Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout620 Airport Boulevard - Staff Report (3)City of Burlingame Scoping Session for Environmental Review of a Long-term Airport Parking Interim Use Address: 620 Airport Boulevard Item # 11 Environmental Scoping Meeting Date: 9/08/03 Request: Environmental review of a long-term airport parking interim use at 620 Airport Boulevard Property Owner : Boca Lake Office, Inc. APN: 026-342-330 Applicant and Architect: Paul Salisbury, Blunk Demattei Associates Zoning: C-4 General Plan: Waterfront Commercial Lot Area: 161,120 SF (3.70 Acres) Adjacent Development: Hotels, Offices and Long-term Airport Parking Current Use: Vacant Land Proposed Use: Long-term Airport Parking Allowable Use: Long-term Airport Parking as an interim use requires a conditional use permit in the C-4 zoning district. Environmental Scoping: This project for interim use of this 3.7 acre site for long-term airport parking requires environmental review. As a part of preparing the initial study for the environmental document for this project, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission comment on any potential environmental effects which you feel should be investigated. The environmental analysis will be prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA). Potential environmental impacts of the project identified by staff and ESA include: • potential impact on traffic on the roadway network; site access, circulation and parking; • air quality, particularly as related to cumulative increases in traffic; • potential impact of noise during construction and after construction on the adjacent hotel and office buildings; � biological resources, because of the potential for nesting on the site by sensitive species that are known to use open, disturbed sites as well as possible loss of habitat values at Anza Lagoon that could be indirectly affected by the proposed project; • drainage and water quality, including possible effects of runoff into Anza Lagoon and San Francisco Bay; • soil type and constraints found at the proj ect site, potential erosion and seepage issues, and potential seismic- associated hazards; • hazards related to soil and groundwater contamination which could possibly be encountered on the site; and • visual, light and glare effects. The issues identified by the Commission will be incorporated into the initial study for the project. The standard list of items investigated in an initial study is attached for reference, with the areas requiring further evaluation marked The kind of CEQA document required will be determined by staff after the scoping session. Project Summary: The applicant, Boca Lake Inc., is proposing to build and operate a 350- space parking lot for long-term airport parking at 620 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4. The proj ect would include surface-level parking for approximately 350 vehicles, as well as landscaping along the perimeter of the site. The C-4 zoning code states that a conditional use permit is required for airport parking lots in the Anza Planning Area, subject to compliance with the following criteria: 1. the sole purpose of the use is the parking for one day or longer of vehicles of persons using the San Francisco International Airport; Scoping for Environmental Review 620 Airport Boulevard 2. a minimum site size of three acres; 3. the permit term is limited to five years; 4. no more peak hour vehicle trips are generated than allowed by the traffic analyzer for the use designated for the site in the general plan; 5. the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development and Bay Conservation and Development Commission public access requirements are met; and 6. no parking is within a structure above or below grade. The project as proposed complies with Items 1 through 3 and Item 6 above. The environmental analysis will determine the peak hour trips generated by this interim use, and Item 4 will be addressed at that time. To address Item No. 5, the project will require review and approval by the BCDC, and is required to meet the landscaping requirements of the Bayfront Design Guidelines. Since there are no structures proposed, the remainder of the Design Guidelines do not apply to this project. Table 1 620 Air ort Boulevard PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Site Landscaping: 23.1 % 15% of site 37,283 SF 24,168 SF Front Setback 95.8% 80% of 30' front setback Landscaping: 14,370 SF 12,000 SF Parking Area Landscaping 10% 10% of parking area 14,412 SF (on perimeter of 14,372 SF arkin area Shoreline Band 54% 40% of area w/in BCDC jurisdiction Landscaping 14,415 SF 10,675 SF Landscaping Outside 17% 15% ShorelineBand 22�g68 SF 20,165 SF Staff Comments: See attached. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the proposed project and the areas of potentially significant environmental effects identified by staff. The Commission should identify any additional effects of the project which you anticipate may be potentially significant to the environment. Any issues identified by the Planning Commission will be added to the draft initial study for analysis which is being prepared by Environmental Science Associates. The areas of investigation for environmental evaluation as defined by CEQA are listed on the attached sheets immediately following the staff report. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner Paul Salisbury, applicant -2 - ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS LIST FROM CEQA: AESTHETICS. Would the project: y� Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? � Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In deternuning 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: ❑ Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of 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? ❑ Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: ❑ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? � Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ❑ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: � 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 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? ❑ 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.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 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? ❑ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ❑ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ❑ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ❑ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? ❑ Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X = ao'ea.g �'e�Uirinq ��eiQiL .Q•VG��-�'' J Environmental Factor List from CEQA GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: ,�( Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a lrnown fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Landslides? o Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? � Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ❑ Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: ❑ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Jz� Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ 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 airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: o Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that 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 nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pernuts have been granted)? ❑ 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? ❑ 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 runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? � Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? -2- Environmental Factor List from CEQA ❑ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: ❑ Physically divide an established community? ❑ 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, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ❑ Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ 2b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? NOISE. Would the project result in: ❑ Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? � A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proj ect? � A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ 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 airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: o 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)? ❑ Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? RECREATION. ❑ Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which -3- A Environmental Factor List from CEQA might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: � Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to 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)? �( Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: ❑ Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? o Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 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? ❑ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ❑ 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? ❑ Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? ❑ Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 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)? ❑ Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? �