HomeMy WebLinkAbout835 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 11.26.2001;
�. .
,�' -� ,_� 'i �
�
.}
�` .
�•.`
Item # 7
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Mitigated Negative Declaratio�z, Co�zditio�ial Use Permit, Ame�zdment to Co�zditio�zal Use Permit,
and Parki�zg Varia�zce for Meeting Room Additions to the DoubleTree Hotel
Address: 835 Airport Boulevard
Meeting Date: 11/26/O1
Request: Mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit to exceed 1.0 floor area ratio, conditional
use permit amendment to vary from the parking area landscaping requirements (9% proposed,
10% miilinzum required), and parking variance for 265 on-site parking spaces where 392 spaces
are required for a single-story meeting room space addition at 835 Airport Boulevard, zoned
C-4.
Applicant: Paul Zen, Today's III, Inc. APN: 026-343-430 &-040
Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 4.77 Acres (207,659 SF)
Architect: Gumbinger/Avram Associates
Surlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan: Restaurants/Hotels Zoning: C-4
Adjacent Development: Offices, Hotels, and former City of Burlingame Sanitary Landfill site.
CEQA Status: Refer to attached Negative Declaration No. ND-518P
Previous Use: 392-room hotel with meeting room facilities.
Proposed Use: Addition of 4,372 SF of ineeting facilities to an existing hotel.
Allowable Use: Hotels with meeting room facilities
History: On May 27, 1997, the Planning Commission approved conditional use permits and parking
variances to allow the addition of 101 guest rooms to the DoubleTree Hotel (May 27, 1997 P.C. Minutes).
The approval included parking variances for 277 on-site parlcing spaces where 392 spaces are required, and
for number of compact stalls (56 compact spaces proposed, where 53 are allowed). At that time, the hotel
entered into an agreement with City of Burlingame for constntction of a parking lot and use of 115 of the
216 parking spaces originally planned on the adjacent public park site (former sanitary landfill). The 115
parking spaces were 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
lot. On Apri112, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use pernut for controlled access
to the parking on the hotel site which includes paid self-parking and valet parl�ing (April 12, 1999 P.C.
Minutes).
Summary: The applicant, Today's III, Inc., is proposing to construct a single-story addition to the exi�ting
8-story, 392-room DoubleTree Hotel located at 835 Airport Boulevard. The site is located on the
southwest corner of Airport and Anza Boulevards, and is adj acent 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
.�
•� Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit,
�- Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and Parking Variance
835 Airport Boulevard
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. A variance is required for an FAR exceeding 2.0 (CS 25.41.090 and CS
25.41.025, fl. In this case the addition will increase the project FAR to 1.16, which will require a
conditional use permit, not an amendment since a conditional use permit for FAR was not included with
the approval in 1997 of the 101-room addition (1.14 FAR).
After the November 13, 2001 P.C. meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (sheet A1-1, date
stamped November 19, 2001) showing in detail the existing landscaping on the site, including the
landscape areas to be removed and new landscaping to be added. Currently, there are 106 trees (2" —12"
in diameter) on-site. The applicant is proposing to remove five trees, 6" - 8" in diameter, to accommodate
the new additions. The City Arborist reviewed the proj ect and noted that these are not protected size trees
and are not required to be replaced. A total of six new trees will be planted: one new tree will be planted
adjacent to the south end addition and five new trees will be planted adjacent to the north end addition.
Ground cover will also be added around the addition areas. Approximately 834 SF of landscaping will be
removed within the hotels' parking area and 591 SF of new landscaping will be added, resulting in a net
reduction of 243 SF in landscaping. The landscaping in the parking area will be decreased from 9.2%
(9524 SF) to 9% (9281 SF). With the 101-room addition in 1997, a conditional use permit was granted
for 9.2% landscaping within the parking area where 10% (10,304 SF) is required. This was a reduction
from 11.3% (11,600 SF). 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 (9.2% existing, 9% 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 parlcing spaces where 392 spaces are required, and for number of compact
stalls (56 compact spaces proposed, where 53 are allowed). 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.
Planning staff would note that during construction of the 101-room addition approved in 1997, there were
minor revisions made to the number of compact parking stalls on the hotel site. Currently, there are 43
compact parking stalls, 214 standard stalls, and 8 disabled accessible stalls, for 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 proj ect. 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 parlcing 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 parlcing spaces where 392 spaces are required and 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 parlcing stalls (see attached 8%a" x 11" site plan).
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 parking and self-parked guests. In October, 2001, the City Council
2
'�
" Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, 835 Airport Boulevard
Conditional Use PermitAmendment, and Parking variance
approved an amendment to the license agreement which 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 by obtaining the right to use 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 shares the parking
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 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 secuxity for the
parking lot while the park is open and after the parlc closes at night. At off-peak use times for the hotel,
the park users will be able to use the 127 spaces designated for the hotel as well.
The hotel will operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day. There are currently four airport shuttle vans
used to take guests to and from the airport. Currently, there are 74 full-time employees and 4 part-time
employees during the day on weekdays, and 35 full-time and 4 part-time employees after 5:00 p.m. on
weekdays. On weekends, there are 55 full-time and 6 part-time employees during the day, and 35 full-time
and 6 part-time employees after 5:00 p.m. It is projected that the number of employees will increase in
2 years to 76 full-time and 6 part-time employees during the day on weelcdays, and 37 full-time and 6 part-
time employees after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. On weekends, the number of employees is expected to
increase to 57 full-time and 8 part-time employees during the day, and 37 full-time and 8 part-time
employees after 5:00 p.m. Currently, 527 customers come to the site during the day, and 784 come to the
site after 5:00 p.m. This is expected to increase in two years to 639 customers during the day and 812
customers after 5:00 p.m. The maximum number of people expected at the site at any one time is 939. It
is expected that small delivery trucics or vans will make periodic deliveries during operating hours. No
trucks will be parked on-site continuously throughout the day nor will they use the parking which serves
the public parlc.
Property Development Standards: Table 1 shows the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Bayfront Development Design Guidelines as they relate to this project. In summary, the project requires
the following permits:
Conditional use permit:
■ to exceed the floor area ratio allowed in the C-4 zone (1.16 FAR proposed where 1.0 FAR is the
m�imum allowed without a conditional use permit) (C.S. 25.41.025, fl.
Amendment to conditional use permit:
• to vary from the landscape requirements of the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development for
landscaping within the parking area (9.2% existing, 9% proposed, 10% required).
Parking variance:
• for number of parking spaces (265 on-site parlcing spaces provided, 127 spaces provided on an
adjacent parcel, where 392 spaces are required on-site).
The project meets all other zoning requirements and design guidelines.
3
.�
" Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, 835 Airport Boulevard
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, an�l Parking Variance
Parking Study: Planning staff would 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 115 of the 230 parking spaces on the
adjacent public park site (former sanitary landfill) to be used for employee parlcing and self-parked guests.
Staff would also note that after the parking study was completed in August, 2001, which reflects the use
of 115 spaces in the adjacent public park parking 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
parking 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 parking 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 parlc will be shared in the sense that at pealc recreation times, which are
generally off the peak of the maj or 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 traffic/parking study looked at the project parking demand for the meeting room space with
recreational facility for peak weelcend day and peak weekday. The purpose of the parking analysis was
to determine whether the 265 on-site hotel parking spaces plus the 115 spaces at the park site, or a total
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
parking 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 ineeting room attendees on Saturday 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 weelcday were adjusted to reflect peak day use.
Projected Pa�king 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 and weekday pealc 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 parl�ing demand is projected to result
in a peak demand of 300 spaces at 12:00 p.m.
�
�
.
�
,
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Pernait,
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and Parking Variance
Effect on RecYeational Facility
835 Airport Boulevard
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 evahiated 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 30 vehicles from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 50 vehicles from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00
p.m., and 100 vehicles from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
To determine the maximum usage the total peak 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 parlc lot). The conclusion was that the total number of available
spaces (495) will accommodate the weekend day demand of 439 spaces (pealc at 8:00 p.m.) as well as the
weekday demand of 330 spaces (peak at 12:00 noon).
Summary of Parking/Traffic Analysis: 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 weelcend or weekday. An analysis of the recreational facility parking demand indicated
that sufficient parking is available to accommodate the parking demand from the meeting room addition
and from the recreational facilities.
Impacts of the hotel expansion were evaluated qualitatively for two key 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-Transportation Impact Analyzer for Bayfront
& Anza Area (Fehr & 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 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. Thus, the proposed project
would have a less than significant impact to the surrounding transportation system.
Table 1- C-4 Property Devel�
SETBACKS:
Front:
- from Anza Blvd.
Rear:
- from Public Park:
Standards and
: .
73-9"
Guideli�ies for Bayfro�zt Development
30 ; > bldg. ht. (89'-2")
74'-9" &> 2 Appt. Width of
bldg. (88')
66'-5 %2"
25'
5
.{
,
" Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, 835 Airport Boulevard
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and Parking Variance
' EXISTING PROPOSED ' ALLOWED/REQ'D
' LANDSCAPING: .
C-4 District 27.9% of Land Area 27.5% of Land Area 15% of Land Area
Requirements (57,986 SF) (57,109 SF) (31,148 SF)
Bayfront Guidelines - 95% no change 80% of Front Setback
Front Setback
Bayfront Guidelines 9.2% of Parking 9°l0' of Parl�ang Area' 10% of Parlcing Area
- ParkingArea Area (9524 SF) (9281 SF) (10,304 SF )
YIEW OBST.�ZUC?'ION
From Airport Blvd. 46%z no change 60%
From Anza Blvd. 52%2 - no change 60%
'H��GI�T & BULK
Bayfront Guidelines - 99'-0" (mechanical) 16'-6" 50'-0" Maximum
Building Height 89'-2" (roo�
Bayfront Specific Plan - 392 Rms./4.767 Ac. no change 65 rooms per acre
Densities = 82.2 rooms/acre (310 rooms)
FAR 1.14 FAR ' 1.16 FAR3 1.0 FAR
(236,409 SF) (240,781 SF) (207,659 SF)
PAItKING
Space Requirement 277 spaces ' 255 spaces*: 1 space/room = 392
Space Dimensions n/a Standard - 214 Compact - 50 (19%)
Compact — 43
Disabled — 8
1 Conditional use permit amendment to vary from the landscape requirements of the Design Guidelines
for Bayfront Development for landscaping within the parking area (9% provided, 10% required).
2 Existing nonconforming view obstruction.
3 Conditional use permit to exceed the floor area ratio allowed in the C-4 zone (1.16 FAR proposed where
1.0 FAR is the maximum allowed).
* Parking variance amendment for number of spaces (265 proposed where 392 is the minimuxn required).
This project meets all other zoning code and design guideline requirements.
0
��
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, 835 Airport Boulevard
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and Parlcing Yariance
Negative Declaration: The initial study prepared for this project identified potential impacts in the areas
of hydrology and water quality, transportation/traffic, and noise. However, based upon the traffic and
parking study prepared for the project and the mitigation measures identified in the initial study, it has been
determined that the proposed project can be covered by a mitigated negative declaration since the initial
study did not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation.
The mitigation measures in the initial study have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of
approval.
Staff Comments: The City Engineer and Chief Building Official had no comments on the proposed
project. The Fire Marshal (April 16, 2001 memo) states that the sprinkler coverage for the new space
would need to be added and that the fire alarm system would also need to be expanded to accommodate
the new additions. The Recycling Specialist (April 16, 2001 memo) notes that the applicant shall consult
with the Recycling Specialist for appropriate construction waste handling and recycling.
Study Meeting: At the November 13, 2001 Planning Commission study meeting the Commission asked
the applicant to provide information on how the hotel parking ratio (one parking space per guest room) is
working, especially now that there are parking controls on site (November 13, 2001 P.C. Minutes). In a
letter dated November 15, 2001, Peter Marshall, General Manager for poubleTree Hotel, notes that the
controlled access has effectively eliminated use of their parking lot for park-and-fly traffic. The parking
controls have reduced the use of the on-site parking so the one-to-one parking ratio is adequate. The
complimentary shuttle service offered by the hotel to and from the airport also contributes to the adequate
capacity of the parking lot.
The Commission noted that the site has heavy tree cover with the exception of the north and back side and
asked to see a detailed landscape plan. The applicant submitted a revised site plan with landscaping shown
in detail (sheet Al-1, date stamped November 19, 2001). The site plan shows the location of all existing
trees, lawn areas, ground cover, shrubs and hedges at this site. A total of five trees will be removed to
accommodate the new additions. Six new trees will be planted: one new tree will be planted adjacent to
the south end addition and five new trees will be planted adjacent to the north end addition. Ground cover
will also be added around the addition areas. With the proposed additions, approximately 2,006 SF of on-
site landscaping will be removed and 1,129 SF of new landscaping areas will be added, resulting in a net
reduction of 877 SF of total site landscaping. The proposed project exceeds the total site landscaping
requirement (27.5% provided where 15% is the minimum required). Planning staff would note that
because a seepage barrier was required between the subject property and the former landfill site to the north
at the time the landfill site was closed, landscaping is limited to grass along the north property line. Trees
are not planted in this area because they could potentially damage the seepage barrier.
Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review
and approve the negative declaration (ND-518P), finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment.
�
�
i
l
'" Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, 835 Airport Boulevarrl
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and Parlcing Ynriance
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that
the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
and
(d) that the use of the �roperty will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and chaxacter of
existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit the Planning
Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c):
(a) the proposed use, at the �roposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicimty, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
(b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a ma.nner in accord with the Burlingame general
plan and the purposes of this title;
(c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems
necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner
compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining
properties in the general vicinity.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be taken by resolution and should include findings for the conditional use permits and
parking variance. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. Please note that the conditions below
which are in italics are mitigation measures taken from the negative declaration. The conditions below
incorporate the conditions of approval from the 101-room addition (approved by Planning Commission
on May 27, 1997), from the controlled access to parking and valet parking (approved by Planning
Commission on April 12, 1999), and from the proposed first floor meeting room space addition.
Conditions which have been satisfied by the construction of the project are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Conditions of approval which applied to the 101-room addition and which also apply to the proposed
meeting room addition are indicated by a double-asterisk (**). If the cornmission determines that these
conditions do not adequately address any potential significant impacts on the environment, then an
Environmental Impact Report would need to be prepared for this project. These conditions may not be
amended without preparation of an EIR, however the conditions on the project (those not in italics) may
be amended. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped July 16, 2001, sheets Al-0, A2-1, A3-1 and A3-2 and sheet Al-1, date stamped
November 19, 2001;
:
.�
,
" Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, 835 Airport Boulevard
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and Parking Variance
2. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's Apri116, 2001 memo and Recycling Specialist's April
16, 2001 memo shall be met;
3. that the traffic allocation for a 101- room addition and 4,372 SF meeting room space addition to
an existing 291-room hotel (82.2 room/acre density) which is a part of the planning approval of
this project and the agreement for use of 127 parking spaces on the adjacent sanitary landfill shall
run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time the planning approval
expires on the project;
4. that since the applicant has elected to provide a significant portion of its required parking by
seeking an agreement with the City to share a parking area as described in the project, before
issuance of any building permit under this project approval, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City that provides that the applicant will be allowed to use the City property
to the north and west for parking for at least 127 vehicles so long as the applicant's property is
used as a hotel or the required parking is not provided in some other way approved by the City;
if that agreement is terminated for any reason, the applicant shall either reduce its usage to
eliminate the need for the 127 parlcing spaces or provide alternative parking approved by the
City;
**S. that the proposed structu�e will be built on d�iven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems
and earth shaking in a mc�jor earthquake;
**6. that any connections between the new st�ucture and the existing structure shall be designed to
meet all the seismic requirements of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code antl
Californza Fire Code;
**7. that flexible joints shall be installecl on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with
g-round settlement;
**8. that the finishecl floors fo� any str�ucture shall be at least 9' above the mean sea Zevel or one foot
above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greate�;
**9. that all runoff createcl during construction and future discharge from the site will be requi�ed
to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
**10. that any new construction on the site shall 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;
**11. that this project shall comply with the requirements of the state-�nandated water conset�vation
program, that a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan shall be
submitted with landscape ancl irrigation plans at time of permit application, and shall be
app�oved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuing a building permit;
**12. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to cont�ol dust during grading and
construction;
7
� i
" Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, 835 Airport Boulevard
Conditional Use PermitAmendment, ancl Parking Variance
**13. that the developer shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their
standards;
**14. that all construction shall be Zimited to the hou�s of construction imposed by the City of
Burlinga�ne Municipal Code, ancl no piles shall be d�iven before 9: 00 a.m. on Saturday, and
none shall be driven on Sunday;
**1 S. that the City shall require that the construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on
sozls) and equip pile dYivers with shielcls, an�l shall also develop a schedule for pile driving to
minimize the impacts on the existing DoubleTYee Hotel facilities, the Red Rooflnn and Red Rock
Cafe;
**16. that the hotel adc�ition shall be built so that the interior noise level in czll rooms does not exceed
45 dBa;
17. If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discove�ed during construction, all
wo�k will be haltecl until the finclzng can be fully investigated and p�oper pYotection
measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented;
* 18. that the controlled access parking plan shall be built and implemented as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Deparhnent and date stamped February 19, 1999, Sheet PK-1, and the
installation shall conform to all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
* 19. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 28, 1998 and March 2, 1999 memos and the
City Engineer's March 8, 1999 memo shall be met;
*20. that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $1.00 for the first two hours,
$2.00 for 2 to 4 hours and $9.00 for over four hours, and any change to this fee shall be reviewed
by the city at a public hearing;
21. that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration andlor the
operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this itse permit;
22. that any change to the operation of the controlled and/or valet parking affecting the fee charged,
the area used, or the traffic controls shall require amendment to this use permit;
23. that prior to use of the City landfill parking lot for paid valet or paid self-parking, the hotel shall
obtain an amendment to the Shared Parking and License Agreement with the City to reflect this
use;
24. that the use permit shall be reviewed annually for the first three years (April 2000, 2001, 2002)
to assess the impact of paid valet and self parlcing on City landfill parking and parking on
adjacent streets and properties, and /or upon complaint;
10
� 4
�` Mitigated Negative Declaration, Contlitional Use Permit, 835 Airport Boulevard
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, an�l Parking Variance
25. that the hotel shall report to the city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cars which
have parked longer than 24 hours and are not registered hotel guests and the use permit shall be
reviewed if more than 10% of the on-site parking spaces are employed for this duration;
*26. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped April 14, 1997, Sheet AO through A11, and that the landscape plans shall be
reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances and approved by the Senior Landscape
Inspector before a building permit is issued;
*27. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 18, 1996 and Apri121, 1997 memos, and the
Chief Building Inspector's November 12, 1996 and Apri121, 1997 memos shall be met;
28. that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours,
and no trucks shall be stored or paxked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight;
29. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame;
*30. that the overall height of the 101-room addition as measured from the grade at the first floor (9'-6"
elevation) shall be 84'-6%2", and the height to the top of the elevator shaft and mechanical room
shall be 99'-0";
31. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for
more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent
residential purposes;
32. that in the future, as required, the developer shall participate in an assessment district formed to
provide an east-west transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound andlor any other
intercity transit opportunities for employees and guests as well as providing an on-site
transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate
employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel;
33. that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and
pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure established by
a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control;
*34. that the applicant shall implement a valet parking plan for the transition period between
occupancy of the new hotel rooms and completion and availability of at least 115 spaces in the
proposed shared use parking lot on the sanitary landfill site;
*35. that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
*36. that in order to minirnize settlement of roadways and other site features, recompacting or
surcharging the artificial fill material should be done before any paving;
11
. 1
" Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, 83S Airport Boulevard
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, anci Parking Yariance
37. that when the level-of-service reaches LOS D, the city shall convert the northbound through lane
on Airport Boulevard at Anza Boulevard to a second exclusive left-turn lane. This improvement
will improve cumulative conditions during the p.m. peak hour at this intersection to an acceptable
LOS D(V/C=0.85), and the applicant shall pay a fee at that time toward the cost of this
improvement, in proportion to the project's contribution to the total increase in traffic through
the intersection;
*38. that payment of a Bayfront Development Fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza
area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share for improvements which would
mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the
time of application and one-half due before asking for a final framing inspection;
*39. that the proposed Anza Boulevard driveway access shared with the future park shall be widened
from its current proposed width of 20 feet to a minimum width of 36 feet; a stop sign shall be
provided at the driveway to control access on to Anza Boulevard from the shared parking
facilities at the public park;
40. that the project sponsor shall continue to provide an airport shuttle service to all hotel guests,
which shall include connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees at shift changes; and
41. that no portion of the required parking on site or on the landfill shall be used for long-term airport
parking as part of a hotel promotion.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c: Paul Zen, Today's III, Inc., applicant and property owner
Paul J. Gumbinger, Gumbinger/Avram Associates, architect
12
.
t
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
ti
.
November 13, 2001
the second year, d 20 customers p day in five years; whe ill merchandise deli y vehicies park;
where will e loyees park, how ill they get to work.
This ' em was set for the nsent calendar when a he information has b submitted and revie by the
anning Departme . This item concluded :14 p.m.
3. 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD —MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION, C�NDITIONAL USE
PEI2MIT TO EXCEED 1.0 FLOOR AREA RATIO, CONDITIONAL USE PEItMIT AIVIENDMENT TO
VARY FROM THE PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE-STORY MEETING ROOM SPACE ADDITION (PAUL ZEN, TODAY' S
III, INC., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GUMBINGER/AVRAlV1 ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECT)
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: is it time for commission to
look at the parking ratio requirements for hotels, this issue should be brought up at the joint Planning
Commission/City Council study meeting in February; is the one to one parking ratio for hotels still valid, can
the applicant provide information on how that ratib works for them especially now that there are parking
controls on the site; have concems about landscaping, the site has heavy tree cover except on the north and
back side, would like to see detailed landscape plan.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m.
VII. ACTI ITEMS
NSENT CALEN AR - ITEMS ON THE ONSENT CALENDAR ARE ONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. T .4RE
ACTEDONSIMULT EOUSLYUNLES5SEP TEDISCUSSIONAND/O ACTIONISREQUE5TEDBYTHEA LICANT,
A MEMBER OF T PUBLIC OR A COM SSIONER PRIOR TO THE T E THE COMMI5SION VOTES ON EMOTION
TO ADOPT.
There � no items for
VIII. �GULA�t
on the Consent
4/ 131 LOMA VIS A AVENUE — ZONED -1— APPLICATION FOR DES N REVIEW AMEND ' T
AND SPECI PERMIT FOR HEIG FOR A FIRST AND SECOND TORY ADDITION (V ENT
ANI� DO N CAUCHI APPLIC TS AND PROPERTY OWN S 35 NOTICED PR CT
IZefex ce staff report, 11.13.0 , with attachments. CP Monroe esented the report, revie ed criteria and
Sta comments. Six condi ' ns were suggested for consider on. There were no ques ' ns of staff.
Chairman Vistica ope the public hearing. Doreen Ca i,131 Loma Vista,
received a call from e architect and he was not able come to the hearing.
redwood fence h een installed along the left side operty line, and the shrut
pictures of the ence and landscaping were sub itted for the record; she �
commission' concerns the plans have been r ised, the height of the e
chimney s been revised so it now complie with building code.
ppli t, noted that she had
�h noted that a perman
long that side are he y,
:es that in respons to the
has been reduc and the
2
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
t �
CI�'Y OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA � �
� Tuesday, November 13, 2001
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the November 13, 2001, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Cornmissioners Auran, Bojues, Keighran, Key, Mink and Vistica
Absent: Commissioner: Osterling
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior PIanner, Maureen
Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza
MINUTES C. Bojues noted that he had voted no on the application at 247 California
Drive and the minutes needed to be corrected to reflect his vote accurately.
Chairman Vistica noted the correction and that the October 22, 2001,
minutes as mailed were approved as'corrected.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
FROM THE FLOOR
STUDY ITEMS
There were no public comments.
1. 416 BAYSWATER AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND ACCESSORY LIVING
QUARTERS (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MATTHEW AND LAURA
HESSELGREN, PROPERTY OWNERS�
Senior Planner Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: will there be a
stove, refrigerator or sink in the 175 SF study; there is not a bath on the first floor of the main house, why not
make the study addition to the house or not include a bath in the garage� why do they need a full bath, this
could easily become a second dwelling unit; provide reasons for including a shower; will this be a personal
office or will it be used for a business, will clients come to site; is the applicant aware that the excess square
footage over 400 SF counts towaxds the floor area ratio for the house, this could affect a future addition to
the house; is there an alternative to placing the French doors and windows within ten feet of the property
line; can the number of permits requested be reduced; concern with the overall size of structure and that it
will not match style of existing house, especially the wall with the garage door.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
2. 210 CALIFORNIA DRIVE — ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D— APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A RETAIL USE (CLOTHING STORE) NOT RELATED TO AUTOMOBILE SALES,
° SERVICE, OR STORAGE (ELLA MEYDBR.AY AND ELIZABETH YUKHTMAN, APPLICANTS;
ISAAC AND EVELYN BAUMELGRUEN PROPERTY OWNERS)
Senior Planner Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: on the drawings,l Z
parking spaces are shown on property leased from the railroad across West Lane, how many of tliese are
designated for this tenant space; how did the applicant arrive at ten customers per day for the first year,l5 in
` � . � ' ' • . �iF 2f R»}��'�'7���.+�`t'.��' °�� � �t�f . * .lf+�,v� t t . . , �'s �. i � � . J �,-_ . - _' �� F� � Yt Ey a ti
Burlingame Planning:Comnusszo.�aMiiiufes . .� .. . ; '�� ,�`�'�"���£
. . May'27,�997`'" ..,, ,
�
13. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE ��DECLARATION, SPECIAL . PERMITS AIVD �
VARIANCES FOR A 101-ROOM � ADDITION TO TI� DOUBLETREE HOTEL AT 835
AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (PAUL ZEN, TODAY'S III INC., APPLICANTS
AND PROPERTY OWNERSI
Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria,
Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirty three conditions were suggested
for consideration. Commission clarified: Can valet parking be used on site if the lot on the sanitary
landfill is not complete; yes; what acreage would be required to support the difference between 65
rooms to the acre and 82.2 rooms. � .
Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, 60 East Third Street, . San Mateo,
architect, representing the project spoke. He introduced the developer Paul Zen and Bruce Cazlton,
the DoubleTree hotel manager who were also there to answer questions. Mr. Gumbinger stated that
they had reviewed the staff report and felt that it was complete and were' there to answer any
questions. There was no further comment from the floor and the hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: bothered by two issues: city is considering allowing use of easement to meet
variance requirement when not �allow a resident to do same recently; and'reference that 577 Airport,
by not developing to its maximum, gave remaining traffic allocation away permanently; perhaps a
philosophical problem, city will control what happens on this property, so parking will not be removed
for future development, without replacement, city retains right to have some other solution to location
of the spaces needed by the hotel if they want; city stands to gain from this arrangement, this azea of
land was intended for a parking lot, the Iot is slightly larger but there was no real loss of recreation
area and the hotel will pay for all the parldng lot construction and make an annual payment, seems like
mutual benefit for all; no problem wiih arrangement, b.ut city can't predict needs in 30 years, what if
not want to. provide on site, if variance can they ask for exemption for parking for hotel, .is there an
obligation to provide other parking some place else because a variance allows parking off site; CA
noted granting a license to use a piece of property that they agree to pay for,� city has right of eminent
domain and could provide same pazking anywhere in area, or could use park site forever, it is open
to the city whether provide parlcing or not; if city chose to relocate parlcing, hotel would have to agree
and pay; CA license agreement includes a 50/50 share for replacement or reconstruction of the
parking, the license is only for hotel use and if the number of hotel rooms is reduced tlien the license
reduces the pazking use. Concerned that the 101 spaces reserved for recreation use will not be enough
when both driving range and soccer match occurring; CA public use first come first serve for the 216
parking .spaces from 7 a: m. to 10 p. m., if there is a tournament then 100 spaces can be set aside for
the public's use; staff report and mitigations indicate that only lo$s was small part of putting green,
good relationship to help pay for recreation facility and increase in rooms would bring more revenue
to city; council � needs to agree to license agreement but as now stands hotel developer will pay for
parking lot, an annual leasing fee, Half the annual maintenance cost and will provide security to the
parking azea. from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., also making sure area is not used �illegally for long term airport
parking. � - � .
;� . ' � ..
C. Galligan moverl approval of f�ie negative declaration finding that, . based �on the disclosure
information in the staff report, the mitigations incorporated in the conditions and the fact that the loss
of recreation area is insignificant, there aze �o impacts greater than those created by any property in
town, the conditions in the report address areas of concern and the hotel site is developed now, tk�ere
-12-
r� .�I
• ` : � . :.'y� c ,N+�,�'y Mh4p�.,1c �i-w .$I� r � ..�.::: ��-�•� �1 3r �i.ri� � �Y����.s�9F �,'irtifi����r3r.1S �Y ix � ...,:: � - . :-.� `-�'i;
.Burlingcr�ne:PlanniitgrL'oiir»usszon:�M:nutes . y �""�^ ' �<� �"�*��' ,. a �a„�`,-�r.� � . � -� �.:May �27,' 1997" �",''
is no concern regardirig the negative declaration. The motion was seconded by C. �Deal. On a roll
call vote of 5-1-1 (C: Mink dissenting and C. Ellis absent) the moti.on was approved.
On the motion it was noted that based on our traffic allocation, should the property at 577 Airport
Blvd, be developed� fully in office use, there would be a significant impact on traffic in the azea; at
the recent public hearing on the project at 577 Airport Blvd. William Wilson the developer was asked
if they ever intended to go ahead with� the parlcing garage necessary to .liuild out that site in office use,
and they stated they had abandoned the garage proposal, thus it seems; OK to transfer the available
intersection capacity; this project violates the analyzer which has been city policy a long time; could
buy additional undeveloped property for parking, so not taking development right away; issue has
nothing to do with parking, has to do with 101 'rooms and traffic, if not accept negative declara�ion
then have to do a focused EIR on impact of 101 more rooms, the increase beyond the traffic allocation
assigned to the hotel site can be off set by lack of need at 577 Airport because the project is smaller,
satisfied the project will not bring us to grid lock.
C. Galligan moved approval of the special permits for 82.2 rooms per acre density, exception to height
limitations for 99'-0", and landscaping of 9.1 % within the pazldng areas, as well as variances for
number of parking spaces on site (277 where 392 required) and compact parking of 20.2 % based on
the information in the staff report, the plans and drawings submitted, the comments of all departments,
and the mitigations of the negative declaration, by resolution noting th�.t the use of the extra property
for parldng does not constitute a grant of special privilege and is not detrimental to the park property
and actually provide a greater benefit because of the shared use and the compensation received by the,
city with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted
to the Planriing Department and date stamped April 14, 1997, Sheet AO through A11, and that the
landscape plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances arid approved by the Senibr
Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marsha�'s
November 1$, 1996 and � April 21, 1997 memos, and the Chief Building Inspector's November 12,
1996 and April 21, 1997 memos shall be. met; 3) that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic
del�veries may be on site during operating hours,, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site
continuously throughout the day or overnight; 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall
meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended
by the City of.Burlingame; 5) that� the overall height of the addition as measured from the grade at the
first floor (9'-6" elevation) shall be 84'-6 lh", and the height to the top of the elevator shaft and
mechanical room shall be 99'-0"; 6) that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual,
company or corporate entity for more than 29 �days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall
be leased for permanent residential purposes; 7) that guests, visitors or employees may not be charged
for the use of on-site parking without review and permission of the city, this would include all valet
parking arrangements; 8) that in the future, �as required, the developer: shall participate in an
assessment districi formed to provide an east-west trarisit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans,
Greyhound �and/or any other intercity .transit. opportunities for employees and guests as well as
providing an on-site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the
azea, to facilitate employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; 9) that
the site shall be landscaped wiih vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control,
and .the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure established by a qualified
landscape azchitect and approved by tt�e city for fertilization and pest control; � 10) that the traffic
allocation for a 101- room addition to an e sting 291=room hotel (82.2 room/acre density) which is
a part of the planning approval of this projec� and the a reement for use of 115 arldn s aces on the
g P g P
adjacent sanitary landfill shall run with the conditional use pernuts and shall expire at the same time
-13-
. .. I.r..4 � �'y. ��Y�`��J J : , � A4 �y 4 . . . . . .
� ` . . ��� _"-;`�i�J�, r�ficrl#f�� i�.se 1 _ a , r, �a�a��+�<�k�f 5� rx:- +h*� "�'h:^ } � .
, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes � � : M 27, 1997
. QY
�
the planning approval expires on the project; 11) �that the applicant shall implement a valet parking plan
for the transition period between occupancy of the new hotel rooms and completion and availability
of at �least 115 spaces in the proposed shared use parldng lot on the sanitary landfill site; 12) that since
the applicant has elected to provide a significant portion of its required pazking by seeking an
agreement with the City to share a parking azea as described in the project, before issuance of any
building permit under this project approval, the applicant shall.enter into an agreement with the City
that provides that the applicant will be allowed to use the City property to the north and - west for
parking for at least 115 vehicles so long as the applicant's properiy is used as a hotel or the required
parldng is not provided in some other way approved by the City; if that agreement is terminated for
any reason, the applicant shall eiiher reduce its usage to eliminate the need for the 115 parking spaces
or provide alternative parking approved by the City; 13) that the proj ect shall meet the requirements
of the Bay Area. Air Quality Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (L.and Use
and Planning); 14) that the proposed structure will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential
settlement problems and earth shaking in.a major earthquake (geologic); 15) that any connections
between the new structure and the existing structure shall be designed to meet all the seismic
requirements of the 1995 edition of the California Building Code and California Fire Code (geologic);
16) that in order to minimize settlement of roadways and other site features, recompacting or
surcharging the artificial fill material should be done before any paving (geologic); 17) that flexible
joints shall be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground settlement
(geologic); 18) that the finished floors for any structure to be at least 9' above the mean sea level or
one foot above ihe possible flood elevation, whichever is greater (geologic, water); 19) that any new
construction on the site shall 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. Habitable �
azeas include meeting and conference azeas and their support facilities (water); 20) that this proj ect
shall comply with the requirements of the state-mandated water conservation program, that 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 Inspector �
prior to issuing a.building permit (water); 21) that all runoff crea.ted during construction and future
discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDFS) standards (water); 22) that the site shall be periodically sprayed .with water to control dust
during grading and construction (air quality); 23) that the developer shall be required to get appropriate
permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management. District and construction equipment emissions
shall be in compliance with their standazds (air quality); 24) that when the level-of-service reaches
LOS D, the city shall convert the northbound through lane on Airport Boulevard at Anza Boulevazd
to a second exclusive left-turn lane. This improvement will improve cumulative conditions during the
p.m. peak hour at.this intersection to an acceptable LOS D(V/C=0.85), and the applicant shall pay
a fee at that time toward the cost of this improvement, in proportion to the project's contribution to
the total increase in traffic through the intersection (transportation/circulation); 25) that payment of a
Bayfront Development Fee to the Gity of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza area shall be required
in order to pay the proportional share for.improvements which would mitigate cumulative impacts of
this and other projects on azea. circulation, one-half due ai tlie time of application and one-half due
before asking. for a final framing inspection (transportation/circulation); 26) that the proposed Anza
Boulevard driveway access shared:�with the future park shall� be widened from its cunent proposed
width of 20 feet to a minimum width of 36 feet; a� stop sign shall be provided at the driveway to
control access on to Anza Boulevazd � fr�m the shared parking facilities at the public pazk
, . .
�
-14- � .
i. �,x.as� �c �,,�y7 �
•7;.fi�e ; .. � q� � ,. . . • . . . 7r., w"j�;rCv��'S �m�i� 1-.r;, � . . . ...
� ,.. .. .. . .. - ..
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
May 27 1997
(transporta.tion/circulation); 27) that the project sponsor shall continue to provide an airport shuttle
service to all hotel guests, which shall include connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees at
shift changes (transportation/circulation); 28) that no portion of the required parking on-site or on the
landfill shall be. used for long-term airport parking as part of a hotel promotion
(transportation/circulation); 29) that there shall be no charge to customers or guests to park in the
parldng lot (transportation/circulation); 30) that all construction shall be limited tb the hours of
construction imposed-by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven before
9:00 a.m. on Saturday,�and none shall be driven on Sunday (noise); 31) that the City shall require that
the construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on soils) and equip pile drivers with shields, .
and shall 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 (noise); 32) that the hotel addition shall be built
so that the interior noise level. in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa (noise); and 33) that in the event
that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources aze discovered during construction-related
earthmoving activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project
applicant shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find
were determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, then representatives of the project•
applicant, the City, and the qualified. azchaeologist would.meet to determine the appropriate course of
action. If the discovery includes human remains,� Section VIII of CEQA Guidelines Appendix K would
be followed, requiring coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission if the human
remains are of Native American origin. All significant cultural materials recovered would be subject
to scientific analysis, .professional museum curation, and a report prepazed by a qualified archaeologist
according to current professional standards (cultural resources).
The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. The motion was approved on a roll call vote 5-1-1 (C. Mink
dissenting and C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures were advised. •
14. RESOLUTION
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE PLANNING
Chairman Key opened the pubic heari . There were no comments from t floor and the hearing was
closed. �
C. Wellf d moved approve of the resolution amen the commission's Rules of Pr edure to begin
regular mee ' s at 7:00 p.m. C. Deal seconded the tion. The motion passed 6- (C. Ellis
absent) on a voi. vote. �
Commission discussion: this action mean that the next re ular commission meeting will be held
at 7:00 p.m.; CA noted tha e code states . that the Cou cil must approve a change in the
Commission's rules of procedure be e the change in the regul meeting �ime will be official so the
time change will'not be automatic until r the Council approves t e change. Commissioners agreed
..that they should cover all eventualities by a'ng on a mo�ion to hol the next meefing at 7:00 p.m:
C. Galligan moved to begin the nexf ineeting at 7:OU�i:m: C. Deal
passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) ..
. � .
�
-15-�
the motion. The motion
,{
� Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April I2, 1999
runoff from parking areas and mainta' oil separating traps on a regular basis as approved by the city;
30) that up to 251 parking spaces in the below grade parking garage shall be designated for valet
parking; 31) t any change to the ope tion of valet parking affecting � fee charge or the area used
shall require mo ' cation of this use permi , 2) that long term airport parkin or a fee or no fee shall
not occur at this site 'ncluding "sleep, park & " promotions) without amendm nt to this permit; 33)
that a fee may be char d for self-park visitors at a te of up to $0.50 per hour fo the first four hours,
and $1.00 thereafter an any change to this fee shal be reviewed by the ciry at a ublic hearing; 34)
at 14 spaces remain on e site for the purpose of p blic access in the location in icated on the plans
da stamped February 19, 1999 (Sheets 1&2), and th t these spaces shall be clearl marked as public
acc ss spaces and shall rem 'n unrestricted (outside an parking control gating) and at no fee shall
be c ed for these spaces a ny time; any revision o these public access space require the
permissio of the Bay Conservation d Development Commis ' prior to any alterations; 5) that any
change to e number of parking sp ces provided on site, their c figuration and/or the o eration of
the parking ontrols shall require am dment to this use permit; 36) that this permit shall b reviewed
for complianc ith its conditions in on year (April, 2000) and every two years thereafter; a 37) that
the hotel shall rep rt to the city twice a y in 6 month intervals the mber of cars which hav arked
than 24 hou s and are not registered tel guests and the use ermit shall be reviewed if
than 1 0 of the on- 'te parking spaces are em loyed for this duration
The mot�i,on was seconded by C. Bojues.
Chairman De called for a voice vote on the motion to approve a 4 space p�r�Cing variance. The
commissioners d 7-0 to pass the motion. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONTROLLED ACCESS TO
�PARKING AREA, PAID SELF-PARKING AND VALET PARKING AT THE EXISTING
�C DOUBLETREE HOTEL AT 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (BRUCE CARLTON,
DOUBLETREE HOTEL APPLICANT AND TODAY'S III, INC.,�PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-nine conditions were suggested for consideration.
There were no questions on the staff report.
Chauman Deal opened the public hearing. �Bruce Carlton, Manager. of the DoubleTree Hotel, 1552
Alturis, Kimberly McKitrick, from Gumbinger Associates architects, Bill Hung, valet service operator,
spoke. Want to install gates to prevent use of the hotel parking lot by non-hotel people; offer valet
service as a benefit to guests; proposed rates are different than the other hotels, the first four hours are
charged differently because of the convenience of making change but the total is the same, the over four
hour rate is higher than the others and they are flexible on this charge, asking $9.00 flat fee for 4 to
24 hours, for 24 hours this is one dollar less than Hyatt or Marriott. There were no other comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C: Keighran moved approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit for controlled. parking and
valet pazking fmding � that this will alleviate parking problems on the site and improve safe fraffic
circulation by resolution witli the �following conditibns: 1) that the controlled access parking plan shall
be built and implemented as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
-13-
' ,a
� Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
February 19, 1999, Sheet PK-1, and the installation shall conform to all the requirements of the
California Building and Uniform Fire .Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended.by the City of Burlingame; 2)
that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 28, 1998 and March 2, 1999 memos and the City
Engineer's March 8, 1999 memo shall be met; 3) that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a
rate of up to $1:00 for the first two hours, $2.00 for 2 to 4 hours and $9.00 for over four hours, and
any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 4) that any change to the
number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking
controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 5) that any change to the operation of the controlled
and/or valet parking affecting the fee charged, the area used, or the traffic controls shall require
amendment to this use permit; 6) that prior to use of the City landfill parking lot for paid valet or paid
self-parking, the hotel shall obtain an amendment� to the Shared Parking and License Agreement with
the City to reflect this use; 7) that the use permit shall be reviewed annually for the first three years
(Apri12000, 2001, 2002) to assess the impact of paid valet and self parking on City landfill parking and
parking on adjacent streets and properties, and/or upon complaint; 8) that the hotel shall report to the
city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cazs which have parked longer than 24 hours and
are not registered hotel guests and the use permit shall be reviewed if more than 10 % of the on-site
parking spaces are employed for this duration; *9) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Deparnnent and date stamped April 14, 1997, Sheet AO through A11, and
that the landscape plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances and approved by the
Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued; *10) � that the conditions of the Fire
Marshal's November 18, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos, and the Chief Building Inspector's
November 12, 1996 and Apri121, 1997 memos shall be met; 11) that small delivery trucks or vans with
periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked. on
site continuously throughout the day or overnight; 12) that the use and any unprovements for the use
shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as
amended by the City of Burlingame; * 1.3) that the overall height of the addition as measured from the
grade at the first floor (9'-6" elevation) shall be 84'-61h", and the height to the top of the elevator shaft
and mechanical room shall be 99'-0"; 14) that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single
individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the
building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; � 15) that in the future, as required, the
developer shall participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east-west transit connection
to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other intercity transit opportunities for employees and
guests as well as providing an on-site transit/comtnute coordinator, perl�aps in conjunction with other
employers in the area, to facilitate employees'� trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by
the hotel; 16) that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization
and pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure established by
a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; * 1'n that the
tra�c allocation for a 101- room addition to an existing 291-room hotel (82.2 room/acre density) which
is a part of the. planning approval of this project and the agreement for use of 115 parking spaces on
the adjacent sanitary landfill shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time
the planning approval expires on the project; *18) that the applicant shall implement a valet parking plan
for the transition period between occupancy of the new hotel rooms and completion and availability of
at least 115 spaces in the proposed shared use parking lot on the sanitary landfill site; *19) that since
the applicant has elected to provide a significant portion of its required parking by seeking an agreement
with the City to share a parking area as described in the project, before issuance of aay�building permit
under this project approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City that provides that
-14-
� _, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999
the applicant will be allowed to use the City property to the north and west for pazking for at Ieast 115
vehicles so long as the applicant's property is used as a hotel or the required parking is not provided
in some other way approved by the City; if that agreement is terminated for any reason, the applicant
shall either reduce its usage to eliminate the need for the 115 parking spaces or provide altemative
parking approved by the City; *20) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; *21) that the proposed structure
will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth �shaking in a major
earthquake; *22) that any connections between the new structure and the eicisting structure shall be
designed to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1995 edition of the California Building Code and
California Fire Code; *23) that in order to minunize settlenient of roadways and other site features,
recompacting or surcharging the artiiicial fill material should be done before any paving; *24) that
flexible joints shall be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground
settlement; *25) that the finished floors for any structure to be at least 9' above the mean sea level or
one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater; *26) that any new construction on the
site shall elevate the entry level to habitable floor levels to at least 9 feet above the mean sea Ievel or
one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater. Habitable azeas include meeting and
conference areas and their support facilities; *27) that this project shall comply with the requirements
of the state-mandated water conservation pro.gram, that 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 Inspector prior to issuing a building p�ermit; *28)
that a�l runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; *29) that the site shall be
periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction; *30) that the developer
shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and
construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 31) that when the level-of-
service reaches LOS D, the city shall convert the nortlibound through lane on Airport Boulevard at Anza
Boulevard to a second exclusive left-turn lane. This improvement will improve cumulative conditions
during the p.m. peak hour at this intersection to an acceptable LOS D(V/C=0.85), and the applicant
shall pay a fee at that time toward the cost of this improvement, in proportion to the project's
contribution to the total increase in traffic through the intersection; *32) that payment of a Bayfront
Development Fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza "area shall be required in order to
pay the proportional share for improvements which would mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other
projects on azea circulation, one-half due at the time of application and one-half due before asking for
a final framing inspection; *33) that the proposed Anza Boulevazd driveway access shared with the
future park shall be widened from its current proposed width of 20 feet to a minimum width of 36 feet;
a stop sign shall be provided at the driveway to control access on to Anza Boulevard from the shared
parking facilities at the public park; 34) that the project sponsor shall continue to provide an airport
shuttle service to all hotel guests, which shall include connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees
at shift changes; 35) that no portion of the required parking on-site or on the landfill shall be used for
long-term airport parking as part of a hotel promotion; *36) that all construction shall be limited to the
hours of construcrion imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven
before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none sha11 be driven on Sunday; *37) that the City shall require that
the construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on soils) and equip pile drivers with shields,
and shall 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; *38) that the hotel addition shall be built so that
the interior noise leve� in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa; and *39) that in the event that any
-15-
.
ht
f � '
� Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 1999 �
prehistoria or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during construction-related
earthmoving activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project appIicant
shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find were
determined to be significant by the quali�ed archaeologist, then representatives of the project applicant,
the City, and the qualified archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate course of action. If
the discovery includes human remains, Section VIII of CEQA Guidelines Appendix K would be
followed, requiring coordination with the Native American Heritage Comm'ission if-the human remains
are of N�tive American origin. All significant cultural materials recovered would be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by a qualified archaeologist
according to current professional standards.
The motion was seconded by C. Key.
Chauman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve fhe amendment to the conditional use
permit to allow controlled access parking, valet parking and paid self-pazking at 835 Airport Blvd. The
motion was passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APP ICATION FOR LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE
PE IT R CAR RENTAL AGENCY AND ADMINISTRATIVE FFICES AT 820 MALCOLM
ROAD, ZO ED O-M. (HARVEY HACKER ARCHITECTS, PLTCANT AND JOHN
MONFREDI PROPERTY OWNER) (26 P�OTICED) (RESUBMITTAL O OJECT DENIED
, with attachme
ient comments.
af staff.
. City Planner and Commission di ussed, reviewed
'oht conditions were suggested fo consideration.
Reference staff report, 4.1 9'
criteri d Planning Dep
Commissio had no questions
Chauman De 1 opened the public earmg. Tim Driscoll, 53 Sea Spray Court, Pacifica, arvey
Hacker, archit t, and Lynn Walden, 26 Walden Ct, Saratoga represented the project. They noted:
after the last meet terprise seriously considered all the dire tions of the commission; to indicate
their commitment to the s e they have recently extencied their leas term 16 years; they recognize that
there has been a change how parking for rental cars is calcula d since they went on the site
' ally and they have co ormed to the new rules by providing 40 s es for an average monthly
renta volume of 160 cars; fh have provided o site landscaping of 15 % ere it was not present
before, they do not comply with � dscaping in the ont setback but that is beca se of the placement
of the bui mg hich was established before the co requirement. Commissioner asked them to
explain the require ents of going on-site at the airport, res nded it was a biddin rocess, had to make
.a ten year commitme decided that since SFO is the third 1 est car rental marke ' the nation it was
'se to go on site, car ren s have increased and different cu tomers than they had efore when they
were irport; very happy ith SFO facility, have experienc an increase in walk- business; had
you thou ht to move the rear fe ce and increase landscaping on left side, did parkin Iayout within
existing aved area, with new rul s were just barely able to meet � arking for the E terprise fleet
requirem ts, tried alot of alternatives to get to the workable on propo d; no detailed 1�,
no future antings will need to be compatible with what is there no • can you shift planting and
parking at th ear of the site to provide planting where it will be visibl problem is site geometry,
building is not cen d on the site, a double loaded parking aisle (best for p ' g) is available on only
-16-
d4
w
�
f� . • • . I
n.,l
i
+ ,.,
'�...�.�::- v ��; �rs����.?�?�;3, ,; . :__,... �..{. . ��n�?���"a'
DATE: April 16, 2001
TO: _City Engineer
Chief Building Official
�Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
_City Arborist
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for environmental review, parking variance and conditional use permits for
meeting room addition to existing hotel at 835 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4, APN: 026-
343-430.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, April 16, 2001
�. `�:�. (�1�.(-`�-f2.., C.�J�..��. i��. I��.. c..�.a
��'p��,�. t.�30�C.� N��. � `�`� � � �, c�'�
2., ��-- �c, �t�. P��.P�-�.�... � `�,� ��acsu�D
�2-� t��.�� cz� �� �.� Q�� 0 1 Z�
��_ i�.- � �- � �c��7�1 c�� � ,
f mments: L` � ` b � �
Reviewed By: Date o Co
m
.,
�• • • • _.
�
n,.��'"f '� � _._� �� � .,,, ,,, ,� ���°`�.'�"� ��� '�"��..a.r�__ �€
April 16, 2001
DATE:
TO• _City Engineer
_Chief Building Official -
ire Marshal
v� Recycling Specialist
_Ciry Arborist
_Ciry Attorney
FROM: Planning StafF
SUBJECT: Request for environmental review, parking variance and conditional use permits for
meeting room addition to existing hotel at 835 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4, APN: 026-
343-430.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, April 16, 2001
Reviewed By: � Date of Comments: �% 6�
� L Ca�/"� 5�.�� VJv ���G--
� ^
�(j .�j�U�,j u f`2.. ��!'C���� �
f;�..�,�� (� y,., � e�-�c�r � � a
W� �l el r � �J �S�
C'���
c� s ��� 4� ��L r �
O t
1
DOUBLETREE
HOTEL
SAN FRANC[SCO AIRPORT
83S AIRPORT BOULEVARD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
650 344-5500
Fnx 650 340-8851
RE��I��C�
NOV 1 9 2001
Planning Commission ��P�ANFNBNG DEPTME
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010 � �
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing to you in response to your question on how our parking at the Doubletree
Hotel San Francisco Airport has been effected since the installation of a controlled
parking gate.
The controlled access has effectively eliminated park-and-fly traffic. In effect the result
has caused the one to one parking space requirement to insure under utilization of our
parking facilities.
Also contributing to the over capacity of parking spaces is the fact that many of our
guests utilize our complimentary shuttle to and from the airport as do our airline crews,
which make up our highest proportion of mix of business within the hoteL
Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or for clarification.
November 15, 2001
rely,
\
Pe er J. Marshall
General Manager
PJM/sth
,,
• . CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
,� . . .
� CITY p
�� , �
BURLINGAME APPL��ATION TO. THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�'b,.,m,w.�•���e ��f�
���"� �
Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit,� Variance�_
Special Permit Other Parcel Number:�_� — 44--,� �p
Project address: �%�� �1 ���'� � �/TJ .
APPLICANT
PROPERTY OWNER
- %i�� ' � ..�
v�- ��
•�� ii � ��' �
� . i.� � � .i►
. '
� .L�.. . .:�u r' 3 r�itl�
Phone (w): ��?� � -- 2'''1�,�._
�h>:-��
, �. �
��
, � - -� ,
' ' � ✓ ;'
i.► - l
��
_� �L•� . % ;►i�� .►✓ i r �
i ,/
� � � " �� �� �' ��, 1 ,
� '� �.�, i/ : �i i •
.�
. � _ ` � / ri'i
(h):��
�� v � � r ,
r I' �I ►
. �� � ' r
i
•��- % � :i(/.� ��I/
� 'ii� ♦ /� �
. . ..�i�..�u %� ,� ti �
_ ,� -
Phone (w): (-zrZCJ,�?�,7? - Z�f.�(�—
(h): �
(fl: b�/ 3'7�- ��►�
Please indicate with an astei isk *
the contact person for this project.
� ;�'
APR 1 � 2001
C�TY OF BURLIiVGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
� .._
� . � � • � � �►'�rr ■,:� .� u�IL �..�-�
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and c ect to e best f my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: / ' Date: 1�1�G�� 2�, 20U�
�; . �I, �,`Z"rq�r-� � T]]', #�.
I know about the proposed appli tion and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit th.i�
application to the Planning Commission.
� � •
Property owner's signature: .- .�.-� Date: M��'�'�� 2�� 2���
� • !�'DN�t/f2/ PCAPP.FRM
' � � `���..G1TY O.t.
� ., BURLINGAfQE
�
` ��+,.
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions. �
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimentat or injurious to
prope�Zy or imprrovements in the vici�ity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
`T-t-l�i.�q�os� t'U�►.1� �Gt c.t-rf� ���1Sia�1 Wti(�v �1/ Tcf�'/S/i��i US�
!sc s' ���P� �i C( ST� cN -G6�i' � t'��i � �•-r -cbt�'. Ha-tf�' ��oSS
�i'z� -�,OUI�/�I`1D . �I �'ril°�7 �-�;I��� ��c�e,i (�f°ANSt�
(�4c�1/ l� ��'/ p�iU M��i�v �- �►J � toc�S `C� 'Ff�i�`f D� U�-iP�M�G�
W�+� vt,c�,+.�zY �2- ��u.� l��f� s'�'�t�r-� G-b�v u����
�'-�-- G�iM/b� �9t��t% •
2. Hoiv wilC the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
'_-�1�'/ �I��' ! S ��S�C�.L�CCe� �'�-- ��/ � �� '� C��Fr�'��
� ��-;� -r� ��+� �� ��l � -r� us � �S ��S-`r�
��- --� �� C�"���/ •
3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the
_ existing and potential uses on adjoining proper�ies in the general vicinity?
`��'i 1�i�vQ�� ��-� '�t,rr��Pr�c�1 ��v ��i s���, c�l
�1PP��'c,e a�cn �� -z'� -� �Z►�u� � - ��-(' �az�►v
S ,An-�p wtiw g� �P�+'Gi�1.�' w►r�4- -�6 �a"G�¢1�Gti('�5', M� �
4�vt� a-�o �4AGrt� � -G�' �t �G�j .4raD PO't��i�-v U�� �I
�m-da�►�--�,+�1, #��G��S � -� ���v 1/�-►-+-�Y .
��� � f ����
APR 1 2 2001 cup.f»n/II/98
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
�
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be det`rimental or �.
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare, or conve�zience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving,
landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance.
Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the publics's health, safety or general welfare7
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems,
water supply safety, and thing which have the potential to affect public health (i.e. underground storage tanks, storage
of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases).
Public'safetv..: How .will the.structure or use.within the structure affect police or fire pr�tection7 Will alarm systems
or sprinklers be install�d? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services
(i.e:, noise;�unruly gatlieiings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammai�le or hazardous materials, �
or potentially dangerous activities like welding, .woodwork,� engine removal). w. � .�.
�eneral ►velfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. ' Is the proposaf consistent"with the city's policy and
goals for conservatipn and developme.ntl Is there a social benefitl , .,. � •'. ,
�onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience'(such as access fo or parking for
this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or
handicappedl
2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the
,,; Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinan�ce? .
,
Ask the Planning Department for tNe general plan designation and zoning distric't'for the proposed project site. . Also ask
for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated designated
use and zoning, then explain why this proposal woUld "fit" accordingly. - � -
3. How will tlae proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity ?
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhoodl If it does not affect
aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing
architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If a use will affect the way a
neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and
explain why it "fits".
How`does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in,terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change
to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other
structures in the nei_ghborhood or area. ' .• ' _'
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhoodl Ttiink of cha�acter as the
image or tone established by, size, density of development and general pattem of land use. W,ill there be more traffic
or less parking available resulting from this �use7 If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state
why. . ; : � ` . . , . � ; . - . ,
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinityl Compare your
project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state
why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity.
" cup.f�m/11/98
�' CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
,. E�E��E�
��� CITY �� . . . .. . , . . . .
�,R„N�,►�,E '. �ITY .OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION , A P R 1 2 2 0 01
�F °
�''•��•�� TY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's
Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist
the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for
your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance
with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptiottal or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
�1rh� M�bs� bj�' q�- ��-I'�'�Cb�r.rr4� C�t K.GvJ�-t �►.Gf7
.
�
°r`-� �oti-�+�-G"u+�l �PPc.�C�'� t.o' -ct� --GW-e� Pir� i�'G`f' �'►�� A�S Na1.'
'�PPU� —�o ��. ��e�a�S �S � �rrSt�r-c�.� ��5� I i3 ��t� s� �
� �' NarC�T�u�T �'D�vGtia�1 c� -y� �Z"E� � -c� M�M��j
A�P 1J�" '� �!Vt`f' S L,9+� Fr w
Explain why the variance request as necessary for the preservation and en��nt of
a substantial property right and what unreasonable prope�ty loss or unnecessary
hardship might result form the denial of the application.
��'�� �c�c.t �'�`�� �,yS�.sGs I�� 35�'0 � -r� si-C�, t� �i�i�i 'S
-tRti' qa � t�H�f� S�G�+� wetc.e� �. �I;o"�
M-v �I�i.� �Gt,J��Puti6S � • `� f��� �I�in�v wtl�v �l5
M�r-��si�G6� �`c' --c�� ��"�-c.�'N"� �u�,d- -c� Cir�-� `� tss5 f��
�7�-b Sl�itt� 5 c� "�'� %'���' �it�l�' �j�-t�/+�� �i4 •
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
� general welfare or convenience. .
�' {�e�b�c�P h��G� f-�tGe��S' #�K��1 �w �� � �i9�.l� t.1�p
,�s �F�P'� �Rid'��-f9 a.� � sv�� ,a�-o .�r' �� �ta��S �-c:�at�5
�� ��,�tio :� ��� t��� �ti,� ��r�s�i
IIvGw N� ��" D�"C'►�M�rGAv �- ��s 3-+v�µa-rS —p, ��,�Y �K- U�e���V►�,rGf
►.�t -� VtC�� � To 1��� �it�ikl�j �A�i �h'l��L l�,y�
�- G�iW�T b�C-�l' •
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
—� �pe�S� µ�G� �t�t,�.vG�b'S I�'��c�1 �v �� S�F�-t t cK� �'�l
�'��rr�c',� �o Ir��'� � -� ��S'�-� G�� S�z'`� �tJ
�p Uru.ri � CA�-Gt'/%��1�' WIrG�' 'G� /t�'�'�� �iu�
�wK ,a.o G+A�crGac.. A` 'G� i� �'� ,�,,� I°otavG.ovi.�aS' u�1 �P���
h�Pb��S t�r -�iab G�►�✓ �/u%t�-.v?�P�
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your
property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not
common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the properly, an exceptional tree
specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others
in the neighborhood?
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship
might result form the denial of the application. �
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as
much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do
the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property?
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or ,improvements in : the vicinity or to, public health, safety, ; general welfare or
convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade,
views �om neighboring properties, ease of maintenance, > �. � � ���
Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect� the public's health, safety or general welfare?
Public health includes such'things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water
supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals,
situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases).
Public sa e. How will the strucfure .or use with�n the, structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or
sprinklers be installed? Could the stiucture or use within the structure create a nuisance or need.for police services (i.e., noise,
unruly" gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or�hazardous materials, or potentially
dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). �• � .," �
Ge'neral welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for
conservation and development? Is there a social bepeft? ;'. ' ,,
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site
or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped?
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character
of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general viciniry.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with exisring neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state
why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development
on adjacent properties in the neighbortiood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term
airport parking lot, compaXe your proposal to other uses in the:area and explain why it fts. ^
How does the proposed=structure compare to neighboririg structures in�terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the
structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare.its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures in the
neighbor.hood or area. '
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of chazacter as the image
or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking
available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of tke neighborhood will change, state why.
How will'the•proposed project be'compatible with existing and potential uses in;the.general vicinity? Compare your project
with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project
would be consistent w'ith potential uses iri the vicinity. � . . ..
' � � ' ' ' , • . . - ' . N , - VAR.FRM
��
4 , ,�'T �*
iEURLINQAMi
. ��
��...
1.
2.
3.
4.
COn��RCIAL APPLICATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM .
I' • � • - � - • - i�� � ■ i,. G� 1 i �-71 .►' /:r .i .��/ /
Days and hours of operation. �� �)I° ,� �
Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type). r��/
Cunent and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location:
Existing ' In 2 Years In S Years
Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After
Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM
Weekdays
Full-time 7� �� � �o �� �� ?j�
Part-time �- �o � (� (,_
Weekends
Full-time `GJ� �� �j� 3 �� 3
Part-time � � 8
5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site:
E�sting In 2 Years In 5 Years
Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After
Operation PM 5:00 PM � PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM
Weekdays �17i7 � � � � ( �/ -� � � I 1�
Weekends 2rf � �'j � �' y�
6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner,
employees and visitors/customers): ,
��
7.
:
9. Present or most recent use of
10.
Where do/will the owner & employees park? -���-���z �,Pr�
Where do/will customers/visitors park?^/'��-}�'�;f"�1�n 1.(�
�
y ,.
�
� �; � " 11
List of other tenants on proper
li if necess �
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
.r\ � q,� .. �. . . . . �� . . . J �� • • ' • • ' ' . ' . , . . . . . �r, 4 . . . � . • _- � ' . .. . . � � _ _
� . . . , . .. � �
. � . I � _ j j . . . . . . . S . '�
� ` � I � . . � . � . w� ��
:. , � � ! E � � : - - � � c�: -� ,
�- � . . . . � � , �. /� . . z m ._
. � `—. � SELF PARKING �� . � • _
- � � . _ yZ �:. .� �
. .� i
/` , , �
. � . . ,� ,� . , 1 . _ ... . . _. _ _ r . ._ . _ _ __.
:_
::�.. �
� . . . � , Q .,�x � � _ � . , . : . � . . � 0 . _ c�
� O � � � o � - � �: -.. � � � � : 0
G � . _ . a ` �� _ l ,� J; � � . F . .. . ` . . .
�� J. � —: ,r �:.'�.�y. �� . �
`� O� � ;n K. ,:`..?;y .; f'�� ` ��s .
� � Q� _ f;�v,�, � �~' f `.�>1" . �
�' "; �.{j;,>c;_�V � ,'�.i . � . .
. . f�LNL�''� � 2� ` �.;"l�� . _
� � • �� �: �< > BOLLARD AND CHAIN BARRIER
1 �`
. y� y,"�f �._. �i�-. � • ..
-! � J'� - Q ,� y;�,, ,� f .
. ,� � � �•�,�i'�� ; � �'; �. <�1 / .
J, l ` .. Qy�,,. �• a. .
� � f�'`�� � ,,t•`_, '.. �'` f _ �
,, ,,.�J:f'`� �. �' ,�'"- . ' VALET PARKING STACKING -
. � � .,;� �� i;��j� t f� j�* ;:'- CARS WILL BE STACKED W
�`..` .' ` � �' � AISLES AS� SHOWN .OR PARKED
� � . �' �� � � `'I;'�::`� ` . IN ADJACENT LOT WHEN ALL � .
� ' /, f `; ``' � ' : � � . STALLS ARE FILLED
�' ,�.; ,l T r\•' �
/ " HOTEL � . , - �
i � � ' `�-f r'''��`'
/ . �, i F. % \� �,y` . .
,� - , �; .��.- . CONTR�L GATES AND ���
; i J'�G - � }b, �; '' �r `�.�:' / TICKET DISPENSER
\ ��
• / //
�
_ -. � _; �: ��
. i�-- � ,
, � �
y . <�' � •
-s •
o ��
G
. !
` �.
� �
�
0
� \
�.
�
,
0
. �J
. \
, . . . , � i��
V /
�—VALET\
PARKING
\ \ STAl10N
C T
�
. ,
\ 'ry�•`�F � � � ' •
` ,\ l��'�~` . .
`� � t � /
� .
,��; �
4 �
1t \ � • ' '.
� � . . . � � � �. �� ,
\ �— DiRECTIONAL SIGNAGE FOR
/ � VALET ANO�SELF PARKING
� BOLLARD AND CHAIN BARRIER �
� i\;
PARKING CONTROL BOOTH �
AND EXIT GATE
CONTROL GATE
� l� PP�nved Ja�e+ �a.. r ki h
�
, � : - cE��ED
. . . RE
.. . � . ..� ` ��FE619;1999� �_
��
F�,4RKING PLAN
I� �� `� �
DATE 2/
: scuF , � � ;� � AS
�
.4,
CITY OF BURLINGAME
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. ND-518P
The City of Burlingame by __ Mar�aret Monroe on November 6, 2001 , completed a review of the
proposed project and determined that:
(XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment
(XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
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. 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 pernut. 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 1997 parking variance was based on the applicant providing 115 parking spaces for
hotel employee and guest use in the additional parking azea provided on adjacent city land. The enlarged
parking area also serves the city's Bayside Community Pazk 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 riorth 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.
Vehicles are parallel-parked at the end of the parking stalls. Approximately 14 to 16 additional vehicles
can be accommodated on the hotel parking 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 �ase designation is cumulative, in that those uses which
generate less traffic than the designated use are also permitted on this site in the plan. 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 been 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 all other facts supporting
findings, it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on
the environment.
�
Signature of Processing Official
.
CJ,
Title
� �� — -��
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 �• G. , 2001.
Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No
�...��, vEPvrr '��r C��e�k
� ANN T. MUSSO, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
„
J
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
I1vITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Project Title:
835 Airport Boulevard - DoubleTree Hotel Meeting
Room Expansion
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan 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, HotellRestaurant
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 of Airport and Anza Boulevards, and is adjacent to the City of Burlingame
recreational facility to the west. Currently, the hotel has 9645 SF of banquet/meeting room space. The
project includes 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 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 net of 12
on-site parking spaces would be lost to accommodate the meeting room additions. With the approval
of a 101-room addition to this hotel 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 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 lot. To 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
12 parking spaces in the adjacent public park parking lot. The 230-space parking 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
parallel-parked 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 and Setting: The site is bordered on the west by the former City of
Burlingame sanitary landfll site (Class III), which has been closed and 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 Boulevard 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 Management District oversees any emissions guidelines, and may require a permit at the
time building plans are reviewed. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
guidelines and San Mateo County Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices would
need to be followed for any construction activities and for future management of the site. The site is
not within Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction.
�
.�
� 'ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Mineral Resources G�xltural Resources
Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation .
Materials
X Hydrology & Water X Noise Agricultural Resources
X
Air Quality
Public Services Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Utilities and Service
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a signi�cant effect on the environment, there will not
be a signiiicant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I imd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a Apotentially significant impact@ or Apotentially signif"icant
unless mitigated@ impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier docuxnent pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
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 the environxnent, because all
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIl� or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing filrther is required.
n�-�
Margaret onroe, City Planner
�
t�C�l�l` �� ?�1
Date
3
.,
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigution
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 general plan, specifc plan, local coastal 1,2,4 X
program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or rnitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,15 X
community conservation plan?
2. POPiTLATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(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 existing housing, necessitating 3 X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3. GEOLOGY 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 Geologist 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 located on expansive soil, as deiined 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. FIYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,5 X
requirements?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources I s°°r�es I P°te°t'�°y
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Significant I 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 pattern of the site or
area, 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 pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 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?
fl 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 structures which 5,15 X X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or stnzctures to a significant 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 mudflow? 1,5 X
5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air qualiry 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 net increase of any 1,21 X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air qualiry 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
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Significant I Impact
Impact
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in trafiic 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 level 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 trafiic 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
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,10,17 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 10 X
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RE50URCES. 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 Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. 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 California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined 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 the 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?
fl 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 so„r�es Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
SigniTicant I Impact
Impact
8. MINERAL RESOURCE5. 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 the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, 1,5,7 X
specific plan or other land use plan?
9. IiA�ARDS 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 hazardous
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 hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter 1,9 X
mile of an existing or proposed school?
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
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located 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 safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working 1 X
in the project area? �
g) Impair nnplementation 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 standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 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
rces
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Signific�nt
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than I No
Significant Impact
Impact
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,5 X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without 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
excessive noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of
which could cause signiiicant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,11 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? i X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 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 signiiicant
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
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 1,10 X
from existing entitlernents 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
♦ v
.�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Significant I Impact
Impact
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
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 chazacter or quality of 1,5,10 X
the site and its surroundings? 'v
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. CULTiJRAL 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 X
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
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 interred outside of 1,10 X
formal cemeteries?
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,10 X
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the faciliry would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 1,10 X
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICULTiJRAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of 1 X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the 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 location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X
to non-agricultural use? `
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGIVIFICANCE.
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
community, 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
. ap
. 1
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Yncorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
10
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 The City ofBurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - 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 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, Revised
1981.
8 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
9 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S.
Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987.
10 7uly 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 Traffic Analyzer, 2000 Edition
15 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State
Department of Fish and Game
16 Map ofApproximate Locations of I00 year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood
Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981
17 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.,Transportation Consultants, Parking and Traffic 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.
19 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
�
20 Negative Declaration No. ND 486P for the 101-room addition, May 1, 1997
21 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995
22 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 11— Trees and Yegetation, Burlingame, California, 1999 edition.
23 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, Apri11998
24 San Mateo County Inventory of Fuel Leak Sites, April 1998
25 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport,
i�ecember, 1994
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 traffic than the designated use are also permitted on this site in the plan. Therefore, the proposed
hotel addition (meeting room space) is consistent with this planned land use designation. The C-4, Waterfront
Commercial zoning district pernuts hotels and motels. Conditional use pernuts are 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 for landscaping within the parking area
(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 spaces provided, 392 spaces required).
The project site is located 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
Planning Handbook (Hodges & Shutt, 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 that the original hotel would not result in any safety hazards. Since the proposed single-story
addition would be 72'-8" below the height of the existing building, no airport-related safety hazards would
be expected, and no further discussion is required. The project falls within the height restrictions and noise
and safety guidelines 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% minimum required), and a parking variance amendment for 265 on-site parking
spaces where 392 spaces are required.
2. Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding areas are planned for commercial
uses. There are no residents in the area. The project will have no impact which will result in an increase 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
rectangularly-shaped peninsula which was created in the 1960's by the placement of soil-fill and rubble
concrete within a perimeter levee. The filled area is separated from the original shoreline by a 500-foot wide
lagoon known as Sanchez Creek Lagoon. The site is about four rniles west of the active San Andreas 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 sh ucture 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
1983, 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 EIIZ 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 structure will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth
shaking in a major earthquake. Any connections 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 California Fire Code.
Flexible joints should be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground
settlement.
The finished floors for any structure 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 of current
maximum flood elevation.
4. Water Summary: Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 2 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 500-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 Area, tfie 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 carries the runoff into the Burlingame lagoon (between SR 101 and the
filled Anza area). 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 runoff with the development of the hotel addition would
be minimal. All of the surface water from this 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 future discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination 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 Inspector prior 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 traffic to and from �the hotel development is insignificant when compared to all
development in Burlingame.
Mitigation:
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 Air Quality Management
District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards.
6. Transportation/Circulation Summary: 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 (56 compact spaces proposed, where 53 are allowed).
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.
Planning staff would note that during construction of the 101-room addition approved in 1997, there were
minor revisions made to the number of compact parking stalls on the hotel site. Currently, there are 43
compact parking stalls, 214 standard stalls, and 8 disabled accessible stalls, for a total of 277 parking
spaces. The proposed addition of ineeting room space does not require additional on-site paxking 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 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 parking and self-parked guests. In October, 2001, the City Council
approved an amendment to the license agreement which 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 shares the parking 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 park 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 staff would 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 115 of the 230 parking spaces on the adjacent
public park site (former sanitary land�ll) to be used for employee parking and self-parked guests. Staff
would also note that after the parking study was completed in August, 2001, which reflects the use of 115
spaces in the adjacent public park parking 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
parking 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 parking 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 traffic/parking study looked at the project parking demand for the meeting room space with recreational
facility for peak weekend day and peak weekday. The purpose of the parking analysis was to determine
whether the 265 on-site hotel parking spaces plus the 115 spaces at the park site, or a total 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 weelcend day to measure the existing parlcing demand of the varanous
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 Saturday 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 Saiurday 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 October is 90 percent (adjusted to account
for variations in the hotel room occupancies from the survey days to a peak day. Therefore, the surveyed
weekend parking demands generated by the hotel rooms were factored to estimate peak weekend parking
16
�4
.
demand. The highest hotel room parking demand based on 90 percent occupancy is 233 spaces at 6:00 a.m.
For the meeting room 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 spaces from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
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 and 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.
Effect on Recreational Facility
The Paxks 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 parkirig 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 30 vehicles from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 50 vehicles from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
and 100 vehicles from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
To determine the maximum usage the total peak 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 lot). 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 demand 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 Boulevard/Anza
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 adjacent 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 study concluded that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on the two key
intersections (Airport Boulevard/Anza Boulevard and Bayshore Highway/Airport Boulevard). 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 Bayfront/Anza 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 or weekday. An analysis
of the recreational facility parking demand indicated that sufficient parking is available to accommodate the
parking demand from the meeting room addition and from the recreational facilities.
Ixnpacts of the hotel expansion were evaluated qualitatively for two key 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-Transportation Impact Analyzer for Bayfront & Anza Area (Fehr & 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 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. Thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant 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 required. l
7. Biological Resources Summary: Biotic resources on the site are very limited. The site is already
developed with a hotel and parking lot, and exotic 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 farmland 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 existing wild life habitat.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: The amount of energy used to grade, drain, pave and
construct the project is negligible. Substantial amounts of fuel will not be needed to construct, develop or
maintain the proj ect.
m
A�
� !
9. Hazards Summary: This project site is located 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 landfill materials, which
were limited to dried sludge material from a wastewater treatment 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 the site significantly limits the potential
for methane gas migration. The dike and seepage barrier that were constructed along the boundary between
the landfill and the project site in compliance with the landfill's Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan
would further restrict the potential for lateral migration of inethane gas under the project site.
For these reasons, the potential for methane migration under the area of the proposed hotel addition is
negligible, and methane venting under the proposed addition is not required to protect human health or the
environment. On the basis of its investigations and previous findings, methane venting under the proposed
addition is not warranted to protect human health or the environment.
10. Noise Summary: The site is impacted by noise from traffc on adjacent Airport Boulevard and from
aircraft landings and takeoffs at San Francisco International Airport, which is located about 1.5 miles
northwest of the site. Construction activities may affect adjacent office, restaurant and hotel development,
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, aircraft
flying near the site occasionally cause noticeable short-term noise at the site. Since the proposed addition is
sepaxated 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 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall 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 shall 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.
• The hotel addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms and enclosed public areas
shall not exceed 45 dBa.
19
�
11. Public Services Summary: The Burlingame Fire Marshall has indicated 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, improvements to the plant have been made in the interim which provide the
necessary capacity. The wastewater treahnent 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 facilities.
13. Aesthetics Summary: The proposed single-story addition will not be visible from Airport Boulevard
or the San Francisco Bay because the existing hotel is between the addition and Airport Boulevard, and the
addition is not higher than the current structure. The addition to the building will be visible from Anza
Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway. However, with the existing hotel building 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 since 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.
The 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 recreational 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, such as Cuernavaca
Park. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant 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 are discovered during construction, all work will be
halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by
qualified experts, can be implemented.
15. Recreation Summary: This site is adjacent to an existing community serving public recreational
facility. The park 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 treatrnent 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 project 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 MITIGATION 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 parking area landscaping requirements
(8.2% proposed, 10% minimum required), and a parking variance amendment for 265 on-site parking
spaces where 392 spaces 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 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 California Fire Code.
3. Flexible joints should be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground
settlement.
4. The finished floors for any structure 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 of current
maximum flood elevation.
5. All runoff created during construction and future discharge 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 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 Inspector prior to issuing a
building permit.
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 Air Quality Management
District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards.
9. Before any development is allowed a parking variance shall 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 imposed by
the City of Burlingame 1Vlunicipal Code.
11. No piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall 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 shall 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.
22
�� .
..
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 determined by
qualified experts, can be implemented. .
23
y.
�s� °.`.�,�`�� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMEiVT
�u�iicv��r�E 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
eql� � >o BURLINGAME, CA 94010
� � TEL: (o5C) 558-7250
835 AIRPORT BOLJLEVARD
Application for mitigated negative
declaration, conditional use permit to
exceed 1.0 floor area ratio, conditional
use permit amendment to vary from the
parking area landscaping requirements, and
parking variance for a single-story
meeting room space addition at 835 Airport
Boulevard, zoned C-4. (APN: 026-343-430)
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, November 26, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in
the City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
���eas e e�e to olbther s�de� 2001
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
A copy of the a:
to the meeting
Burlingame, Cal
�
If you chall'�e
raising only,,4�tho,
described iri the
�.
at, or prior t� the
Property o ��
tenants abo�it tl
558-7250. T�an
CITY OF B URLINGAME
���la s�oi t�r��-pro�ect,may be reviewed prior .
�•
Plar�ning�;� Departw�nent at.�01 Primrose Road,
rt Y
� � � � �*�
� , � � ��� >��
ecf a�ip�icati�n�s) �n=court; �you may�be limited to
�p� or, someone else ratsed at the public hearing,
r�in�wr�tten cp�espondence�delivered to the city
� ; � M�
esponsib e �or ii�%rming their
aformatior�; ple se call (650)
��
� �` '
��`' � ���,�
..��i �!�: �� w'���
..,�. , � ��
,�;`r � �
a�N,OTICE
� ,� t. � �` €�
�
Margaret M`r
City Planner
PU
(Please refer to otlier side)
5 �
,. �tESOLUTION APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE
� PERMIT, AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND PARKING VARIANCE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a mitigated negative declaration has been proposed and application has been made for
conditional use �ermit for floor area ratio, amendment to conditional use permit to vary from the parkin� area
landscape re�uirements of the Desi�n Guidelines for Bavfront Development, and parkin� variance for number
of parkin spaces for a sin lg e-story meetin� room space addition at 835 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4,
Today's III Inc 1500 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94109, propertv owner, APN: 026-343-430 &
-440;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 26, 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials
and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and mitigated negative declaration,
per Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-518P, is hereby approved.
2. Said mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, amendment to conditional use
permit, and parking variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
Findings for such mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, amendment to conditional use
permit, and parking variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the offcial records
of the County of San Mateo.
,�.:_: ►i :�I
I, Joseph Bojues , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was introduced. and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the 26"' day of November , 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
S ♦
\
. , EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, amendment to
conditional use permit, and parking variance.
835 Airport Boulevard
effective December 3, 2001
page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped July 16, 2001, sheets A1-0, A2-1, A3-1 and A3-2 and sheet Al-1, date
stamped November 19, 2001;
2. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's April 16, 2001 memo and Recycling Specialist's
April 16, 2001 memo shall be met;
3. that the traffic allocation for a 101- room addition and 4,372 SF meeting room space addition
to an existing 291-room hotel (82.2 room/acre density) which is a part of the planning
approval of this project and the agreement for use of 127 parking spaces on the adjacent
sanitary landfill shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time
the planning approval expires on�the project;
4. that since the applicant has elected to provide a significant portion of its required parking by
seeking an agreement with the City to share a parking area as described in the project, before
issuance of any building permit under this project approval, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City that provides that the applicant will be allowed to use the City
properly to the north and west for parking for at least 127 vehicles so long as the applicant's
property is used as a hotel or the required paxking is not provided in some other way
approved by the City; if that agreement is terminated for any reason, the applicant shall either
reduce its usage to eliminate the need for the 127 parking spaces or provide alternative
parking approved by the City;
5. that the proposed structure will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement
problems and earth shaking in a major earthquake;
6. that any connections between the new structure and the existing structure shall be designed
to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code and
California Fire Code;
7. that flexible joints shall be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated
with ground settlement;
8. that the finished floors for any structure shall be at least 9' above the mean sea level or one
foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater;
9. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required
to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
. .
. ,
..
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, amendment to
conditional use permit, and parking variance.
835 Airport Soulevard
effective December 3, 2001
page 2
10. that any new construction on the site shall 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;
11. that this project shall comply with the requirements of the state-mandated water conservation
program, that 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 Inspector prior to issuing a building permit;
12. that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and
construction;
13. that the developer shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their
standards;
14. that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction imposed by the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday,.and
none shall be driven on Sunday;
15. that the City shall require that the construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on
soils) and equip pile drivers witli shields, and shall 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;
16. that the hotel addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms does not
exceed 45 dBa;
17. 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 determined by qualified experts, can be implemented;
18. that the controlled access parking plan shall be built and implemented as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 19, 1999, Sheet
PK-1, and the installation shall conform to all the requirements of the California Building
and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
, .
.� �
„
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, amendment to
conditional use permit, and parking variance.
835 Airport Boulevard
effective December 3, 2001
page 3
19. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 28, 1998 and Maxch 2, 1999 memos
and the City Engineer's March 8, 1999 memo shall be met;
20. that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $1.00 for the first two hours,
$2.00 for 2 to 4 hours and $9.00 for over four hours, and any change to this fee shall be
reviewed by the city at a public hearing;
21. that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or
the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit;
22. that any change to the operation of the controlled and/or valet parking affecting the fee
chaxged, the area used, or the traffic controls shall require amendment to this use permit;
23. that prior to use of the City landfill parking lot for paid valet or paid self-parking, the hotel '
shall obtain an amendment to the Shared Parking and License Agreement with the City to
reflect this use;
24. that the use permit shall be reviewed annually for the first three years (Apri12000, 2001,
2002) to assess the impact of paid valet and self parking on City landfill parking and parking
on adjacent streets and properties, and /or upon complaint;
25. that the hotel shall report to the city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cars
which have parked longer than 24 hours and are not registered hotel guests and the use
permit shall be reviewed if more than 10% of the on-site parking spaces are employed for
this duration;
26. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date starnped Apri114, 1997, Sheet AO through Al l, and that the landscape plans
shall be reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances and approved by the Senior
Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued;
27. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 18, 1996 and Apri121, 1997 memos, and
the Chief Building Inspector's November 12, 1996 and Apri121, 1997 memos shall be met;
1 ♦
♦ (
♦�
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, amendment to
conditional use permit, and parking variance.
835 Airport Boulevard
effective December 3, 2001
page 4
28. that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating
hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or
overnight;
29. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the
California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of
Burlingame;
30. that the overall height of the 101-room addition as measured from the grade at the first floor
(9'-6" elevation) shall be 84'-6%2", and the height to the top of the elevator shaft and
mechanical room shall be 99'-0";
31. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity
for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for
permanent residential purposes;
32. that in the future, as required, the developer shall participate in an assessment district formed
to provide an east-west transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any
other intercity transit opportunities for employees and guests as well as providing an on-site
transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to
facilitate employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel;
33. that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization
and pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure
established by a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and
pest control;
34. that the applicant shall implement a valet parking plan for the transition period between
occupancy of the new hotel rooms and completion and availability of at least 115 spaces in
the proposed shared use parking lot on the sanitary landfill site;
35. that the proj ect shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
36. that in order to minimize settlement of roadways and other site features, recompacting or
surcharging the artificial fill material should be done before any paving;
♦
,�
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, amendment to
conditional use permit, and parking variance.
835 Airport Boulevard
effective December 3, 2001
page 5
37. that when the level-of-service reaches LOS D, the city shall convert the northbound through
lane on Airport Boulevard at Anza Boulevard to a second exclusive left-turn lane. This
improvement will improve cumulative conditions during the p.m. peak hour at this
intersection to an acceptable LOS D(V/C=0.85), and the applicant shall pay a fee at that time
toward the cost of this improvement, in proportion to the project's contribution to the total
increase in traffic through the intersection;
38. that payment of a Bayfront Development Fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the
Anza area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share for improvements
which would mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation,
one-half due at the time of application and one-half due before asking for a final framing
inspection; `
39. that the proposed Anza Boulevard driveway access shared with the future park shall be
widened from its current proposed width of 20 feet to a minimum width of 36 feet; a stop
sign shall be provided at the driveway to control access on to Anza Boulevard from the
shared parking facilities at the public park;
40. that the project sponsor shall continue to provide an airport shuttle service to all hotel guests,
which shall include connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees at shift changes; and
41. that no portion of the required parking on site or on the landfill shall be used for long-term
airport paxking as part of a hotel promotion.