction on the site should elevate the entry level to habitable floor levels to at least 9 feet
above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater.
This project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water
Management and Conservation Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application, and shall be approved by the City=s Senior Landscape Inspectorprior to issuing a
building permit.
5. Air Quality Summary: No objectionable odors or alteration in air movement, moisture, temperature
or change in local or regional climate is anticipated to occur as a result of this proposal. The change in
emissions generated by traffie to and from •the hotel development is insignificant when compazed to all
development in Burlingame.
Mitigation:
The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during gracling and construction. The
developer shall be required to get appropriate pernuts from the Bay Area Air Quality 1Vlanagement
District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards.
6. Transportation/Circulation Summary: The parking requirement for hotel us�e is one parking space
for each hotel room (392 rooms), which results in a requirement of 392 parking spaces for this project: In
1997, the Planning Commission approved a pazking vaziance for 277 on-site pazking spaces where 392
spaces are required, and for number of compact stalls (56 compact spaces proposed, where 53 aze allowed).
The 1997 parking variance was based on the applicant providing 115 parking spaees for hotel employee and
guest use in the additional parking area provided on adjacent city Iand. The enlarged parlcing area also
serves the city's Bayside Community Park including a driving range, soccer field and baseball diamond.
Planning staff would note that during construction of the 101-room addition approved in 1�97, there were
minor revisions made to the number of compact parking stalls on the hotel site. Cunently, there aze 43
compact parking stalls, 214 standard stalls, and 8 disabled accessible stalls� �nr a total of 277 parking
spaces. The proposed addition of ineeting room space does not require additional on-site parking spaces
and there are no additional guest rooms proposed to be added with this project. The meeting room addition
will cause the removal of eight parking spaces along the south end of the building and seven pazking spaces
along the north end of the building. Three new parking spaces will be added adjacent to the addition at the
north end, resulting in a net reduction of 12 on site parking spaces due to construction. A parking vaziance
is required for 265 parking spaces where 277 spaces were approved in 1997. The DoubleTree Hotel
provides valet parking in the northeast corner of the main lot. Vehicles are parallel-parked at the end of the
parking stalls. Approximately 14 to 16 vehicles can be accommodated on the main lot with the valet parking.
With the approval of the 101-room addition in 1997, the hotel entered into an agreement with City of
Burlingame for use of 115 of the 230 parking spaces on the adjacent public park� site (former sanitary
landfill) to be used for employee pazking and self-parked guests. In October, 2001, the City Council
approved an amendment to the license agreement wluch would allow the hotel to use 12 additional parking
spaces in the adjacent lot. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the loss of the 12 on-site parking spaces
in the main hotel parking lot with 12 more parking spaces on the adjacent parcel. The hotel will use a total
of 127 of the 230 parking spaces at the park site. The hotel shazes the pazking at the recreation facility on
a first come first serve basis. If the city anticipates a community event at the park, the hotel can extend
15
valet parking on the hotel site. There have been no conflicts between hotel and recreation users since the
1997 agreement was approved. The 230-space parking lot at the recreation area is available for both hotel
guests and visitors to the recreation area. The hotel provides security for the parking lot and after the park
closes at night. At off-peak use times for the hotel, the pazk users will be able to use the 127 spaces for the
hotel as well.
The information presented in this section is based primarily on a traffic and parking study for the proposed
DoubleTree Hotel Expansion, prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., Transportation Consultants in
August, 2001. This study is available for review at the City of Burlingame Planning Department, and is
hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study.
Parking Study: Planning staffwould note that with the approval of the 101-room addition in 1997, the hotel
entered into an agreement with City of Burlingame for use of I15 of the 230 pazking spaces on the adjacent
public p�rk site (former sanitary landfill) to be used for employee parking and self-pazked guests. Staff
would also note that after the parking`study was completed in August, 2001, which reflects tlie use of 115
spaces in the adjacent public park pazking lot, the City Council approved an extension of the license
agreement with the hotel to allow them to use 12 more parking spaces in the adjacent lot. Therefore, the
pazking study reflects the use of 115 parking spaces and not the 127 spaces currently allowed. A parking
study was conducted to determine whether the 265 on-site parking spaces in the main hotel lot plus the 115
spaces in the adjacent public pazking lot is sufficient to meet the peak parking demand of the hotel with the
added meeting room space. The applicant is suggesting that the additional 12 parking spaces in the adjacent
lot can be used to mitigate the loss of 12 on-site parking spaces.on the hotel site.
The use of the lot at the City park will be shared in the sense that at peak recreation.times, which are generally
off the peak of the major hotel demand times, all open spaces would be available to park users. In peak hotel
use times that may overlap with park use (daytime), the city will reserve 100 spaces for park users. At night
the hotel provides security for the lot and closes it off after park use hours.
The traff c/parking study looked at the project pazking demand for the meeting room space with recreational
faciliigr for peak weekend day and`�peak weekday. The purpose of the pazking analysis was to determine
whether the 265 on-site hotel parking spaces plus the 115 spaces at the park site, or a toial of 380 spaces, are
sufficient to meet the peak parking demand of the hotel with the added meeting room space. Parking surveys
were conducted on a weekday and on a weekend day to measure the existing parki.ng demand of the various
uses at the hotel. The survey included parking spaces used by hotel employees, restaurant patrons, and
meeting room attendees. The survey results were adjusted to estimate the parking generated by the hotel
rooms versus the meeting rooms, and to account for variations in the hotel room occupancies from the survey
days to a peak day (100 percent for weekdays and 90 percent for Saturdays). They surveyed the number of
meeting room attendees on Saturda.y and percent meeting room occupancy for weekday which were also
adjusted to reflect peak use of ineeting rooms (240 attendees for Saturday and 85% meeting room occupancy
for weekday). The number of ineeting room attendees on Saturday and meeting room occupancy for weekday
were adjusted to reflect peak day use.
Existing Parking Demand
The peak weekend day for hotel occupancy during the month of Ociober is 90 percent (adjusted to account
for variations in the hotel room occupancies from the survey days to a peak day. Therefore, ihe surveyed
weekend parking demands generated by the hotel rooms were factored to estimate peak weekend parking
16
demand. The highest hotel room parking demand based on 90 percent occupancy is 233 spaces at 6:00 a.m.
For the meeting roorn spaces, there is a parking demand of 60 spaces from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 120
spaces from 5:00 p.m. to midnight. The highest total hotel peak demand occurs at 8:00 p.m. and requires 323
spaces (203 parking space demand for guest rooms and 120 parking space demand for meeting rooms).
On a weekday, the highest hotel room parking demand is 234 spaces at 6:00 a.m. For the meeting room
spaces (adjusted to 85% occupancy), the highest parking demand is 83 spaees from 12:00 p.m. to 4:�0 p.rn.
The highest total hotel peak demand occurs at 12:00 p.m. and requires 261 spaces (178 parking space demand
for guest rooms and 83 parking space demand for meeting rooms).
Projected Parking Demand (New Meeting Space)
The parking analysis combined in the projected meeting room demand and added it to the peak hotel guest
room demand to determine the projected peak total demand. The study concluded that 392 parking spaces
would be sufficient for both the weekend �n� weekday peak parking periods for hotel guests and those
attending meetings on the hotel site. The total weekend day peak parking demand is projected to result in a
peak demand of 379 spaces at 8:00 p.m. The total weekday peak parking demand is projected to result in a
peak demand of 300 spaces at 12:00 p.m.
Ef�`'ect on Recreational Facility
The Parks and Recreation Department was concerned that there would not be a conflict between recreation
and hotel users of the parking lot, so the mixed use was evaluated for the first time since the recreation
facilities have been opened to the public. The parking demand generated by the recreational facility was
provided by the City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department. The Saturday demand is estimated
to be 110 vehicles from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and 60 vehicles from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The weekday
demand is estimated to be 3U vehicles from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 50 vehicles from 3:00 p.m. to �:00 p.m.,
and 100 vehicles from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
To determine the maximum usage the total �ea.k hotel demand was added to .the recreational facility,demand.
The results were then compared to the total available parking supply of 495 spaces (265 spaces in main hotel
lot and 230 spaces in public park tot). The conclusion was that the total number of available spaces (495) will
accommodate the weekend day demand of 439 spaces (peak at 8:00 p.m.) as well as the weekday demancl of
330 spaces (peak at 12:00 noon).
Traffic Study: The applicant provided a traffic study for the meeting room expansion project, prepared by
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Transportation Consultants. The traffic study analyzed the impacts of the added
traffic generated by the new meeting areas on key intersections in the surrounding transportation system. The
study evaluated impacts on traffic at two key intersections in the Bayfront Area (Airport BoulevardlAnza
Boulevard and Bayshore Highway/Airport Boulevard).
The proposed project is projected to generate approximately 40 additional trips to the site. The vehicles using
these spaces will arrive during the AM peak hour and depart during the PM peak hour. Thus, it is anticipated
that up to 40 peak hour trips will travel through the two adj acent intersections. These two intersections were
analyzed as part of the 1999/2000 Update to the Land Use-Transportation Impact Analyzer for Bayfront &
Anza Area (Fehr & Peers Associates, June 2000). The June 2000 traffic analyzer update indicated that that
these two intersections are projected to operate at good levels of service, LOS B or better (acceptable levels)
17
during the PM peak hour with addition of traffic from approved and pending developments in the area. The
addition of traffic generated by the proposed meeting room expansion is not projected to degrade levels of
service at these two intersections to an unacceptable level, LOS D, E, or F.
The traffic siudy concluded that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on the two key
intersections (Airport Boulevard/Anza Boulevard and Bayshore Highway/Airport Boulevaxd). The proposed
project would have a less than significant impact to the surrounding transportation system. When the area
is built out, the Airport Boulevard/Coyote Drive intersection is projected to be operating beyond its capacity,
and intersection improvements are recommended. However, this intersection is planned to be improved in.
the future with the Peninsula interchange improvements when conditions warrant and funding is available.
Funding the access roadway improvements to Peninsula is covered by the Bayfront Development Fee, which
all developers in the BayfrondAnza area are required to pay.
The results of the parking and traffic analysis indicate that the proposed meeting room 4,372 SF meeting room
addition is not projected to create a shortage of parking spaces for a peak weekend ar w�ekday. An analysis-
of the recreational facility parking demand indieated that sufficient parking is available to accommodate the
parking demand from the meeting room addition and from the recreational facilities.
Impaets of the hotel expansion were evaluated qualitatively for two lcey intersections: Airport Boulevard/Anza
Boulevard and Airport Boulevard/Bayshore Highway. These two intersections were analyzed as part of the
1999/2000 Update to the Land Use-Transportafion Impact Analyzer for Bayfront & Anza Area (Fehr 8& Peers
Associates, June 2000). The results of this update indicated that that these two intersections are projected to
operate at good levels of service, LOS B or better (acceptable levels) during the P1V1 peak hour with addition
of traffic from approved and pending developments in the area. The addition of traffic generated by the
proposed meeting room expansion is not proj ected to degrade levels of service at these two intersections to
an unacceptable level, LOS D, E, or F. Thus, the proposed proj ect would have a less than signifieant impact
to the surrounding transportation system.
Mitigation:
Before any development is allowed a parking variance shall be required for 265 provided on-site parking
spaces where 392 spaces are requued. , �
7. Biologieal Resources Summary: Biotic resources on the site are very limited. The site is akeady
developed with a hotel and parking lot, and exotie site landscaping has been introduced with the original hotel
development. The sealed sides of the sanitary landfill on the site have been planted with native grasses for
erosion control. The proposed addition will not affect this area or vegetation. There is no record of any rare,
unique or endangered species of plants or animals on the project site. There is no fannland in Burlingame.
Because this area is already developed and/or paved, no significant changes are anticipated in the diversity
or number of species of plants or animals, or in the deterioration of e}cisting wild life habitat.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: The amount of energy used to grade, drain, pave and
construct the proj�ect is negligible. Substantial amounts of fuel will not be needed to construct, develop or
maintain the project.
��:3
9. Hazards Summary: This project site is Iocated adjacent to the former Burlingame Solid Waste Disposal
site. The disposal site was closed to the public in 1984 and the side adjacent to the project has been capped
and planted with native grasses. The sanitary landfill is not expected to expose people on the hotel site to
health hazards. However, methane gas created by landfill materials may migrate to the hotel site.
Law/Crandall conducted six assessments between 1989 and 1996 to evaluate the potential for methane gas
to migrate under the project site. A review of these assessments determined that the landfi�l materials, which
were limited to dried sludge material from a wastewater treatrnent plant and other generally inert wastes,
would not be expected to generate significant quantities of inethane gas. The sanitary landfill was defined
as a Class 3 waste management unit, which means that no household garbage has been placed on the site. In
addition, the presence of shallow groundwater and clayey soils under ihe site significantly limits the potential
for methane gas migration. The dike and seepage tiarrier that were constructed along the boundary between
the landfill and the projeet site in compliance with the landfill's Closure and Post-Closure 1Vlaintenance Plan
would further restriet the potential for lateral migration of inethane gas under the proj ect site.
For th���_ rc�asons, the potential for methane migration under the area of the proposed hotel addition is
negligible, and metfiane venting under the proposed addition is not required to protect huxnan health or the
environment. On the basis of its investigations and previous findings, meihane venting under the proposed
addition is not warranted to proteet human health or the environment.
10. Noise Summary: The site is impacted by noise from traffic on adjacent Airport Boulevard and from
aircraft landings and takeoffs at San Francisco International Airport, which is located about 1.5 miles
northwest ofthe site. Construction activities may affect adjacent office, restaurant and hotel deveIopment,
and noise levels may increase during construction, particularly due to pile driving. The EIR approved for the
site in 1983 indicates that noise generated by the Airport is less than 65 CNEL on the site. However, aireraf�
flying near the site occasionally cause noticeable short-term noise at the site. Since the proposed addition is
separated from Airport Boulevard by the existing hotel building, the traffic noise from Airport Boulevard is
not expected to impact the addition. Noise levels along Anza Boulevard are expected to be about 63 to 65
CNEL at the proposed hotel addition facade. Traffic noise from U.S. Highway 101 is.expected to be about
63 CNEL at ground level. Including both traffic and aircraft sources, the composite noise environment at the
hotel addition would be approximately 67 CNEL at ground level. The hotel addition would be insulated to
reduce interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL, which would ensure that noise would not interfere with sleep
and the project would comply with community noise standards.
Mitigation:
All construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code
requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by
the City of Burlingame Municipal Code.
No piles shall be driven before 9:00 am. on Saturday, and none sha11 be driven on Sunday. In addition,
the City shall require that the constntction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on soils) and equip
pile drivers with shields. The City shall also develop a schedule for pile driving to riin;mi�e the impacts
on the existing DoubleTree Hotel facilities, the Red Roof Inn and Red Rock Cafe.
The hotel addition shail be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms and enclosed public areas
shall not exceed 45 dBa.
�
11. Public Services Summary: The Burlingame Fire Marshall has ind:cated that the new addition shall be
fire sprinklered and that these automatic sprinklers are required to be extended into the existing system for
the hotel. In addition, it is noted that the existing fire alarm system would need to be expanded to
accommodate the new additions. The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provision
of public services, since this is an urbanized area with existing public facilities in place.
12. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The.proposed project will be served by existing utilities in
place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. The EIR approved for the original hotel
project noted that the wastewater treatment plant serving this site was exceeding its secondary treatment
design capacity. However, improvernents to the plant have been made in the interim whieh provide the
necessary capacity. The wastewater treatment plant and existing water distribution and wastewater collection
facilities have adequate capacity to serve the project. Therefore, the increased demand in water and
wastewater service would not result in a significant adverse impact on existing faeilities.
13. Aesthetics Summary: The proposed suigze-story addition will not be�isible from Airport Boulevard'
or the San Franeisco Bay because the existing hotel is between the adclition and Airport Boulevard, and the
addition is not higher than the curr�nt structure. The addition to the building will be visible from Anza
Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway. However, with the existing hotel bui2ding and other development in
the area, this single-story addition will not block views of the bay from the Bayshore Freeway or Anza
Boulevard. Given that the single-store addition is 16'-6" in height, it will not block views of the coastal range
from existing hotel rooms now facing west. The addition on the north end of the site will be visible from the
recreation facility, but will not block any views to the bay sinee the recreational facility is at a higher
elevation. There will be no additional lighting installed in the hotel parking lot or to hotel building with the
proposed addition.
Tfie proposed addition would not be visible in long-range views from the Burlingame Hills to the west because
the additions are proposed behind the existing building and reereational facility. The addition would not be
distinguishable from the existing hotel on the site from these viewpoints. The existing development and
vegetation would obstruct views of the site from public viewpoints in the western hills, sueh as Cuernavaca
Park. Therefore, the project would have a Ie��-than-signifieant effect on scenic views.
14. Cultural Resources Summary: There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites�at the
location of the proposed building. Since the site consists of landfill and rubble brought into the site in the
1960's, it is not expected that any historic or archaeological relics are present. It is unlikely that excavation
work during project construction would disturb any possible resources below the fill.
Mitigation:
If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics aze discovered during construction, aIl work will be
halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection m�asures, as determined by
qualified experts, can be implemented.
15. Recreation Summary: This site is adjacent to an existing community serving public recreational
facility. The pazk provides a golf driving range, a small pro shop, a putting area, a soccer field, a tot lot and
some open recreation turf area. A baseball diamond is also provided behind the sewer treatment plant adjacent
to Sanchez Creek. Public access (pedestrian and bicycle) with overlooks across the Sanchez Creek wetland
and along the edge of Airport Boulevard is also incorporated into the recreation facilities development. The
20
proposed meeting room addition does not replace or destroy any,existing recreational facilities, nor does it
displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The site involved
in this projeet is not presently zoned or used for recreational uses.
16. Agricultural Resources Summary: There is no farmland or agricultural resources in Burlingame.
Therefore, the proposed residential condominium will not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use or
conflict with the zoning.
21
SUMMARY OF NIITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Before any development is allowed, a conditional use permit to exceed 1.0 floor area ratio (1.16 FAR
requested), a conditional use permit amendment to vary from the pazking azea landscaping requirements
(8.2% proposed, 10% minimum required), and a parking variance amendment for 265 on-site parking
spaces where 392 s�aces are required. -
2. The proposed structure will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth
shaking in a major earthquake. Any connections between the new shucture and the existing structure
shall be designed with flexibility to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1998 edinon of the
California Building Code and California Fire Code.
3. Flexible joints should be insialled on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground
settlement.
4. The fi�ished floors for any structure shall be at least 9' above the mean sea level or one foot above the .
possible flood elevatio�, whichever is greater. The developer shall provide documentarion of current
maxirnum flood elevation.
5, All runoff created during construetion and future diseharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
6. Any new construction on the site should elevate the entry level to habitable floor levels to at least 9 feet
above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater.
7. This project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigaiion Water
1Vlanagement and Conservation Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application, and shall be approved by the City=s Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuing a
building permit.
8. The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. The
developer shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area tAir Quality Management
District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards.
9. Before any development is allowed a parking variance sha11 be required for 265 provided on-site
parking spaces where 392 spaces are required.
10. All construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code
requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction ixnposed by
the City of Burlingame Munieipal Code.
11. No piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none sha11 be driven on Sunday. In addition,
the City shall require that the construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on soils) and equip
pile drivers with shields. The City sha11 also develop a schedule for pile driving to minimize the impacts
on the existing DoubleTree Hotel facilities, the Red Roof Inn and Red Rock Cafe.
�
12. The hotel addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms and enclosed public areas
shall not exceed 45 dBa.
13. If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be
halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as deternuned by
qualifiecl experts, can be implemented. .
23
a� �
T�e Cit�} of �u�r ingc�me
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250
PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Burlingame Plaluiing Commission will be considering the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
related to the following proj ect. A mitigated negative declaration is a finding that based on its review of the proj ect,
it will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Project Description: This project proposes the construction of a single-story addition to an existing 8-story, 392-
room hotel located at 835 Airport Boulevard. The site is located on the southwest corner of Airport and Anza
Boulevards, and is adjacent to the City of Burlingame community park to the west. Currently, the hotel has 9,645
SF of banquet/meeting room space. The project includes adding 4,372 SF of banquet/meeting room space to the
north and south sides of the building, and would increase the total banquet/meeting room space to 14,017 SF. The ,
proposed addition would increase the floor area ratio of the hotel from 1.14 to 1.16 FAR, which will require a
conditional use permit. An amendment to the conditional use permit is required to vary from the landscape
requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development for landscaping within the parking area (9.1%
existing, 8.2% proposed, 10% required).
The parking requirement for hotel use is one parking space for each hotel room (392 rooms), which results in a
requirement of 392 parking spaces for this proj ect. In 1997, the Planning Commission approved a parking variance
for 277 on-site parking spaces where 392 spaces are required, and for number of compact stalls. The 1997
parking variance was based on the applicant providing 115 parking spaces for hotel employee and guest use in
the additional parking area provided on adjacent city land. The enlarged parking area also serves the city's
Bayside Community Park including a driving range, soccer field and baseball diamond. The proposed addition
of ineeting room space does not require additional on-site parking spaces and there are no additional guest rooms
proposed to be added with this project. The meeting room addition will cause the removal of eight parking spaces
along the south end of the building and seven parking spaces along the north end of the building. Three new
parking spaces will be added adjacent to the addition at the north end, resulting in a net reduction of 12 on-site
parking spaces due to construction. A parking variance is required for 265 parking spaces on site where 277
spaces were approved in 1997. The DoubleTree Hotel provides valet parking in the northeast corner of the main
lot. Approximately 14 to 16 additional vehicles can be accommodated on the hotel parking lot with the valet
parking.
The Planning Commission hearing on this item will be held on Monday, November 26, 2001 at 7:00 p.m in the
City Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Copies of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration are available for review at the City of Burlingame Planning Department, Second Floor, Burlingame City
Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Comments on the proposed mitigated negative declaration must
be submitted to the Planning Department by November 26, 2001.
If you challenge the subj ect application(s) in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior
to the public hearing.
Posted: November 6. 2001
c
A
�
PROOF OF POSTING OF NOTICES
Ruben G. Hurin declares:
I am over age 18, not a party to this action, and am employed in San Mateo County at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California 94010. On November 6, 2001 , following ordinary business
practices, I placed copies of a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration regarding an
application for a rniti atg ed negative declaration, conditional use permit, amendment to conditional
use permit and parkin�� variance for sin lg e-story meetin� room additions to the DoubleTree Hotel ,
at 835 Airport Boulevard . The notices were posted in front of this property, in front of properties
on either side of this property, and across the street from this property.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct and this was executed on.the,date shpwn below at Burlingame, California.
..,.. ,,;,,
�
Date: I•lo�e��pei� �� Zoo (
,. „ ..__�� ;�. .
, , , [:. �.,, . , .,
': .. ,t .:;, ,.. �: .
,.