The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About111 Anza Boulevard - Environmental Document. . � • Ft�G�1V�i� FcB J - 1979 �,A�NNING � J ��lN Y�ST� �1�� INITIAL STUDY SEABREEZE PLAZA BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA REVISED: FEBRUARY 8, 1979 �: [� • • L � • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION HISTORICAL SETTING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location and Access Design ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Climate and Air Quality Geological and Soil Characteristics """`� � Soil Conditions i�s � Noise Biological Traffic Utilities Water Distribution Sanitary Sewer System Storm Drainage System Electrical Power, Gas and Telephone Systems ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Climate and Air Quality Geologic and Soil Characteristics Noise Biological Traffic Page No. 1 3 9 11 15 16 18 18 19 20 20 22 23 23 24 25 25 26 28 E' : • • • [7 [7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (cont.) Utilities UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL USES AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES CONCLUSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CHECKLIST APPENDIX A, BLAYNEY REPORT � APPENDIX B, DRACHMAN REPORT REPORT PREPARATION Page No. 31 34 35 �:3 39 Cfi7 :�l 42 !fl • � • INITIAL STUDY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SeaBreeze Plaza Burlingame, California INTRODUCTION � An Environmental Assessment was filed for the project known as SeaBreeze Plaza, Bayview Place, Burlingame, California, cn October 2, 1978, for evaluation by the City Planner's Office. In addition, on September 18, 1978, a Special Permit application was submitted requesting approval of office occupancy in the Waterfront Commercial Zone (C-4). Office occupancy was, up until recently, a permitted use in the C-4 district. However, City C7 Council action has mandated that office occupancy be a conditional use requiring a Special Permit and review by the Planning Commission. The proposed project consists of a four-story reflective glass curtain wall office building over one level of parking with additional � parking being provided on decks at the east and west ends of the site. A detailed description of the project and drawings appear in the section entitled "Project Description." • Pursuant to an October 10, 1978 meeting with City of Burlingame staff, the architects, Raiser Architectural Group, were requested • to prepare a supplement to the Environmental Assessment referred to � � - 1 - • previously. This new document was to follow the State of California guidelines for an Initial Study. � The following document is being submitted in response to this request. • i • • • • • -2- ,� . . . . • HISTORICAL SETTING The proposed project will be located in the Anza Airport Park Subdivision. The site is located in Central California, along the western edge of San Francisco Bay on the San Francisco Peninsula, approximately twelve miles south of San Francisco. This area has � historically been tide and marsh lands which were gradually encroached upon by development along the San Mateo County bayfront. � When the Southern Pacific Company built the railroad on the San Francisco Peninsula, the railroad right-of-way became the first barrier to the seasonal rain and tidal flooding of the bayfront � lands. Subsequently, various road constructions advanced this bar- rier toward the bay, until the original Bayshore Highway, constructed in 1928, and the subsequent Bayshore Freeway, constructed in 1946, r deliniated the bayfront. The immediate predecessors of the Anza Pacific Corporation came on � the scene in 1958, purchasing several parcels of tidelands and swamp overflow lands in the vicinity of the Broadway-Burlingame overpass of the Bayshore Freeway. Some of this area had been dyked off and / used for cattle grazing over the years; however, g2nerally speaking, the drainage and tide gate systems had deteriorated, and during the winter periods of severe rain, areas on both sides of the Old Bayshore • -3- S � • Highway were subject to flooding. Both the developed and undeveloped portions of the properties were at that time mud flats used largely for the dumping of debris, trash, and old tires. All of the Anza Airport Park land consisted of very soft bay mudflats, making the bay water inaccessible to the citizens, except when the tide was extremely high. Anza Pacific's predecessors purchased the property now making up Anza Airport Park in 1961 and 1962. At that time the property itself was zoned M-1, Light Industrial, by the City of Burlingame, and was shown on the County's Master Plan for light industrial use. . At the time of purchase, access was completely restricted from the • Bayshore Freeway. A mutual easement was obtained for Anza Pacific to utilize the County Park area to the east of the development for access to its property, and for the County to have a roadway along the eastern boundary of Anza Pacific's property for access to their park. This access, together with the completion of Burlingame's fill and cover dumping operation to the north-westerly corner of Anza Pacific's property, gave physical access to the north-westerly and south-easterly corners of Anza Airport Park. Through action instituted by the Burlingame City Council, at the request of the landowners, a Reclamation District - No. 2097 - was ,� set up pursuant to the Water Code of the State of California. � -4- e • The object of this District was to reclaim the land comprising Anza � Airport Park and develop it in accordance with the then accepted zoning and use patterns. In 1962 and 1963, two Permits from the Army Corps of Engineers were applied for and granted to Anza's predecessors permitting them to fill the entire property. The Reclamation District then proceeded to contract for various fills, and for the placing of the debris from the demolition of the San Mateo Bridge, which was being reconstructed, i around the perimeter of its properties to form a dyke to prevent future erosion of the proposed fill. ` In 1964, Anza Pa�ific Corp. was formed, and Anza'a main project was the development of Burlingame bayfront properties, including Anza Airport Park. Shortly after this, the initial State legislation � regarding bay fill which created the Bay Conservation Development Commission was enacted; however, a grandfather clause provided that Anza's property was not subject to their jurisdiction because it � had commenced its project prior to the effective date of the legislation. Filling proceeded throughout the next few years, and gradually street � patterns and utility systems were laid out in conjunction with the City of Burlingame. Subsequently, Burlingame set up Bayside Improve- ment Districts No. 1, 2 and 4 to accomplish the installation�of these � streets in the project. This work was largely completed by 1970. About this time a change of policy took place in the California - 5 - G • State Lands Commission offices, and the State Lands Commission, together with the Attorney General of the State of California, re-examined their position with regard to the original patents of bay tidelands which were granted about 1860. As a result of this � re-examination the State challenged the title to the Westbay Community Associates property, which lies immediately to the north of Anza Pacific Corp., and indicated to Anza Pacific that it also � questioned the location of the boundary between State owned lands and privately owned lands in the area claimed by Anza Pacific Corp. At that point, by mutual agreement, future filling activity A was restricted, and major building construction was halted, while Anza Pacific Corp. negotiated a boundary settlement with the State of California. This boundary settlement was reviewed with other State agencies, including the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and was finally approved in�July of 1972 by the State Lands Commission, and signed by Anza Pacific Corp. By this time, the remaining property of Anza Pacific Corp. had been rezoned to the • 1 new Burlingame classification, C-4, Waterfront Commercial, providing for office uses, hotels, motels, commercial, recreational and other compatible and related uses, which took advantage of the bayfront setting. � Upon signing and recording of the State of California-Anza Pacific Boundary Agreement and Settlement, Anza commenced to complete the filling and install a 12-acre scenic lagoon required by this agreement. Although at the expiration of the original Army Crops of Engineers Permits to Anza Pacific Corp. Anza was told no further such permits were necessary, new and revised regulations in 1972 caused the Army Corps of Engineers to reverse this decision and to require a new application for a permit to complete and implement the filling under the terms of the State Boundary Agreement, including the construction of the lagoon. Anza Pacific Corp. made this new application to the Corps of Engineers, and the project was reviewed by many government agencies, both national and state, including the Environmental � Protection Agency, State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, BCDC, and other agencies of the State Department of Natural Resources. At the conclusion of this review, an Army Engineers Permit No. 73-9 was issued on November 13, 1972, a clearance given by the Water Quality Control Board of the State of California; no major adverse comments were � forthcoming from any of the several hundred agencies who had been given a chance to comment on the Army Engineers' application. + In 1974 a Master Plan and Draft EIR No. 28P were prepared and submitted for the Anza Airport Park Subdivision. This showed a development of • office buildings, hotels, restaurants, recreation facilities, and a -7- convention center. However, a.fter public review and hearings before the City, the Draft EIR was withdrawn by Anza before its completion and certification. • Anza Pacific Corp. was liquidated April 6, 1976 in accordance with provisions of Section 333 of the Internal Revenue Code. All of the Anza Pacific Corp. assets were transferred to Anza Shareholders 7 Liquidating Trust for the benefit of its former shareholders. � C� : PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location and Access �:,;, 5�= '-';� It i s proposed to construct a four-story executi ve offi ce bui 1 di ng ��` ��„ ,,,t •� r�t.. :-��t� . over one level of parking on Lot W in the Anza Airport Park of �� Burlingame, California. The office building will be located entirely on Lot W with portion of State Parcel #11 being used for access. • The site is located on filled tide lands east of the downtown Burlingame business area and north of U. S. Highway 101. (See Location plan.) _ _ a S'�� * The site consists of 120,000 square feet of barren, low-lying land fill. The adjacent land to the north is vacant, barren, land fill which is under lease from the State of California. To the east is a lagoon and to the southeast a brick office building. South of the site is additional barren, low-lying land fill, which up until recently, was planned for office development. The property is located within a ✓ half-mile of the Broadway-Burlingame freeway overpass. One of the principal runways of the San Francisco International Airport is located across the San Francisco Bay, approximately one-half mile away. � The City of Burlingame is presently working with the State to develop a freeway off-ramp whose extension would lead directly into Bayview Place. This freeway offramp, when completed, will greatly increase the ease of �� vehicular access to this and other parcels in the Anza Airport Park. � � � V�J l � Until that time, access to the site is via Airport Boulevard, a four- lane,arterial at this point, to Bayview Place, which is a local street terminating at the edge of the site. Anza Airport Park is approximately 50% developed. Some of the current uses may be changed to more intensive ones in time. This project must be viewed in context as one of several sites now being considered by � The City of Burlingame for changes in usage, and be noted as located in an area which may well be the locus of further development. C C: �� -`•,,..: �. �- _ � - :�� i � i% r - �-" r , {��s `.�. r�i� �T _ � t�A�,� ,.c :�a �. . � � _ .� ` � ��'�� .�'�^� !,f �°- — �.i 3 ..+�' . - ' .�- -- �- � �� : � �� , . . .�� . '�_ �,�,_, # � . �i� - . . .. �— ��. �- �- �':�.� ;�. 'ti'�- ��` ►�� ;'; ,�t.--� ,�� ;�; ? s: , ; . � � � £��: '�`-1,;.� -��... �,� ►,l�e"€7'-��.. �T;_� n �� .� :�;� �` , .i - ....?"�t "'� s�w�,�{�?.Tse �!-e�'e � �� ! _ �� . - •.i -- 1 . � .�,..4�f >�. ,A. �: . _•,�;- Y►'-."%_ �r_iir1 _Ri-�y.w• �- ti..�� . � �p - a'L� � �� - ;4ti�' � - �- � � •��T� �. � 4 �-�� lr �:�-��'��Y .. � .. � �wnr �� E P'7 - � �1;.13�- . �a� '.'�. -�� .7A ! ��''�':x•K��r�,�'.Z'� ��. �� ..!w��::�1-K� ; F� • _,�r ' ir�� ' 1t � ,~� � - ` �� `+ � '�`►�� ii- �.•, �, 7 �+r 4�.. - r. '-��: �, � �c, �r'p; 1 1 I ■ � �i s � , � � e '1��'�� '�. �..`��4 �� ! ;—i=: E '+ ' •T • r � : �i �� .,,� r� " J 1 +r - ��.•i 1 jt�� " '.�i�- �� F��1 "�, �. �,�„�. ��tv,,� ��. �� '�.� ., ti -�4r�•'�- ti .� �r.i� �"rr� �: �T •►� • ��`.s+> +�'�. .-- � �x' ��. .: _�. �i.,��':;� -:.., �.,r�:. S�� r•r� ��,:�� ""w� ,.��`�',,..1�,,,,•�'`{��,��_. .�w'N n1 l��±ZI•• •�a� �J��wt. �. ��1� �y� ��S' �[� ` �i �� iAf' ��,�,_ tT � �"��1. , ��:��7 �_�t:�,�,�.��.%�',j�,,�,.��,''- ,� , .e ,3=t '' #��'�"�; �„-i -�-+�'" 5'�'�.��;�A�+ r� V H ��. ' S � � I-� �'' � i� . . °i��_a.�lt�� .��•�`+�` � �� _\ ►` /�_�_\ 1.—� 1 � ) _ c .� - :`� �.� - P. S��V � 1`�'RA��'CISC O . 1 . , .. � ' ' t , �.. � � � TI � � . � • � , • I . . � : " . _ . • ... ' � . THE SITE ' �1,� . . �� • � . � �4N� ` �` •��I;�• •O�• � ~� r A� . M� 4�� . r �,o � �� '< <ri •�wro� ♦ �ou�tw�e C4 ...............� �........... ................�.... ...... ...�,',��« .�"."�!"!....""� � r ... ... •......• . . .'..... � .. . . . . , . ,�. ' �` � .... ....... .v :� .v : .� .�i , � .... .... 'i � �.•rw �r[e�r• r 1 —_�:� � �./ � 11 �� •t l�i tt �1 : - -- - ti / • �� `� ,�' ♦ ..w �� ♦ �� --- � -- �� _ � i �'.1 t � � . . �� i . O *� � � -- — � � � . � fL7/ O � 1 � t �i��t/ ' ! f i . � �� + �� 1� ��. y�� O �,� �, �� C ",. C ' / . /\ �f �r % � �. � * � + I � O ' ,' +y `,L�'/./� / �. �� .'1 ,yi / t �� '� �+ '�� . �C I� 'i4 � f �� /' � • � � / � ♦ ir, � • J 1 �� /� � �\� ,' ♦ fr ' �� ... I�y�`,e � �� i��/�/\ ,�� \.\ 1* . \\ . � '••. - ., '� � ♦ '� y `:r � , <� % . i� '•.�� c/ � � J'' 0 � f� � ; �'\�.; �. � � �. . c' t �� t �� • � '•.� y � _ ` �, \ � •. 1 , ,� _ � � � '�\ � i - I� �i � . � � . \ � /4 � � � �1 �j � • � � 0 � _ ,�� ' �� 1 � � v. �, - . � �S. . �� . � - �. � . O �� _ • � � � � �i �r ` ��.. O _ _ - , S �.�� • �� r� • � �� f 'r� , 0 •� ♦ � � \ � � • �� " � �r � � �� .O f/ _ � � U A , N y _ i ��i` J � ��' � -r i � , ,� O *' • �� , . � �' - �� i� � ZONlNG MAP LOCATION . �� . � ?,. _ � �. . � s � � �� 4 vv t�'� � RESt0ENT1Al USES INSTt1U110NS INDUSTfIAI USfS �,� a tOw O[►+S�Tr .��.� l.�.c� �!►t.�lwtAf� SCMOOI ��Ou1r�r a O�r�Ct uit . �'�=— a wlO�UM 1��I0 �+/�c � lUwiOf MIGM SCMOOI � S[w�G! WS►CS�u e w��t� 1'��.:.! 't-.- ----�' _ � `\ ...`��` `'�_ ' — . r� DINM wGM 21 r y0 L. /K i M 1 O N S C►� O O l � ..• � r--_-= CIRCUTATION � ' x, ;',.� ~' ---- — -•«ch oewsmr �i ,i.. a. �«. i r� � v � r e s t M o o t �-:- .......� ....�,.. i��cA��• � � ■_�� ■ � • • . ti _ � IrJGw •w�� •v +r � �� `� !z?ty==* � , . ti,, _ = _ / N� � � p�Mt� f' CMUlCM �� r�fEw�r �� at a i t � R= i i i , . .�� r 1 1 � � A f T� �:� l L COMMERCIAt USES roua a�r n�t ocrr ; • � � ��*=*j��l� • L� �'�'�- � � •�� ♦��1A� . • • +_* n=*�r � . � i�: _ � SMOIIING • fltVlC! O Q� �� U{w� : '.•� � � sxri =r �� r�c ' ' . t �:— _ _= •-___�� CO��tCtO� • r.�• �.Mr '� z�'Y,r'� `i;=;="� � ; i � s�'".-_ =— � �erv�ct a sreuwt swi[! ►A R K S �� .. � • r � � � ir"�c'tirxs� �ti�r �[��*sr1 ... �Sc � G��Ot St �[ x � = t i . - _ �•�H.•� � r7 � ' =r.7[.,,;;�� . ��=}[�y� 1 �t* t ' • • ' �= 0//IC! Yf! NlIGN�O�NO00 •��.w� + ��I1t0�0 ' z�"�[ r� . - - �7f �1 ��7[��,,�"t.r"s� '�,�xj= *�� '� ' • wwiE�/lOMf COMMltCIAI tOM1+tJN�Tr � nEsttv! Q •••••••• � w r i D I�• y S� r < � ��_ '�! Jr,�l� _t ��r �ir=r � � ' = � J[ � i �r�=,,=i,�][ Y71 = �� 7[� �_ . . . - -� t� ��f[ • _ � x � �at �['�cf[�a �.a� ■ �! ' _ —= ''" � "'�x* _ �'r-` �'_',►' �"�* ,: '_::: -- � , . ` .• • s� i�a=axr�=��" _ic"Yj � � :;::: � -- _ _ THE SITE ' �' •i �'�.• �r"�r'�xx =zar � -_ �'¢ ��'�:'h� . . . . . - - - - - - - — - — _ ._ - - -- = -_ `�� Z''r'�.�ij�t � • ,_ — _- ==— - _ _ - — - _ _- _ —_— _ - - � � �.... ..;�� •_ ; � �t ■x�:i �t�x�'tir a ' ... -z-- — - ---_-'--��--- -_ -_ _ _ = - --- --_- __ ---'� �' � s�sr�rs==: _ •�" l� 7t L i ■ rt= t • . o�' .. wrG. ��.�i�..rw-- _ 1 . � • `� `,y, � � � . . . '_ - �/ • �i�=� X�*� . . . � � �� •r•_ " �•�-�•. =: . '-- : �T": 1,f_ :� . ' �'/ ,';t �.♦ ��. . �,� f �y� . �_. f� . •. _�� ' '-'- - t� � �_ . . . .'r ��i Y � i J'�'Y .... "'� /�' • • . . w�. . .. - �/ X 'i = �xi \ '�\,' � ' �'�I)) � Yi f i D' i . . -� '_ `./ ' ' ' I' �. /`� \ _ � �v`=�� l �f+�`IrV:.�•)d��-l�i:I.l •• • ^ � .. .. ft �. /' . � `�* ■ • I' .� ]��'�"✓ i • • '� ^ 11 .t : . . . . . . i t , i �� ' �'.r.,. r�' •� • ]f� k X X X � 1 � ' . • f�•. �'!.y ). � � � • 1 Y 1[ Y� • ; . . . . . 1 �* ': ' � �� ;�;+�+�r:� � . . . . � �ti v • - �� `� _ . •.��::�� .... � • .... .. . � .4 :..:... €. . . *,�� , � ' \ + � � ' • 'j �� :: � - - - _ • . . . . . _ . • .l� � � _ � t / � ► :. KY�i�t a a ■ {-� `� . � � ♦ �i \� ` •1 //. ..: :7 :./;SI::.. �---- _ ' __ . , _ - sJciLnJlJ yf� � � \ / S' � `` �� j 'I.":S:'::: .�. - .<�fJl�Yltt �`� / u '� � ' . � \ �\ � :T� : �� : t : :� � :� �� r i. �i b w.r .r... � � _ � ' �,, �, � �t' ' " `� �\ �� . ,��;,-* -►- � � . - �� . �� :. �o-a. �« . �► � � \ \ � %,�\, , _ .~ ` , ` < < �` , ` � \ t � / , �,._ - — _ "�K' /, � \ ��'�+Ziy'! „'�� `'� �` • �, ' �, �- _ c . ��` I\ / �-.�'C _ — — ` �;'�. � �\ J ♦ ,C;_ ` � � t :. � • _ ,2;oa,� --��-_ . � ``` �.. � ' s�: - � � _ � . ��. �, '�� . .<� _—� — � � � � � � ��l. f � �� - v. •• �.+ - ,� ' — i ` --r�- � � � � � (,-. � .� `t`, ' J _ — , ` ` � ' , , �:r: ,%'r�� -, r ' � , � ��:�L � d /^� �/. --- � �� `� �. i � .`.�'- � f � �/� /� L� • ♦ {,C .�I '\ � � �.�\ \ , . y� C i� � �s��• 'G � � � n*, ! � V ` ,`'t � � � •. .`t�� ,•�(�,1 � R�•�t ` V �,/ J, / �� r ` � �� • � \ 1 • I `` , ` C • Ay ''j• / `\� �. � � . . �� i�, ; � ,� . . i � • � � ��\ ' i� � � i � ' � t _ : �, � � � � .f � � � �r S�'• '�., N' / ,�' .: dV`i ' .'M� �' � ' t; `� ,� - \� ... , r��:^ ', l� ', J v -% �r`�� . / � r � ,�/� � Y � , . . ; • � :. .�.4, , v ,, -. .:� � � � 11 \ ' � ` '�( � � '� L � . . �..�.. , �. �i c �.�, . � / � �-� P �: �r F� , � � �, � :;• ��:ti; .� /� ,�'�� '.,.:' /� � `� � � y. �.;- �'�. � •. ' , �:`• ' • c ' {�� `� � , �^�.. � � \,f• • � =: � � • �...?f� , ` � �, � • Y • • ^�. ` .. . � `� P ♦Y' . ' � 5 ;, � `• •' .., .- � � >�\ � d =� � ' � � '�� ^ `.f° :;`` �,, . ' �C � ', t. .j r \` � V � . .•i , +� . /i � . ,.. , � \ . ��' ` , /. % , .. ,. /'� 1� � 1, �! � .... t .��,f „�' �� I � I � � � �+ �j � ri�r ��/ ��'; �' �� .� � . � ' _ R � 1 C N � �- :.. �- •-. ,, � % ., • �� , �' � ' ' � ° = f � � �� . � /� ti � �" - - � _ � ,�, / � ' - 1 I �� ' ^ • •�• ___ � �^� . GENERAL PLAN ciTY oF BURLINGAME GENERAL- PLAN - REv�sED _wPA�� z�._1975 eY . � . STUDIES 1�ESOLUTION NO-23 - 75 � San Francisco Bay � I{� j' I� �i II ! �� ,�..!I 'r ;i {c. � Exf�ting Office/ Warehouse Use i ��''��' , Otfice/ � �u�ant Use � � �e /,`e . Q� / �a'�� —� � / / / / � / / / i / / / � P�oposed Road / /, � � � / � ( � .. ---�---- - - = - '_ . -- '-�--- �9 Lagoon Parking & �� ' SeaBreeze Plaza Proposed OfNce Use /� Airport Boulevard Facilities —___...._.. -- � I _ _ .__.. .--- �----=-��_ __. _..-=_"_.--�,:� =-'-- •-'-_ -....__ ..v__... Lagoon �- --- ._._ . __ _ _-- --_._ ---_ _ _.. -, ____�' � -- - _�:._ __ . :::.-=_»,.. Site Location North ' � � � LOOKING NORTH EAST WITH BAY AND LAGOON IN SIGHT s� ' y j/r �, , , �s/. i.t,, _ _ � ;' ` g a ' �� a .. '��. �� \�'� •:, .�. �"� ...� a .. "M � � � �� .-<xs � � °�� < „ . .. .:.a;.. . .... , '": .,_ . .- b.�.:,.m.'�"��.�' . kecz � ,�`F`:"�� ',,,, .."",-�'As� � . � � �'.�°'�. � � ti % � �` °W Y3 .. �..�. .. � ... . . � .... .. � WP`"" ��a" � a.. ` .�, , .. �.a.; .. �"� .��"`��.o �� , aa � ",� � � „ � .,�. • - :y .. z��.:�'N v � �c. ,,, �" � �s:: ,, ��« - „� "�p"' . _ ,�>: _ � � . . '� _._.... . ,w. x�� ak�,. "� ,,.�� ,��c.�a , � . -s�.�� ,�, �ea, � � �`...� � �� .. � �g•� : a"�'�"' .< �`"' ' ,� a � `'�a'�" �,�a�e.... �„"< '+,�„ 'N �. .,�...� � �*` ��:. °"'�:� .. w ': � `��C �� " �'�'.,�`�q�"Se ^. _.s��. �.. � �' �...P#'Sr�,.�`' -�,� �++�*`- � �.: .» a .a ,"'� .,�`�' .e a� s. �$ . . :, .:.�._.�:�,�',�, .."`�°�, - �� : � ��..� -�- ` , �� ' . .�w .�"S�`t ��°�- .u.� '� � � �..� ..� � ..�� e''�' �'� ,r. «... .. � < .� �s� �� _..b ��J�� ,�� . ' °'�,.� ...� �� .� & a#i �^� «,�»� - -�� , � �. +�..: `'�",.' ti' s..w . �,�,,..�". 'a .UF° . , , . ... . �. , 'ae r- � • ...� . .. ` �*�.l,a`s+. . i.o ....� ... ��a"i�� a �� ,�� •"� ." °°Ar"F �� a;: C. _ � �" �: ,�,; «�- x��`; � �;` � ��, ��A�. �: ,�e w� �a. «��a _.. �:a�`"�... - � �� «r. , �' .;�.: : '' ��.�.* > � �` :.�R�vc .,�, ` e'�� '� �S , ��,�� ,,'�sl�� . . � � .. . � � � ,g, � . �� r'. �*.'�P', �.. � ` -� a`� a�� : � � ya. .; �� s;� � `a" . �e"`� ` :�`.'I s � • • • s � END OF BAYUIEW PLACE LOOKING EAST � PROJECT DESCRIPTION Design The office building scheme involves two wings which are separated by a common lobby area. The wings are offset from each other in such a way as to afford the best possible views to the occupants of • San Francisco Bay and the adjacent lagoon. The ends of each wing are sloped to again lend emphasis to the water views. The building is also situated in such a way as to minimize its impact on the existing surrounding structures, as well as the known future projects which will be built in that area. This is mainly achieved by having the building slope away or "lean back" from the two existing and one � proposed project to the west. This configuration leaves a rectangular open space across which all buildings may view the Bay. (�`\ I ;� The Northern boundary of the site will be developed to include sidewalks, curb and gutter, and a paved vehicular access leading to the shore of the lagoon. Along the shore of the lagoon, there will be developed a � landscaped public recreation area and bicycle path. It is the intent that the pedestrian access will encourage public use of the lagoon shore area, which is presently inaccessible except for the hardy. • It is expected that the building will yield approximately 106,000 gross square feet. The project is being targeted for executive offices • starting at 500 square feet. The main amenities that will be offered • - 11 - � �, in order to attract top quality tenants, are a dramatic two-story high lobby, a gymnasium, sauna, 7ocker and shower facilities, a vending and coffee shop are.a, unobstructed Bay and hill views, and pedestrian access to the lagoon. �� -� —Sa-►�e--�ne existing grade for LotW is approximately 5' below the `�e �.s.�,pcaW-fCl �r�;orc:�"l� �;il adjacent land, �',*�vu�a-��i-de�o use this natural depression for parking. Consequently, the first floor of offices is approximately 4' above grade at the lot lines. A bridge leads from a main access ,� �----�--- - .._ ._ ___ _ _ _ ---- ;> •' point to a plaza and into the main lobby. Additional parking is '��`� � ti•:�t eu�. � �1 provi ded on two el evated decks whi ch connect di rectly to the fi rst �•��,.�r�-. .�,? �,�,� �.��s �.��i� :�,,,�t_ � floor lobby. There is also a bridge connection to the lagoon �� 6z..-� ��I�� , ;;f�. • waterfront which shall be developed in accordance to the City of ��- Burlingame's Master Plan. The exterior of the building is to be sheathed in reflective glass to mirror the sky and water which � surround the project. � � � J�v Z� c� ��x� �7�`F � d �l ,._ �?>�.� ! " � � ��\ � `!� O:'1 .4,�f, • A total of 359 parking spaces s#a�� be provided� Of this number � 256 will be in the depressed part of the site.� The balances of the ��' parking spaces shall be distributed between two decks which connect directly to the main lobby. It is anticipated that the deck parking � will primarily serve for visitors, the handicapped and service vehicles. The structural system above grade consists of five suspended concrete � slabs spanning between reinforced concrete columns with drop heads. � - 12 - Lateral forces are primarily resisted by reinforced concrete shear- • walls and transferred downwards into the foundation system. The structural system at grade and bel�ow consists of a reinforced • concrete slab on grade, coupled by means of drag bars to reinforced concrete pile caps. The pile caps provide a moment transmitting • connection between the column and shearwall system above and precast prestressed reinforced concrete piles below. These friction piles are driven to refusal in a dense sand gravel stratum as recommended in the Soils Report. \�' � The mechanical system that is being designed for SeaBreeze Plaza is � one that involves the use of a central variable volume coaling system operating in conjunction with a constant velocity "skin" heating and cooling system. This system has found favor among both governmental � authorities and owners because of its low energy operating costs. � 1� -� � The location of the mechanical equipment was an architectural concern � from the inception of the project. Because of its restricted height, it was necessary to provide a clean roof line, devoid of the usual mechanical equipment up on the roof. Instead, all major mechanical � equipment is located at the basement parking level, where service is more easily carried on and where operating noise can be more effectively treated. • The cooling tower and the boiler are set aside from the rest of the air handling apparatus which is in the basement core area. These • - 13 - • • • � � \"� � �� G \� items are located within a retaining wall filled with earth berm and set off by shrubbery, so that natural aspiration of the boiler and heat rejection of the HVAC system can be accomplished without inter- ruption of the building's sight lines. Energy sources for the building have been limited to electrical means of driving the open reciprocating refrigeration compressors and fans, and low pressure natural gas for the boiler. Operational cycles that have been recommended as part of the State of California comprehensive energy plan have been included in this system. The field erected main fan room will be fitted with an economizer cycle designed to introduce cool outside air in lieu ofi mechanically refrigerated supply air. For the location in Burlingame, it is estimated that this feature will save approximately 40% of the annual operating hours of the two 100 HP compressors. During the unoccupied night cycle, all refrigeration is locked out and the building is permitted to lose heat until a pre-set lower temperature is achieved. This setback provides savings in heat expended at night and provides cool thermal storage for air conditioning credit when morning start-up occurs. � ti1�U -�u;uii��i�-� rr . - 14 - • y . � y .r��1.h, �y'j,. ... . �'� .. � � .1w J4 .. � '. F,f.i C �t.'.. +. �, �� .f ,. � i. ' y � ' .'�'MT� �,'�1� r :��r�: t P'� 1 � ' 1�� -.' . � � ...�Yr`� ,r..te . N`�'i{ 1t rr . r�. � fl }� �i.Rp��a . � '. !y� � Irr+� ,�,: .g�� 1 j r � �, � �. ; � � .. a� � �r y K ti i � �} i 1 �P l: � I&�� 1: � 1 '.y'! �'t:t :� y' ^ � s• r n �t.� }5��• �� . . � t��a...�...<.,Izf<ic...�.e�i3. � _ . � i 1.: (��. �. � �. J� . f - iF': �, y., .�.. . ... �f.._�,..1 . n �., .. l .....�.�.. ..dL .�.'�..�7Y..�:.��f.w l4t...n.�_�.. :C:;� j' .'L' .��y.1 �-f.� � N/ ' � l� �YI 1 � ��' �. �`�� :�� + � � � .�. f f � ,T.•.�'�' � _� '�ti. � � �` y � .r�i, �"� �, �,y �� ' - � - �.►..� �� ...� r ;��`�,;��;.r.•'�a Yr-;'�. � F�b�i° �� w'%�'t- t�a.� . � i�1 - ,. � .. �►s7 r - .� � V 4: ;, •,: ; ��. ,� .. �i�� . s-��. a. ��1� �+. � ��i. �` ' � 3 � a �: . `�, i'P Z� �4��,� ` �jw;.�; � y�� d; � r' y� ," . � y` ��y , �`��i'#�'�Y�l1 R� ` ��,,y('��;�. ��fZ. � v yp � . 5t� .f.i . r t � . 1 ��'y �,� t' �. t . A.. ,� ; . - a�r �' t�f , ,,� ;�, ,�' �,s, ,., � � k � �i � � • f � �1 � � 1 hS f� '. , +i �. + � lY ttti i� ��J`�ti,f p � �+`(�y y 7��v� . . , ��..'��, �x, ..` �,:yr� ��j�yE't� ,., ?4� � ,X' s � � � • ' ` "�', � �)f ."t�r�� iT , � 6 � i� �. r , . . �, i ` . F � y, i a �. r .�`,�y . � a`�a'��: . . t l : `F4 y {`: .�; . .q�i�;�'gs} 1 x i�' l•: � ' ;' �i� ' . .9 ., , ' �� .. . ' � � , � �. � c��w@� � : �e , �� d � ? � '.' � t ... ,. � K �4 t ` . . �4 f !� ipY�.��,3 �y�, f � r �' � ;{ t iJfY,,^R'� �2� 5� �}� ^1 �., ��' • . y,f�,� � q ��u�W i� ar r � ' � � � • , y{�l��lx,�F��' � ay� 4�>f Fyt.Y,�� I , i € � �� ,S�t�S*��t ?' � Y �* � . � �4�'y,. ,� '�Y��Lu�}K � � �t . a, �i �u� , , q, � . n. K � �� ;�,�' ��°.l�.� ^t�'' � �,�, 2 r,r�. • 1i'. i. ?«��a x'�i q,�' Y, y; t . ...a;. � � ae � �- � � � � � �� a� 5 �� ..� ry �ri 'x . �,�1`.ij�L� �� IR i ;�h�� . vX2 � E�j.r '�n�.�!y�r� � � �vT � y>i� i a �j � + �i �,��,, � �4 :�t' ��, ; -.: ��,��`,� 'o. � t rw� a +s � s � ,,� �• �,�� 3 ;�t� ;�} � i � t� �q'��,tJ��i�; f Yp� �4 t�1 .. � J'1�� Y f�� , �,��r 4 'p�+�'I i. 71 � i� a`F �� '�q �. 7N � F � � ��j7 ��y � Y�`�� R j � 4 . JY �E��'• t � . .��M�'r i� �y i � � iI �i�'.fy t � `y . M ,��.}�r ��' .., . � . ��t� �w }, } i� �s��r�i ;� . )» >��+*;J�K i;i' � + 'MI . � �S;��;��,�.�. �' ' . � ��i' fi ' n h. '.V;`1� , Yc s a H �j � r �' J#s 4 �,��^^''z',��,ay�p�'��, .".t . � •. ' ,;y±�� . � �,�i`,�•� .. �'�,�1',�`.: �: . .{� ��G r f ��.}a,t �� .��y `: r` 'tv t }e �I,�,,�, � . o � ��'�`f�'di�i ;6�". i4 yw� y ,. P ]IR + • .�� "(.��'��';, tt 1b,* ry .. "�.,.'�. � } ,5.�.� � �r,,, .Y .� : y �#�- ��'h' � 11� ;� ��.Y�, 7 - l p� � � �R j ; �, f. �z ;r�„ �� tiiy,•: � C � : L � . . '1fi3� � {4�" �i ��' ��' ��T��r. d : t �'Y' � +' ' ,:`'�.,...' , ,, �`�b��ti��,� � '`� �;; �:• �•t� „��:. �� . � �ti ��,�� 1 �� r ' `. r�Y .+•�i � , ,��' i'��y�.i. , , .�n� . +�'�^� �.. .��. �� 1�1. ry �#.� . , !'ty5 �� ! '' � !+ .' � ��#�� ' `� 1 �{ `�'"� ! �i �f �. rE _ �!'i��.�x?� - �_� �' `I ;t � �. ' � ��,� r � ,�, . J( ' �_ �.i� aa . t � a�� "�',, �y , �� A�"'� _ - - �..s`s�!?M .x �: �'1 f � � � � � � � 3 I. N I R� N G I 5 G O B� Y � ..�..o.��..�.� M.�a ��..,, � '°�.A.�',...� . � �M� .__....� �w.�.....�.,,�.�a_ �.......�_..,._.,_. a. :�..�: �:: �, wwww.�:'.�+.M�ww:.:� ..�.r. ��—�. r..�ea'�'�`�oy �wr�r SeaBreeze Plaza w�i[�rtw Yw�W111.4 sia uv[�r n�u r. �� .. � � n SITE OEVEIOPMENT PLAN � � uw.-1 n�.w' w.r�'o'a•�. � uwo�c.vw ,.wr. —�. i � :.�� _��„ ��..,�. :� � .�,��.� , ��, , --- --- ---- --- � _ -�w i . . . - --- --- - -- -- -- � - -;� � - - � � � � .� �..�.�..o ,...,. ---. •tl.N� 11.01�1�'Oi' �. l�T i , .._,..v..a,.r..o. � .s,,,. �..,..o.. ...�. : e � �...�.. ...o. .;�.: � W..o l�GL�' (M�Q. �M�w�� ua�� 4s:r � rrir�i � � ��Yy��r rr�rr�r��atirw�• Y`w� �4Y �� . hs�r� � L I V I i u I I �/ SeaBreeze Piaza �� W Ili LL\FL 11/ � PAFIKINO LEVEL PLAN .�. Z � � � a � � � ,.�,..v.�.,.,.�.d. . m. a,,., a. �.. o.. ., �. ..,. ,�.e. �.,.�.. ...o. .e �..-o., ,.,.e....o .d,.�..w ..��.µ..R � ...,....._ I �...A..r.......�.. ��..,� .'��". ��= .�,,:��.`r.:.=� � SeaBreeze Plaza �rr�onrry u�e�� FIpBT FLOOti AND PLAZA LEVEL PLAN rrn�w.a raruan i16I FIOOl1� NN! IOEI fIL 3 . �� t��!�}t� 1 �� . � � �39 ��i�j�r $�� 1, E�,ti,i�t �� i �t;�s;;�� m � � � , .� N � a� m N � cii a 3 5 � $, � �II �I � I � a s � { �—. , � ,..,��,.,� +,.,�� ,,, _ � i � � �� 1 �° z � � � O ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Climate and Air Quality The project area experiences a marine type climate similar to that at the San Francisco International Airport. The winters are relatively mild and wet; the summers, dry and cool. Because of the marine influence, the daily and annual tem�erature range is relatively narrow. Temperatures in the project area range from an average high of 69°F (degrees Fahrenheit) to an average low of 48°F for a mean temperature of 58°F. Prevailing wind is from west to northwest, light in the morning but increasing in strength in the afternoon. The average wind velocity throughout the year is eight miles per hour, although in the summer months the average increases to twelve or thirteen miles per hour. Severe storms and gale winds occur only occasionally; however, unusual wind velocities of firty '� miles per hour have been experienced in summer, as well as winter. The afternoon winds, together with a typical morning overcast, are responsible for the generally cool summers. Winter rains (December through March) account for about three-fourths of the average annual rainfall of about eighteen inches. i The air quality in the vicinity of the project site is generally good. The site falls within an area where there are approximately 15-20 days per year with high oxidant levels (.10 ppm) (See Figure 13 - Air • Pollution Contours.) The•major elements of air pollution are most likely from automobile and aircraft sources. • - 15 - �, � '- � �Y ..i�• :�T:= . ..�+ �.. " �..� .� . ' :.�. �� . • . - ' � ` . � � • ' � - � • . � ��. c� � f� {J i � �•' �" . ��` � A1R POLLUTI�N CONTDURS . � ;�� . ` �'1, '� ' �+� � `�`~ � -� •'�,� .�.•� .��'= { . �� ... Jt�,�'�� :�.'•` ,' — , r �.. �.�� _ � .� � �,. .� � �� w� . �� I ,.,�..� ,�.�.� �' t: �:- � , � �/•!`M T •, •� -� ' �; . . � -- .-�� i� �C�i � �i: .»..�. . � �' I � I �.. � . , � ,. � !��:: I � � '� \�� r�, '� % `�:� .�� r�-"r � � �� _ . i , ;,; r�� `� �'•�— ..� '�� ../ ' � T `�� .t� � .i � r�' '•`~ �O—.�' '�• . , � ,L ; �.=: 4�1� ; . ;., � - • ! � � � •! � i ��.,,,,.,,. '/� .� • �� ww� ` • � �\�', �1q�ii r �� ~�C7' � �� :7�, �r �� 'r�t � .•• ! •w•...�� r�•.�• �� 1 � t �` •r � ; J'. • w� . � ��) ��t�.. . .,. . \' �•li ��A•Y �' •� �� 1 � �l\ % �..t�`�� `r"`"� �.� �O • �/.�. \�� r'�h �.�R` r��• j• �i + � . :� �: � �'.. . ~� �1 i � I/� ? •,+.. • A� '` �S`� � ,�.�r �� . `�•� ��'.• � �i� � ♦ ,� ' ` ��. , �• ?T`�,.� �'�j� _ � 1+� � > y� � � V�' � �. ^ � '� � •' � � �� • �~ • � � �. • . . � � ��:, � i • I � .�. ..� 7� � i � ........ :i ' �'' _ : � : �� 6070 � '" � ' S 0 , �. `�� :,.r , . � ' � 1 'r ' — —• <• � . �: � `r•�.._..�-- — — ... � �J► ' � �(� � 90 ` ti r�•�� M• .A�• • � n •S � . r �. N � 1 ,' � :� �� ' \ \• � � • • ,^� '' . • ' w , �Y ,• �� + '-� iI� � �� • � �i� ^ • �� `. . , .��. �f� � / �` � �� ` i� = .; ��''-, �..�• ` i � •� � � � �~ � �I • � ' i';'`�• �\ Va t r- r . . :..` �.. �.� ♦• �: � . . � � -„ :` _l � ��.�. ! — �nr'r� �.`M'� � f � •^ - � � 1. 1 I � , . ' � .� \` �. I 1 � � � :.`� � • 1•.. . . � • �� . �``\' �� ,J • ,�j +. • _ ��, �' .• ` 'i'. � . . • � � ,�n �/I. • �t � i ' '�� , � �♦ • -�. � . . � � • �J ,h �. .� •rw f ♦ • • � . � •• , • • .:'t.` � , N� . ..L.r .`.1 .�..�... r :`; ,.`� • • . .. ; . . .. . �' . � �;�`�� . ..•..t . � _. . �. r- � � • • . ;t ;-�. .= � — _ � �.r� .��r.�.V�, 's� �.. .. .� �� 'K�. •�"',�'. •. �1t�� . . .\ '��• • � �. `,+ � .. • . 1��+. :• , '• 'ti�: • _ � � '� 1 ti�` � w y — _ -,� •�w"'��'�• • �'• ~ •r.1t•.'i. t :. • . ' � �" ".� . ` � i L� �`� � • � �� •�� •.�::.'�t:�; .�, ,.�. _ �.'_ „ : ' �(��s� • .�.� •�;�. 't�_,_�..' . _ •. - , . .��fv ..•�.��a �• � � !: • � • �•. . . ��'\ i . '1 �•`` �,� � � • -� • • • ' � :�� i \ � �� • . . �_ .. "- ' ' ♦ ��J�` �.�} 1 � r�• w •� �,.. •t�• . . `'i.. � , . . . M � �� .� «�� :~ � • � • ,. . ��i;: + ' � �.� � � �v"'w '` r�rw�� •,� ��. �" . ��' . 1�+` � .• • ' `�';' -� '�,�.� . t � � :�'��'� ' `1 '� . . '.�.,.', : , .�,•.� ' • _ , � ^= y .�ti�, �?y . , ��; ��:� •;•:�.� ;. .•_ , .I * �� t: �:.� ' .. �i.�, a. . -- ' . . :►� � r � • 1 , � i �, . . _ . . _ - � '� 'l ; •'� ;�:. '... � • ';,_� `.•�.• '. : .S'.�.,+• , � � •;� : � •�.. � � , 'i�'. • •� ` :: �. ,i � :�• � . b• �� . . .. . .. . • � �,' • , r'7` � 't' � � � • •' � l. .,�'� '�• � .� ' • , , _ ' .', �� w . .I �� i�j � � I � 1 . � •.•tt ��a�,. �• � • i , • � < � � � ._�.� �\� • ' �'` ' , � _ � � •� y � • �,'• • � ` \ . �� 1 J ir y '�`` i -`" ��1. .1 •� ! ��.�;`� ..��. 1. .;. ' '• . . , `- � "- \•1 r// � �� '' ' �' �; '•, ��.: _` , ; " _.� :� —• _ .�, ..' l V �. •: . ,,i. . � . .,. 1 : .�: . , �� . . . ,� �i �` �� ,� [:�` � . � ;��• . .�'.t�.; ; � �. , �� r��. �f: •'�n• �',a .. • , � i�' . • ►.-•� ' . � � I, � ��! �.C.•��+ ♦ y��. ' •/• _ � � ' !ti� ' • -. ' r � ��. � . _ .�.. �• �t V ��\ r�� ` '.^ , ' , ,.�'. `,'_ . ' '. . � " • • •• • ` ~� �� • / ` + y�^' �I,: .. 7�. • �•: �-:. •.i �' � u/' f� rr ��• � �� i.� �% , �'�A1�t+ J�L `70 , • �� . � _. J . L � ?entative qeoqraphic disL-ibutton oi days per yeac wtth . 10 ppm hiqh hour oxidant, based on 1969-1970 BAAPCD data. ., ... . . _ :;', ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING i -. .. .�. . �. The project site is situated within the northern part of the Coast Range Province which extends from San Francisco for about 200 miles to the Transverse Ranges in Southern California. The Coast Range landscape is characterized throughout its length by a series of rugged, • subparallel, northwest-trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. This regional landscape is reflected in the study area by the flat Baylands Valley which trends northwest parallel to the nearby Burlingame Hills located west of the site. ' � The geologic structure of the area is complex and known only on a regional basis. The structure has been molded by orogenic events and is characterized by extensive folding, fracturing, and faulting of � variable intensity. Regionally, the folds and faults trend north- westerly. This trend has been responsible for the erosional development of the region's pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley � system. The oldest bedrock formations of the study area (Jurassic- Cretaceous) have been subjected to repeated episodes of deformation and are intensely and complexly folded, faulted and sheared. By r comparison, the youngest formations (Late Quaternary) have been only mildly flexed. Under the Bay and around the Bay perimeter are very young (less than 10,000 years) unconsolidated bay sediments which are flat-lying. These deposits overlie older, more compact sediments, • - 1F - locally several hundred feet thick, which in turn overlie old basement rock. The study site is considered to be in a region of high seismic activity, • as are all the sites in the San Francisco Bay area. It is possible that an earthquake having a magnitude equal to or greater than those � which are known to have occurred in the past may occur during the economic life of the proposed structure. Relative to other Bay Area localities, the damage intensity in the Baylands area of Burlingame • was high (IX on the Ross-Fore1 Scale, Carnegie Instutute, 1908) during . the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The 1976 Uniform Building Code requires a seismic design factor as set forth under Section 2314. No specific figures are given for soil�v�.J`� , slopes and fills, but professional soils engineers will be retained � and their recommendations followed. In recognizing the possible effects of an earthquake activity on the planned building, a reasonable balance should be made between the probability of the occurrence of an earth- � quake that produces a specific acceleration and the cost associated with resisting that specific acceleration. This parallels the approach taken in the SEAONC and UBC design recommendations with the introduction � of the "I" factor in the equation V=ZIKCSW. A number of soils investigations have been performed in the vicinity of � the project within the last year by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers. While there is a local variation of � - 17 - the subsurface conditions, at the three sites which fall within a mile of the site along Airport Boulevard and which bracket the site, certain similarities of geology are apparent and a general under- � standing of subsurface conditions can be gleaned. Soil Conditions The site is a part of a reclamation project that was developed by filling a low tideland area. The filling reportedly was done in the late 1960's. Fill soils, which range throughout the Anza lands in depth from three to eight feet, overlie the project site. The fill consists of silts and clays and contains some debris. This siie is one of the older and thus more stable fills in the area. • The natural soils immediately beneath the fill consist of highly compressible soft clays (bay mud). These soils range from four to twelve feet in thickness within the area but borings on adjacent properties indicate a probable thickness of about four to five feet. Noise The General Land Use Recommendations of the Interim Airport Land � Use Plan adopted 2/28/73 by the Regional Planning Committee states that a commercial development of this type in a 65 CNEL area is "satisfactory, with little noise impact and requiring no special � insulation requirements for new construction." : s O � The other noise factor in the vicinity is the Bayshore Freeway. However, the project is adequately buffered by 600 feet of open space and landscaping. Noise effects are minimal. Within the project, noise will be maintained at a minimal level due to mandatory speed limits of 10 m.p.h. and the relatively short distance which can be driven. There will be a minimum of through traffic; the majority of the automobiles will be stopping within the facility. The project will not draw,large, excessively noisy trucks. Biological The site presently consists of a cleared and compacted vacant lot. o vertibrates or evidence of their habitations were observed on ``',�.�-�'"" f the site, although. rodents may be presumed to occasionally pass f � ._ _ �through the site and a variety of bird life to fly over it,� Some hardy native plants, particularly lambsquarter, are found in scattered portions of the site. The greatest amount of plant • materials near the area occurs in the landscaped areas across the street from the site at the Purdy Building. • ; � Z� Since the site does not border �h�e--B-a�y-�o�r the Lagoon, its appeal as �`��f' a habitat is limited for marsh dwelling species which constitute the predominant ecosystem of the Anza Park area. None of the animals 0 � - 19 - � on the Department of the Interior's "Rare" or "Endangered" species list are likely to make use of, or be encountered upon, the site. Traffic The traffic generation (volume of traffic to and from a building) is a function of the usage of the building. The present traffic situation is one where little traffic is observed at non-peak hours. Airport Boulevard basically serves only the existing office buildings with hardly any through traffic during these non-peak hours. Through traffic is normally confined to the Bayshore Freeway. During morning and evening peak hours, however, there is considerably more traffic visible. This traffic presently has free flow capability in that Airport Boulevard has been designed to accommodate up to �wo million square feet of office space and one million square feet of hotel and commercial space. The critical strictures on access, as investigated in the Drachman and Blayney reports are the intersection capacities at 101 and Bayshore and at Airport and Coyote Point Road. � These reports indicate a present A and B service level and reserve `�1 capacity for future development. (These reports are attached as Appendices A & B). r Utilities The master plan for the street and utility systems for the project • was basically developed in 1967. Although it was not known what the • -20- ultimate building layout would be when the utility master plan was designed in 1967, that initial master utility plan did envision a. heavy use of utilities comparable to what will be required for the Master Plan, which was eventually proposed in 1974. Consequently, the utility systems which have been installed, along with those remaining to be installed, will be adequate to serve the proposed Project and will meet the latest requirements of the various Utility Companies and City of Burlingame Departments involved. The bulk of the utility systems required to serve the Project are currently in place and all of these existing utility systems were designed, • constructed, and inspected under the jurisdiction of the City of Burlingame, PG&E, and PT&T, are of the latest modern type and quality, and all are in excel]ent working condition. Although the bulk of the utility systems lie within Airport Boulevard, � the construction of which was completed in 1970, the 1967 street master plan called for the connection of Anza Pacific Boulevard east and west across what has since become the Anza Lagoon (Outer Lagoon) and � the current Utility Master Plan has thus been amended to fit the Lagoon land use configuration. The fact that 11.2 acres of land is now being utilized for the Anza Lagoon is a plus factor on the utility systems as � that area will not now be used for structures that were originally to contribute loads to the various utility systems. • • - 21 - Water Distribution Generally, the water distribution system is designed to deliver a minimum of 4,000 gallons per minute with a residual pressure of at least 20 pounds per square inch (psi) at any given point within the Development, which is the City of Burlingame Fire Department and Insurance Underwriters fire fighting requirements for the Project. The water fire flow requirements far exceed the daily use of the water supply by the Project building occupants and is thus the con- trolling factor in the overall design of the system. ��.� The existing water system is equipped with Burlingame standard Greenberg '76' fire hydrants which are approximately 280 feet apart and within the street right-of-ways. The proposed project will be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. The area is also served by an underground fire alarm system with Fire Alarm boxes and building � � connections per Burlingame Fire Department requirements. Water for the Burlingame City water system is obtained from the City � of San Francisco 60" diameter mains which pass through the City of Burlingame approximately one mile south of the project. The Burlingame w atersupply is pretreated by the City of San Francisco and is of � excellent quality. • • - 22 - �i • • • • • r C� Sanitary Sewer System Generally, the area's sanitary sewer system consis�Cs of epoxy lined asbestos cement gravity mains which flow to a sanitary sewer lift station located within Airport Boulevard. From the lift station the sewage is pumped via an 8" diameter, 3600 feet long force main directly to the Burlingame Sewage Treatment Plant. The existing lift station consists of two 7-1/2 horse power electrically driven pumps which are automatically controlled and has a capacity of 600 gallons per minute with one pump operating and approximately 750 gallons per minute when both pumps are operating simultaneously. The City of Burlingame Sewage Treatment Plant serves a population of approximately 35,000 people and is a modern efficient facility which has undergone extensive reconstruction during the past several years. Storm Draina.qe System At the time the existing storm drain pipes for the Development were sized, the Anza Lagoon did not exist and it was assumed that those 11.2 Lagoon acres would contribute runoff. The Anza Lagoon is subject to Bay tidal fluctuation through the porous rip/rap dyke at the Lagoon/Bay connection, and of course, will not now contribute runoff to the storm drain system. The existing storm drain underground system is therefore oversized and should be adequate to drain this project - 23 - • • • :�' ��;. � during the worst storm and against the very severest high tide and wind conditions. The project is adjacent to the upper end of a 21" � storm drain which flows southeasterly before terminating in the slough, however, it is proposed that an additional storm drain leading directly to the lagoon be constructed on the site. Electrical Power, Gas, And Telephone Systems The electrical power and natural gas systems for the project are supplied by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, while the telephone system is provided by the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company. With the exception of the existing three wire, overhead, streamline type of electric distribution systems down the center planter islands of Airport Boulevard all of the electric power, telephone, fire alarm, and street lighting conduit systems and services are underground. � - 24 - � !'y,�..,� � J �f�'�Y�/h� 9�y N.� / s:_ �- = G N! •' 7d ��1 S!1!'Y t�`a � ;ycd��rb- v�z�v�,�- ��-v�.1 s.�s ' GY�o� 7�1 � �/�1.»'7�' S!>.� 0 •`+•�alr.ts ' ' . . ='/'�� y�� sl.�sre,� ar�o� . ' ' ":y,7/�!7 �/��t t�s�,7� S�1 f/7/pN/ ��1 +� • . %>'�r/Y sb"� a'',7'/� � s� y� . . . �f'�'H'P �- :9�s'11�r.a� Y,►sd�/d/�'/ -- � —� � � ' � • . . H'� 'S�I C c7'�7/l�0� �Vd't ��7� �'i/A'/r � s�/i r+'/�'s�%'�,;5' 1Tv� COID Z/'RfF OI��i4�'/NC+ �/rilfixs's�tO�s/)J' �� .�.�� . ' . . . ' . . � � : s,-�.^.yf Y�f s � . . ��a�% .a, . . . n `Yb��/yi7a.��. �,o ��ri� �►o Z � . � so�d� � 1� • � � �v A� �y 6 f� �fi �,r.-..'�._ � rj� �:{/�C� a7a�'f'�I-g' •p �►s'�sbs+rtnos /r� s�� *+os /� TaC!^S s1 .t:�.%syh�> S!/ri1 p�►e/rs> >.7� � � /J'1 »��i ��i�' ' �%` \ r�sv�,> v��8 �i��d-s O-z�r0' ..�i� .ft a'�e��'s t 9� �ee�� 0 o�� _ _ _ �� -��'oda�iy , • .�.� j..1_ '� �_�-^ � -----_` 1== �_-��__� � � - � �`i i'7J /1qy;:'1 /�'Ob�O�'J b'1n'd� . _ , _ � � .L��o�Obs„/ � : ��v�s �1�N . � � �i�'��,�.r�s+,.o,•,� s�s!'o.rs� ��' � �\ � � e . �� `\ ` �� . \\ • � � 3:J il.�'i%/h' :�h' 1-�'��[i. � /'� ;,i /1'!�/S �'-��C `' 1'':� � � �'c> v'G �! c�1'O�'�,'%!� l�',Z/Yb' �V�'.�s�� a'�'/�3s �d'l�'..1 �/yl��5` � 0 wr �d'�'�Jl+� �!/�l1d�y/ A � �� .� � w�ss 7'N'1�Yar� S�f1I'�/pil1� �---�..-.. .SO�/i a � � � Y � � � � A �� '�'*�a7.r+s. . Mi!�.!' �7.!/�'✓I'/•y �'+ri�l.r i1�Y`/� � �rlyr i�/Ha�r� Oi � //rrr JVws s.n�. sry��..— t�j i►-ir�r 'i�+�ts- �iriny �'�'�'I► A��+�s E; � % /\ 0 t `��'J �wo-,�i,.� . . - � ��n8 . .ro �t1 �.� .rs�.�co� �i �'o svn,r �, : ��d�- r ) rla��y . /S'O/1d1s 1�'/7 �� . a.��,�5- ..��l�.ti/yys /'.r,.,.�.-�s .�.,., �,►v . C7/1%' �a,O � ��ia�.l+?7 �iif+ys �I^Yj�ib/509� r � �/_- ,r.�i� -,-�.'T.��a- `�c,'/b' _ /�'I�,� �,� lnvll�I`� .L»�i,r� � : � � ��` _ -=�-.7 .t/�'/'�d LA1/rLI�7Y � (-- �`_'' � y' '� . ` �b+/�'�is 3l��nr �,r y . �. �sq,p�+swrr..� w�vs��i+I> >.�.r.�s J - - _ ,,o •�t.,� ot /..��.�, � � /A'I'I+� ilie�+�9S 1�r✓sir+� . ( . � � g�'sv�.8 :Lfir� , fM1 ' � � s�I %�'/i OOy:E' . � � 1 �"'�'�'�' ys�+�s. . a `�� ► ' ( ^-. � . RI -�F1s'�'- v�+ �s �? . �i�r�/-s t-� /�•t,•J � �: �► r�sli.e� • • � . !A►'/sird� L /�"s/l/�sst ✓� � /�•rir �.+r p �+ sr��. � V �� + � — ��'"/7 �t 3Jd0�'d 1»rv�Yd .� � �: b"d M�,'!�, �C'v�' 1 � . /Yo o � b� 7 d?/Y� �1tJ►i►�+n�l.v.� //iAr �ro,....ar a.�,ris ..� � �, / /�•�i+- � ss ibn. n� �� _ � � � �\ � �\ �a \ . � � �' :J :��YJ//� :9 i;' � � � 'n'�:.is p"s�i�/13P /Yb'7� �� 1S1�1�1/ . >''d'6'c� 1��i'c�'/ y'.Z/Yb' ' . y1 S.�s �9b:�Y�6'd�c7 !�'d'C�LS' � . • %+y�•►+�r �ws�+r.� �. �ir� i+rrn! . I+.7b/S �/�II/rii' Ji�I'�b/►� �� ' • ' • . : s�otrH'�ts . • �n'Ob9d�jJ . �y,�' � , /Y/7a'�sr y� �1�J .�O ,S'�/Y6'7 �s��o�o�= � a :97l��S � � . • . �=�st�i /ril►►s I+�rst f. • /�J'b/Y 'C �� ' �►vr.r+� frs�vsN p� Q � . 0/� %8 „r(C,'Yv .-� 7' �Y✓17 ./1�s. >oys. � , . � �d � � �s!'oao � /~ry�'s•,•,- �•�.�'4 •t`. �� ^ � � ' � �� =�,, t'F • � � . , �d f �'ti + �a � � � � ;w i' � . �`�:1-�ain ,�� '�' �. �r � . �•.. �v �s. . (� sv9J Oi178 • /�'OO�t�7 . . �`� �/.�/�b's 0'�Nl� . � 6'ZNd' _ . . . /r/Yi/:s`�/I �7/w'7 /��9/�0.�N 1�l,�0.l�� :� � ��,y�� ' .y �!'c'� ; __�� ✓' i'Yl�7c� 2/�1 sb'!�Y �G %' 1�'Odd%V' d',1/Yy �71 � ii S' i( i do�.^.S' d'.�L O'/X %'+'rs-s� 391rn� �ar.r n� — — — %M�Jr'Y+� r'�sv/�I S:7 d' ^�/►��j s� s�a7 �� . : s�o�+�.rs . � . —�/•� �.�:-.�� r�ar� , . /`��'>i +' .�7 'is. ^ ?/ � . � �o� : e<.� Y`i � o o// �<�%l�Oy� j� � � 6'�'l�'/yj7�3'�� 'O �I1/ 1so�ao�' � � � r ` � yp s- :37b��,S o� oN�,� �r'•� �r�•r• �'�',ri-is+w ?/ h13'on/ , /�'��%"IGY.1lP1�� qI f � '� � /M'�r s�s�r�r�r� A � � �/�'11 �Iss'7/VdJ�17j;'cJ' � � • �rr+� y�sr�� 7i , �-/�+'�'iY irtl'/N, 9 r . � � ' /��y4'.7,�i�•��D/ '✓/�r�a� a . /�rY/v i.sil'/7►..vi � I �o•s s � , /y'I�h, . e+t y►.r, v � �sirr 7/ �� .�� J ��%O� %��/n /�� s.�.�, •� ^/ � � • . /4/NW . <yr.7oo� � � ;�;. ?` ' lY�' Z� � ;� t � '_!t� p / /� '�1, ., \ ` • O � �( �:�. .�iM1� � � /,� %, l.tr, �. ^�� aV/IS: . (1.v�J O� �8 . � ,'w,wuu:.�",Y:...:r- ; n ��.��•d b'a/Yd � b'.ZNb' _. _ _ � , ` =r r i� � . rirwsri►�►� ti • �r1i-�+� *i q /►'rrvr vr�r.,=a�� — —� ' / \e, //�'i7 �li.r�s��'S ��! �ey� �iri`w — _ , — — —�� 1 -��..9 /'�'ri► ;�rri�'.'�, � g � � _.� _ _�.._, � . � � � ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Climate and Air Quality The proposed development would generally have an insignificant effect • on the microclimate of the area. A shadow analysis of the proposed building indicates that shading of other properties adjacent to the development would be insignificant throughout the year. Air quality will be at its lowest level during peak hour traffic (7:00 - 9:00 AM and 4:30 - 6:00 PM) when employees and visitors enter and leave the parking areas. However, the amount of emissions from traffic to the project will be minor due to relatively low maximum speed rates and relatively short traveling distances. Geologic and Soil Characteristics On the basis of soil investigations it can be concluded that the primary geologic hazards affecting the proposed development within the site are associated with the settlement-prone bay mud subsoils and with severe ground shaking related to an earthquake generated on the San Andreas Fault. Danger of site inundation by a tsunami or flooding is considered very low during the economic lifetime of the project. Danger o�f flooding has been adequately mitigated by the existing permieter dykes. According to San Mateo County (1975), in � - 25 - the event of a 20-foot high tsunami runup at the Golden Gate, a 4-foot high tsunami runup may be expected at Ravenwood Point south of the site and an 8-foot runup at Sierra Point, north of the site. It is therefore felt that the existing perimeter dyke will provide the site with protection from a tsunami with roughly 200 year recurrence intervals. Because no fault traces are located within the site, the risk of creep or ground rupture due to faulting is too low to be calculated. In the event of a major earthquake, services and public utilities may be disrupted. The compressible bay mud underlying the site surface fills is shallow in thickness and is largely consolidated under the existing fill loads. The addition of new fill (as for parking and driveway ramps) and structural loads could result in additional consalidation and settlement. The settlement wou7d be differential in amount because of the varying characteristics and thicknesses of both the fill and the underlying compressible soils. ` Noise In the short term, for approximately one year, the effect of the construction of the development will be noticeable to pedestrians along the street and practically negligible to building occupants. Noise levels above 65 to 70 dBA will interfere with normal conversation, � and a noise level between 60 and 70 d6A can disrupt sleep. During • - 26 - construction, noise levels up to 98 dBA can be expected at 50 feet from the source. Construction Noise at 50 feet Phase Equipment from source Ground Clearing Excavation Foundation Truck Scraper Jack Harr�ners Drill Truck Crane Concrete Mixer Jack Hammers .. . . - .. .. - . . The most significant source of noise which may affect neighboring residents, in the long term, is that generated by automobiles entering or leaving the site. Within the project, noise will be maintained at a minimal level due to mandatory speed limits of 10 m.p.h. and the relatively short distance which can be driven. Also, the project is not the type that is likely to draw large, excessively noisy trucks. - 27 - Biological The proposed plan will require construction over 62q of the site, but since the site is now barren, the loss of negligible animal life and the sparse but common plant life will not constitute a major negative impact. Due to the present condition of the site, the proposed planting will provide a major positive visual and biological impact. Extensive tree, shrub and ground cover plantings will provide a pleasing visual aspect. The plant life will be a compatible element with the adjacent features and will provide necessary reTief from buildings, parking lots and garages. Such plantings, if properly selected, may also attract bird life to augment the transient fowl occasional to the area. It is proposed that 23.8% of the site area �.e, � +�:� 1 } ; i �n shall be landscapinq. This shall have a very positive __--__ --�—�---�— effect on what is presently a barren, compacted earth parking area which is sporadically maintained. Traffic This project will involve changes in automobile traffic patterns in the area. The principal source of trip generation data for this report was "Trip Ends Generation Research Counts" by the California Department of � Transportation. Based on this data we can conclude that the anticipated : �� F:r � ,.,t.f`� ♦ �� . �� ; �� ,� �5 �Y C'� t`� `' � ,�;,`� �'� 425 permanent employees of the building will have sufficient on-site parking with approximately 30 stalls being devoted to visitors. Also, based on the average determination that 10,000 square feet of building ,�-'` � �'.' area generates 70 trips per day, one can determine that �here will be • some 700 trips per day as a result of this project. Research data indicates that 24.0% of the average weekday traffic is concentrated at peak hours resulting in 168 cars involved at maximum loading. � � �30 � It is felt that the traffic generated by this project will have minimal impact on the existing thoroughfares, in that Airport Boulevard has been designed for traffic far in excess of what this project can generate. / , � ',, However, it must be recognized that future development in the area could • result in cumulative changes which would require additional improvements. Existing excess capacity at the northerly entrance to Anza Pacific, the Airport Boulevard - Bayshore Highway Intersection, is 47%, per Table 3 of the Drachman Report. (See Appendices) This merits an existing service level of B. � The existing excess capacity at the southerly entrance to the area, the Airport Boulevard - Coyote Point Road Intersection, is 66%, per Table 6 of the same document of A. r This merits an existing service level - 29 - • C� C: • .�zA �� '��\ � This project would generate, based upon the prototypical trip generation equivalences of the above-referenced report, adjusted for density of �-- — -- -- ----- construction, 140 trips during the evening peak hour. This would result in an increase in usage at the southerly access of 4%, leaving an excess capacity of 54%, and possibly reducing the service level to a 6. This would also result, at the northerly access, in an increase of usage of 4%, leaving an excess capacity of 43%, and leaving the service level at a B. The total acreage served by Bayview Place is sufficient to generate approximately 350 trips during peak evening rush hour. This is based upon full development of restaurants upon the State parcels, which would be the most traffic-intensive use, plus office space as proposed on Site W, plus a share of the traffic from the Purdy and Lo buildings which front upon Airport Boulevard, but have'access to Bayview. This is a very minor traffic flow and signalization would not be justified by this volume. This figure also assumes that restaurant and office usage would peak simultaneously, which is an unlikely contingency. SeaBreeze Plaza would contribute approximately 40% of this peak volume, which is, in turn, approximately 15% of the capacity of the roadway and approximately 18% of the capacity of the intersection. It thus appears that the impact of this project, while mensurable, is far below any critical level. _ _._. �� .�,�._ _ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ __�m..,.�_.� .�._..�_.a _ • - 30 - (�`�� In the event that future traffic loads on Airport Boulevard make exiting from Bayview Place difficult, signalization will be required. If the projected freeway off-ramp across the slough is constructed, it could have a similar impact. These contingencies must be recognized in evaluating this and future projects in the area, although their likelihood is somewhat indeterminate at this point. Utilities Water Distribution The overall water distribution system in the area has sufficient capacity for the proposed project as well as for the planned future development. The existing water mains which were installed by Anza � Pacific for the overall development of the area have been of benefit to the adjacent Burlingame water system by providing much needed additional capacity to the Humboldt/Howard vicinity of the City and by providing overall continuity and capacity to the City systems northerly of the Bayshore Freeway. The existing mains were sized for denser development than is now contemplated. Sanitary Sewer System � The exisisting lift station, which serves the area has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project and 61% of the total future planned develop- ment of Anza Airport Park. The existing gravity mains in the vicinity � of the project will take the estimated peak hourly flow tributary to that main, flowing less than full with zero head. � - 31 - � • e The City of Burlingame Sewage Treatment Plant serves a population of approximately 35,000 people and is a modern efficient facility which has undergone extensive reconstruction during the past several years. Reference is hereby made to "WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROJECT" by Jenks and Adamson, consulting Civil Engineers, which study details the Treatment Plant installation. The entire Anza Project, including this project, creates no new anticipated burden on the Treatment Plant as sufficient plant capacity has been provided to serve the Project area and use. The sewage load imposed on the Treatment Plant won't effect the Plant in any meaningful way, as the quantity will be small compared • to the plant capacity and the quality of sewage generated by office type developments causes no special treatment problems. Also because the sewer mains within the Project vicinity are water tight and utilize • flexible joint type of pipe, storm water infiltration in to the Project sanitary system should be virtually zero. • C7 Storm Drainage The s�te consists of 1.74 acres. ��-fo��x��a��-ft�r��-o-r�n ..�=�^��-.�a�rd .�ssuming a rainfall intensity of 3-1/2 inches per hour for a five minute peak or 2 inches per hour for a sixty minute period, y,,�<; 4.,ca,� 4,,«� -�n � �d ��Q G�� a desi gn steady maximum fl ow of 7. 50 cubi c feet per second .-�--��e�r��. �;q Thi s i ndi cates that the si te -aae�� uti 1 i ze roughly 6% of the avai labl e i,� { C��:; :1�:.. <c � storm sewer capacity�; based upon The Talbot Formula. 0 - 32 - � At the time the existing storm drain pipes for Anza Airport Park • - were sized, the Anza Lagoon did not exist and it was assumed that those 11.2 Lagoon acres would contribute runoff to the drainage system. The existing storm drain underground system is therefore oversized � �`ti and would be adequate for the proposed project as well as for future (�,c�}`�l development. However, it is proposed that this site have an independent storm drain system which would discharge separately into the lagoon. Since the runoff from the site becomes contaminated with petroleum � products during concentration and overland flow, means must be provided to prevent the discharge of volatiles into the waters of the Bay. � Electricai Power, Gas and Telephone Systems When PG&E and Pacific Telephone were contacted in 1974 relative to the proposed development of Anza Airport Park, they indicated at that time that they could provide the required services for the entire Anza Airport Park development. This new service is to be underground and except for consideration of noise and possible traffic disruption due to construction, no negative impact will result. C� M � -33- � � -�. 0 r UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ♦ � ❑ • MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN � SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL� USES AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES CONCLUSION • ❑ UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The foregoing analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed • project indicates that the impacts are very slight and that many of them are due to the construction of the project rather than the operation of the project. Therefore, the impacts listed below will be broken down into two categories. � Construction-related AdVerse Impacts Heavy equipment noise Truck traffic and noise Traffic diversions Creation of dust ❑ • ❑ • Destruction of some existing plant life Project-related Adverse Impacts Increase in traffic Interference with views Air quality Water quality - 34 - • MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS The construction-related adverse environmental impacts are for a relatively short period of duration. These may be mitigated by using • dust control measures where possible and by coordinating traffic diversions to such times as would not conflict with peak hour traffic . patterns. Since there is no housing in the area and since the site is fairly isolated, construction noise would not be a matter for serious concern. Landscaping as shown on the drawings in another section of this report, shall result in a substantially improved environment. The landscaping is intended to soften the impact of the building as well as to block from view the parking in the lower area. The parking on the decks will be blocked from view by precast concrete panels. Mitigating the traffic impact may be accomplished in four basic ways: Staggered and flexible working time, transit and car pools, mixed occupancy, and physical improvements to the existing road system and traffic management measures. � The process whereby the employer schedules different employees to • start and stop work at various times of the day is known as staggered working times. When the employee, with the consent of the'employer, • - 35 - selects his own working times, it is known as flexible working time. Either of these techniques can be very effective in reducing peak period traffic. Recently, both have become a popular means of avoiding traffic congestion. Also related to the environmental and energy problems are the recent return to transit and the implementation of new programs for setting up car pools. As recent trends have shown an upturn in transit usage throughout the nation, San Mateo County has been studying the feasibility of improving commuter rail and bus service on the Peninsula. The Federal EPA recently proposed a series of rules intended to restrict private use of the automobile. One of these requires the establishment of regional car pool systems. The existing road network in the vicinity of the site could be expanded to two lanes each way, divided, all the way from Coyote Point Road to Old Bayshore, and traffic,signals could be installed at these two key access points. Curb and gutter and guardrail could be installed along the Bay access across from the Municipal Sewer Treatment Facility and Municipal Dump. The proposed freeway access to Highway 101 across Bayside v�.�1 � Park could be constructed, and its intersection with Airport Boulevard • signalized. These improvements are not proposed for immediate implemen- tation at this time, however they may become justified as development of the Anza Air�ort Park continues. C� - 36 - • 0 Since the runoff from the site becomes contaminated with petroleum products during concentration and overland flow, means must be instituted to prevent these volatiles from reaching the water of the Bay. A pit-type . clarifier (grease trap) which combines sedimentation and skimming action shall be installed to purify the storm waters before they are discharged from the site into the Bay. • The mitigation of the visual impacts has been approached in several different ways. The massing of the building has been fragmented into three different volumes. These volumes are set off from one another to reduce the overall impact. The ends of the wings are sloped at approxi- mately 45 degrees so as to minimize the apparent bulk of the volumes. � The exterior skin of the structure is sheathed in reflective glass so �� r.Q,�.> �� as to mirror the sky, water and surroundings. The building is set well back from the lagoon and at no point does it encroach upon the 100' BCDC � setback. At its nearest point to the lagoon, it is triangular in plan, thus further reducing its impact. r �°`� ''i � The present scheme is approximately 25%.smaller than the original submitted to the City. The building is shorter in plan, the parking is now mostly concealed, and all parking is on the same compact site, with • no satellite parking lots. Since the project is so close to the lagoon to the east, a bridge shall � be constructed to connect the eastern parking/plaza with the lagoon waterfront development. Sidewalk and vehicular access outside the project's - 37 - �p�t� `� boundaries are also provided.. It is intended to include within the scope of this project the construction of pedestrian and biking facilities in accordance with the City of Burlingame's and County of San Mateo's Master Plan and BCDC policies, which will work to unite the lagoon �""a` shore into a recreational entity. In reality this entire project will increase the ease of access to the surrounding waterfront since the land as presently exists acts as a deterrent to those that might make use of the waterfront. Very few people are now willing to brave a walk across the barren, often swampy land in order to enjoy the waterfront. SeaBreeze Plaza shall certainly bring people to this area and create a situation wherein the waterfront �� becomes accessible and in fact usable. This is further reinforced by � the construction at the pedestrian and vehicle access ulong the northern • • boundary of the development. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL USES AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The short-term environmental disruption will involve largely the construction period insofar as most elements are concerned. The exception � to this is the long-term visual impact of the project. In other regards, from a long-term point of view, this project will be productive of substantial enhancement to this site through the landscaping and design features of the building. : • • The project would also provide a very pleasing environment in which many people could work or visit while enjoying t�e aesthetic advantage of a bayfront environment. With this type of commercial development and growth in tax base, the indirect result may be to hasten the day when Burlingame is fully able to develop its rather extensive park holdings, including its bayfront park immediately to the west and south of the Anza Airport Park development. The overall long-term result of this building and those to follow should enhance the enjoyment of the bayfront and provide opportunities for more of our citizens to visit and enjoy the waterfront environment that has so long been cut off by mud flats, the City Dump, and the high-speed Bayshore Freeway. The final result will be one which will greatly enrich the City of Burlingame and make them one of the outstanding environmentally oriented cities of the area. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES From a long-range point of view, there are no irreversible changes, as a building such as this could always be removed. However, without contemplating the removal of such a building, which is normally expected to remain in place for at least fifty years, the environmental changes such as development and beautification of the particular site, the provision of employment opportunities, and a project in which persons can enjoy the bayfront and environment and view would seem to be positive irreversible environmental changes. �� a COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES [� State of California (State Lands Commission} • This project complies with the terms of the Boundary Settlement and Agreement by the State Lands Commission with Anza Pacific Corp. This Boundary Agreement was worked out through three years of negotiation with the State of California, and was approved after public hearing by the State Lands Commission. This report requires that Anza Pacific develop this land in accordance with the City of Burlingame C-4 zoning, and we feel that this project carries out the intent and requirements of this Boundary Settlement with the State Lands Commission. B.C.D.C. The above referenced State Lands Commission Agreement and Master Plan was submitted to, and considered by the staff of the B.C.D.C. Many changes were made on their recommendation and the Master Plan was approved �� ; by their staff. Negotiations are now underway with B.C.D.C. to determine their requirements for this particular project. Reclamation District No. 2097 This public agency has been responsible for the reclamation of these tidelands and all plans and developments have been in accordance with the original Reclamation District's engineer's report submitted to the City of Burlingame in 1963. �i1 CONCLUSION This project will not have a significant detrimental environment effect. In fact, the long run effect will be substantially beneficial, as the development of this area in this manner will assure landscaped open space and make the bayfront more accessible to the citizens of Burlingame and this area for both work and enjoyment, and provide for the exposure of more people to the natural beauties of San Francisco Bay and its waterfront. �r�:,? , The unavoidable impacts of any project have, in this case, been addressed through design and planning considerations and have been mitigated. Long range changes in the area must bear further monitoring but do not seem to be reaching problem levels. - 41 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CHECKLIST • C7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CHECKLIST 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. AIR., Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? -�'L- Yes Maybe No Page Ref. X X -��J X X X X X � � X 13 —�--3-� 3 2 X -3--3-- � X � �,rns r,�,.� e • � � e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in�the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. 'Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? • 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Yes Maybe No 0 � � X - Favorable X X X � X ►� 11 � � Page Ref. �9 �� 28 �� - 43 - • [7 • 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. RISK OF UPSET. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Yes Maybe No Page Ref. X � ., . t�< X � X X X � 28 ,�-�- �� X 28,) 31, V , CT �� -�-�•�..�. ,�'— } ,y X X 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? � -44- ;' i� Ti � r�..e� ne s C, �� f I�.. �3.� . � ��G�� , • • C� 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? e Yes Maybe No Page Ref. X 22 — �-�:,�X _ � X X � X �:: : X , . , .�9�'�24�� .�' X `1�3�,'�,. 14 _�,3_ X X � e e e e 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the . public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? � X X • -45- Yes Maybe No 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, � object or building? 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. • • • • • 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? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? � � � � X �,�-. � �� X Page Ref. -46- � ♦. ' 1'; ;Vi E'�1 O R� v D U 1�1 • To: Burlin'ame City Council and City Planning Commission From: John Blayney �ssociates Subject: BAYFRONT ALTERNATIVES This memorandum describes four alternative schematic plans for the 8aviront and evaluates the fiscr�l, economic, social, and environmental impacts of each. Emphasis is placed on fisc�l impacts — revenues to the City generated h�� ezch plan less espected capital outluys for public facilities (streets, utilities, Qar�:s, fire protection, etc.) and annual operating costs. Preliminary assessments o: economic, social, and environmental impacts are included to assist in selection of a single scheme to be develooed further. These will be studied in greater detail as a Proposed Bayfront Plan is prepared. � . The Alternative Schematie Plans mainly are designed to test the fiscal imptzcts. They are not complete plans because they lack three essential elements: — Urban design (hei;ht, bulk, coverage, open space) considerations have not been studied. • —'ISraffictivays system changes are not sho�Nn althou�h some or all of the alternatives may require major construetion. — Rate of likely development (land �bsorption) and sbility to finance public imQcovements was not a major consideration in deveiooin� alternatives. The intent has been to allocate land uses at suitable locations and in amourits reasonably consistent with the market's ability to put the land to use bv :�� and 1990. �lthough some alternatives leave large vacant areas in 1990, this is not necessarily a disadvantage to the City. � We do not expect that the Bayfront Plan ultimately to be adopted will conform closely to any of the Alternative Schematic Plans. Land use pro;rams for the Alternatives purposely h�ve been designed in consuitation with the Citv staff to hi;hlight the ran;e of choice open to the City, not as recommended plans � by the staff or consultants. ASSUti'IPTIONS COMI�ION TO THE FOUR SCHEI�IATIC PLANS • 1. Each new use will be developed to the following intensity: m Office: Absorption is assumed at 3.75 acres per year. m The ratio of floor area to site area (FAR) is assumed at 1.0:1, with employment density at 1 employee per 260 square feet of floor area. At full development, the number of new office employees would range from 5,000 (Plan 3) to 12,000 (Plan 1). ftestaurant: Absorption is assumed at 2.25 acres per year. FAR is assumed at 0.2:1, with maximum restaurant and bar seating capacity approximating the current average of six major restaurants in the study area (35 square feet per seat). Commercial Recreation: Absorption is assumed at 0.3 acres per year. Uses are assumed to be similar to skateboard parks or tennis clubs, rather than high intensity indoor uses. Hotel: Absorption is assumed at 56 rooms per year, requiring about .75 acres per year at an average density of 75 rooms per acre. Addition of 410 rooms to existing hotels is assumed beforE development of new hotel sites. The additions require 3.8 acres for off-site hotel parfcing. It is assumed thet the authorized 210-room addition to the Sheraton Hotel will be built and that.200 rooms will be added to the Airport Plaza Hotel and/or the Hyatt. Thus each plan adds 410 hotel rooms without using additional land except for assumed off-site parl:in; in � lieu of rnulti-level parking structures that otherwise would be necessary. Because each of the plans has sufficient vacant land in 1990 for overflow parking, it is not necessary to designate specific sites for parking. At full development the number of new hotel-motel rooms would range � from 740 (PlAn 3) to 2,560 (Plan 2). � Retail: Development of a 1.4 acre convenience commercial site is assumed by Plans l, 3, and 4. Airport Parking: 16.5 acres is retained permanently in Plan 1, but is assumed � to be an interim use in the remaining plans and is phased out as land is absorbed for other uses. The 16.5 acre site would accommodate about 1,800 spaces. Car Rental: Rental car facilities are assumed on two sites in accord with an- nounced plans. . � Office-jNarehouse: Absorption of 4.5 acres per year is assumed, with a FAR of 0.4:1 comparable to existing warehouse, distribution, and service activities. Because sites are limited, the 31.1 acres designated are . fully absorbed by 1985. � Residential: Absorption of about 4.5 acres annually is assumed; with an aver- age density of 32 units per acre resulting from a miY of hi�h-; ise at 2 e � 40 units per net acre and low-rise or townhouse development at 20 units per acre. The number of units would range from none (Plans 1 and 2) to 1,940 (Plan 3). � Occupancy is assumed to be 2.0 persons per dwelling unit. 2. � The market will absorb land for each use at the rate in Table 1. These figures have been increased by 50°.6 over those used in the August 30 Pre- � liminary Report. The housing absorption rate has been adjusted to 200- 300 units per year based on studies of recently-built low-rise and high-rise condominiums on the Peninsula ar�d elsewhere in the Bay Area by Lord dc LeBlanc. 3. In eccord with the Council's directive on February 1, none of the plans � assumes construction of a Convention Center. Those plans with an excess of land designated for hotel use would be adaptable to a privately built large scale hotel/meeting room complex. 4. In order to simplify. analysis, new development �s assumed to occur on sites � now vacant or underutilized. Some intensification of existin� uses (sucn as conversion of warehousing to office use) could occur, but the impacts would be limited. Excluding the areas designated or now used as park, golf course, or tidal lagoon, vacant and interim-use sites comprise 161 acres. � • DESCftIPTION OF �LTERNATIVE SCHEMATIC PLANS The difference among the plans are most readily understood by reference to Table 1, and the four alternative plans. Sketch Plan � 1 Current Re�ulations �Nith Pendin� Projects This alternative shows all orojects currently approved or presented to the City except the Burlingame Bay Club condominium proposal. All development is in accord with current zoning. The condominium project is included in two other alternatives, but is omitted in Plan 1 because we believe that 198 units is too few to create a"viable residential environment." A minimum number of units is needed to create a feeling of living in a residential environment, but we acknowledge that selection of a cut-off point is a subjective judgment. Airport Parking is moved to the western boundary of Anza's holdings, as pro- posed by Anza, where it would be least disruptive of other uses. It is assumed to remain indefinitely. . About ZO percent of the land would likely remain vacant in 1990, two-thirds � of it designated for office use. . 3 � • Use O[fice Resteurant Commercial Recreation tlotel off-site perking new fecilities Reteii Airport Parking Car Rental Office- Werehouse Residentiel Vacnnt S�lbtotel Privete Sites Park Golt Course Legoon Subtotal Public Sites Totel Acreage • • • • a •r�u[.c i BURI,INGAME ALTL'RNA'17VE SKE'PC11 PLANS Land Use in Acres (for sites subject to la�d use ehange) Plen N1 Plnn N2 Plsn qa Plan �4 19?? 19B5 1990 Ult. 1985 1990 Ult. 1985 1990 Ult. 1985 1990 lllt• 3.4 26.0 45.0 ?2.1 26.0 95.0 55.8 26.0 30.7 30.7 26.0 93.6 43.6 - 15.8 21.7 21.7 15.8 27.0 31.3 15.8 22.9 22.9 15.8 24.9 24.4 - 2.1 3.6 5.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 3.6 5.1 - 3.8 ?.3 10.3 3.8 7.3 37.9 - 4.9 9.4 3.8 7.3 24.2 - 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.8 Oa Oa 0� 3.8 3.8 3.8 - - 3.5 6.5 - 3.5 34.1 - 4.4 4.4 - 3.5 22.4 - - 1.4 1.4 - - - 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 23.8 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 - 16.5 - - 16.5 - - - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 31.1 �1.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 - - - - - - - 35.3� 57.8a 64.58 28.4 28.4 28.4 128.9b 62.9 31.6 - 63.0 29.3 - 28.9 8.7 - 33.1 18.4 - 161.2 161.2 161.2 161.2 161.2 161.2 161.2 160,0 160.0 160.0 161.2 161.2 161.2 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 53.2 53.2 • 53.2 SZ.O 52.0 52.0 43.5� 43.5 43.5 43.5 93.5 93.5 93:5 - - - - - - 42.0 92.0 42.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 42.0 92.0 92.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 94.0 99.0 94.0 94.0 99.0 94.0 94.0 95.2 95.2 95.2 99.0 94.0 94.0 255.2 255.2 255.2 255.2 255.2 255.2 255.2 255.2 255.2 255.2 255.2 255.2 255.2 H otel Units - 410 672 900 410 672 2,560 410 ?40 790 410 672 1,650 Dwelling Units - - - - - - - 1010 1725 1940 830 830 830 e. Of(site hotel pnrking pssumed on residentially-designeted sites b. Includes present auto auction and drive-in movie sites . c. Present landtill disposel site � �� , � � � i � � \ BURLINGAA9E ALTERNATIVE North SK�TCH PLAN #1 No Scale Current Regulations with PPndinq Projects Ultimate Development I,� a . R.C. Retail Commercial O/N Otfice/Narehouse Com.Rec. Commercial Recreation Shaded State Lease Lands John Blayney Associates • March 9, 1978 � � � � � � � North No Scale BURLINGA;IIE ALTERNATIVE SK�TC}i PLAN #2 Maximum Visitor Orientation � Ultimate Development Legend O/N Office/Warehouse Com.Rec. Commercial Recreation Shaded State Lease Lands John Blayney Associates March 9, 1978 � � � r � � North No Scale BURLiNGAME ALTERNATIVE SIiETCH PLAN #3 Maximum Residential Ultimate Development I.egend . R.C. Retail Commercial O/W Office/�Yarehouse Com.Rec. Commercial Recreation Shuded State Lease Lands John Blayney Associates March 9, 1978 • w • � • • • � North No Scale BURLINGAl19E ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN #4 iViaximum Community Orientation Ultimate Development Legend . R.C. Retail Commercial O/�9 Office/�9arehouse Com.Rec. Commercial Recreation Shuded State Lease Lands John Blayney Associates March 9� 1978 Sketch Plan �2 �VIa:cimum Visitor Orientation Although a convention center is not assumed, this alternative would allow ample • sQace for one — either as part of a major hotel complex or as a separate public or privately owned facility. Using the assumec� rate of land absorption, 30.6 acres of designated hotel sites would remain vacant in 1990. Over half of this land would be occupied by airport parking as an interim use. i�otels currently occupy 22.8 acres. Although there could be considerable freedom in design, the sketch plan allo- cates Anza's choice waterfront sites mainlv to restaurants and locates hotels at the west end where they would be within walking distance of each other and of a possible convention cente�. New offices are located mainly south of Airport Boulevard and east of the existing 6-story office buildings. The golf course is intended to help support and be supported by the hotels. Sketch Plan # 3 !VIaximum Residential The premise of this alternative is that all Anza land available for residential use (not under lease from the State) and not permanently com mitted to other uses could be developed to accommodate 1,940 housing units and 3,900 resi- dents. The Buriingame 3ay Club Condominium and other high-rise apartments would locate on the water side of Airpoct Boulevard, while more moderately priced apartments at lower densities would occupy sites bet�veen Airport Boule- vard and the Inner Lagoon where there is freeway noise impact. The present drive-in theater site would allow development of a self-contained residen.tial environment with a"metivs" or cul-de-sac surrounded by to�vnhouses at perhaps 20 units per gross acre. Assumin� that 200-300 units per year can be sold (or rented), only 6.7 a�res would remain for residential development after 1990. Airport parking would be squeezed out after 1985, both by a land shortage and because it would be incompatible in a residential neighborhood. DeveloQment of the full 60.7 acres available for housing would establish residential dominance and would support nei�hborhood stores. A small c-1l-type store, rather than a Safeway, would be the scale of food merchandising. Expansion of Bayside Park, rather than construction of a golf course, would enhance the residential neighborhood, although the golf course �Nould be accept- able. Sketch Plan #4 �Vlasimum Communitv-Oriented Recreation; Minimum Resi- dential Community This alternative combines the minimum amount of residential development on Anza land judged to allow a"residential environment" with office, hotel, and restaurant development arranged to keep the most intensive activity at the west edge of the site. The 28.4 acres allocated to residential use probably would be fully deveioped before 1985 with 830 units housin� 1,660 persons. "Community-oriented.recreati�n" as an element of the land use t�llocntion consists mainly of 52 acres of park instead of a golf course, but the standards for shoreline development also could make the Bay and lagoon frontage more attractive to residents. Existing development leaves the shore almost entirely to hotel and restaurant patrons although access is supFosed to be provide�. The Burlingame Bay Club condominium is shown as proposed. Other residential land would not be contiguous, but would occupy the srnall amount of Bay frontage not under State lease and the drive-in theater site across Airport Boulevard. Alternative distributians of the same, uses would be possible, but residents would be exposed to more traffic congestion and noise. Mixed use buildings containing both aqartments and offices are a possibility, althouah this building type has not often been attractive to inves.tors. � FISCAL I�SPACTS The net fiscal impact of the alternative plans, on an annual basis in the selected years, is summarized in Table 2. Detailed e:cplanation of the revenue analysis and summary tabl�s of current City revenue and projected revenue under the alternate plans is found in Appendix 1. Appendix 2 similarly presents our analysis of costs under each plan. Projection of both revenue and cost data necessarily involved making numerous assumptions — some derived from existing data and City experience in recent years, and some based on our own judgment and inter- pretation. These assumptions are clearly set forth in the appendices so that they may be evaluated and questioned by the City and others using this memo. All costs and revenues presented are those associated with development of only the vacant and underutilized sites in the study area, and represent net changes from e�isting Citywide cost and revenue levels under the assumption that the existin� Citywide fiscal balance will continue. Obviously, a multipli- ' city of factors may intervene over time to chan�e this balance, but projection • of fiscal changes due to land use, population, economic, or service level chan;es outside the study area clearly are outside the scope of this analysis. Similarly, we have not attempted to evaluate possible changes in public financing and . ta�cation which may result from future legislative restrictions on tax rates, revenue collection by municipalities, or mandated service cequirements. Cur- rent public finance practices. are assumed to continue. Finally, all projections are in current (1978) dollars. All plans result in a similar fiscal surplus -- between �529,000 and �573,000 annually by 1985 — largely because diffecences between the plans are minimized by assumed mar�et absorption rates. If �paric development and maintenance costs are e�cluded from Plans 3 and 4, the surplus under these plans increases to over �'00,000 annually. The expected 1985 surplus represents an increase of about 7 percent over current City revenues of $7.6 million, exclusive of utility operations. By 1990, the surplus would range from �572,000 under Plan 4 to �85',000 under Plan 2. If park-related costs are e�ccluded, Plan 3 would produce the highest surplus — esceedirig �1 million annually. The annuzl surplus would reoresent an increase of from 8 percent (Plan 4 with park) to 11 percent (Plan 2) or to 15 percent (Plan 3 without park) ovee current budget levels, excludin� utilities. A TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF NET FISCAL IMPACT � ( thousands of dollars ) 1985 1990 Ultimate Plan 1 Revenue 640 906 1091 Cost 86 117 156 • Surplus 554 789 g35 Plan 2 Revenue. 640 975 1838 Cost 86 118 167 Surplus 5 �4 85 7 1671 Plan 3 Revenue 896 1320 1373 ( no parlc ) Cost 132 187 200 Surplus 764 1133 11? 3 Plan 3a Revenue 896 1320 1373 ( with paric ) Cost 323 569 582 Surplus 573 751 791 Plan 4 Revenue 852 1106 �5-8a ls" :�� (no park) Cost 137 163 179 Surplus 715 943 1404 Plan 4a Revenue 852 1106 -�-a83- ��3 � ( with park ) . � Cost ' 323 534 551 Surplus 529 572 1032 ' a. Includes annual park maintenance and operation, plus debt service on cspital cost assumed at 7 percent interest over 20 years, with half the pac•k-related costs incurred in 1985 and fu1 costs incurred in 1990 and ultimate develop- ment years. Costs after retirement of assumed debt not shown. ? For the non-residential plan alternatives, the surplus would be slightly higher under Plan 2 than Plan 1, because of the cevenue derived from the increased level of restaurant activity. Otherwise, the fiscal impacts of Plans 1 and 2 would exhibit little difference in 1990. ' For the cesidential alternatives, Plan 3(with more than ttvice the residential population) would generate nearlv $200,000 additional surplus over Plan 4, either with or without including park development costs which are similar under each plan. Costs, revenues, and fiscal balance at ultimate development under each plan are sho�.vn in Table 2 to illustrate the diffe�ences between 1990 and full develop- ment. Ultimate develo�ment under Plans 1 and 3 will be reached soon after 1990, and thus the fiscal surplus suggested under these plans is only moderately higher than the 1990 projections. Under Plans 2 and 4, which assume a level of hotel development considerably b eater than Plans 1 and 3, the potential surplus is significantly higher but Nill not be reached for an extended time period. Thus, the years in which the "full development" surplus could be reached differ, and direct comparisons between the fiscal impact of the plans in any given year af ter 1990 are not shown. • ECONOIVIIC IMPACTS The effects of the alternatives on jobs, incomes, and housing costs for Burlin�ame � residents are not likelv to be great. The main reason is that Burliilgame's popu- lation represents only five percent of San ylateo County and less than one percent of the economic area of �vhich it is a part. Most jobs created �.vill be held by non-residents and many Burlingame businesses existin� or to be established ' will be owned by non-residents. If space for a particular use is not available within the Bayfront Studv Area, the demand will be met eisewhere in the Bav a Area. In some instances this mav increase travel oc housina costs, b�it analysis of such secondary effects is beyond the scope of this study. The economic effects of the alternatives will be felt at different times. Plan 3 would reach full development at the eariiest date, while Plan 1 ultimately would provide the most jobs. Plan 2 would masimize retail sales, but may take longest to reach full development. SOCIAL IMPACTS We are able to identify certain social impacts, but are not able to say that one plan is superior by any objective measure. Each evaluator must assign a value to each social impact. Unless a mis of housing prices is re�uired by the City as a condition of approvAl, plans with hvusin� will have onlv a minor impact on housing opportunity for other than high-income households. However, any increase in the housin� stoc� benefits all consumers to some e�ctent. Condominium development would allow some Burlingame households without children livina at home to stay in the com- munity, sellin; their single family.home to a family with children. This, in . r 8 turn, would help maintain the quality of the public schools by stabilizing enroll- ment. '� Bavfront housing is likely to attract many residents who will not take a atrong interest in city government or services. Physical separation from the rest of the city is one reason, but the Bavfront is likely to attract a high propoction of residents �.vho value airport convenience highly — airline personnel, profes- sional athletes, and business persons with heavy travel schedules. IVlaximum visitor orientation (Plan 2) probably would generate the �reatest amount of crime, particularly if "victimless" crime is included. Opportunities to enhance access to the Bay and to allow greater recreational use of the shoreline exist under each of the alternatives. Present Burlingame residents could take advantage of hetter access under any plan, sharing with more visitors under Plan 2 and with "new" Burlingame residents under Plan 3. Development of the sanitary landfill site as a golf course or as a park will distribute benefits to different groups. A golf course will have fewer users than a park and a higher percentage will be non-residents. However, application of the "most users'' principle to all Qublic recreational sites would eliminate all specialized facilities. �, 1977 survey by the San �+Iateo County Planning De- partment shows unmet needs in the Burlingame area for hiking trails, open space, fishing, picnicking, tennis, and golf. ENVIRONMENTAL INIPACTS Noise Bayshore Freeway curr�ntly is ttie major source of noise affecting Anza property, although future noise resulting from San Francisco �irport is not projected by the Noise Element cf the General Plan. The EIR on the Burlingame Ba,y Club condominium project notes some of the potential npise hazards that cannot be quantified at present. Noise level planning criteria cited in the Noise Element are most stringent for passive park use. Bayside Park expanded to occupy the entire sanitary land- � fill site would not meet the standard now or in 1990. Residential use between Airport Boule�ard and the freeway would not meet standards — falling in the 67-70 CNEL range instead of the desirable maximum 60-fi5 range. However, all major street frontages in the Citv and all residents in the area bounded by Carolan Avenue, Oak Grove Avenue, and the freeway currently are subjected to as high or higher noise levels. Peak hour vehicle trips have been projected for each of the plans by J.D. Drach- man Associates. The least noise would result from the plan that generates � a. Community Noise Equivalent Level expressed iri decibels (dBA). the fewest vehicle trips. Plans 1 and 2 genecate the most trips, but the addi- tional noise would not impact residents. Plan 3 would result in the least noise, but places some of its residential use along the Inner Lagoon where the freeway now creates a CNEL over 70, (expected to drop. to 65-70 by 1990 as mandatory vehicle noise reduction occurs). � Prohibition of residential use on State lease land creates the likelihood of excessive night-time noise levels for residential develoFment on the Bayfront because of the concentration of restaurants and hotels nearby. Plan 4 removes residential use from the sites most sensitive to freeway noise, but it adds rest- aurant and hotel uses that will increase night-time noise. In summary, our preliminary assessment is that Plans 1 artd 2, while creating the most noise, have the least adverse impact. Freeway noise would impact a passive park on the landfill severely, but the effect of aircraft noise on Coyote Point Park should be investigated further before concluding that the impact is unacceptable. � Air Qualit_y The plans cannot be ranked as to impact on air quality at this stage of develop- ment. The plan that generates the fewest vehicle trips will resulf in the lowest emissions level — thus Plan 3 is best, Plans 2 and 4 are about the same, and Plan 1 is 29 percent "worse" than Plan 3, assuming no transit use. However, the potential for diversion of peak hour trips to transit must be considered. Theoretically, a cor,centrated office area should have the greatest transit use potential, but the widely dispersed residence locations of office workers and the availability of parking (as required by ordinance) limit transit potential. Residents on the Bayfront probably would have work trip destinations concen- trated at the Airport and in downtown San Francisco. These trips easily could be served by transit, but occupants of luxury condominiums are a difficult group to attract to transit because they can afford high parkin; charges at their work location. The relatively small residential population would limit the frequency of bus service. Energy � The plan that induces the greatest transit ridership and the least total travel will minimize ;asoline consumption. Plans 1 and 2, although they result in the greatest number of trips, may generate the least total travel if office workers' journeys are shorter than to alternate locations. The difficulty of predicting transit patronage for the alternative plans is discussed under Air Quality above. Building energy consumption for heating and cooling is likely to be lower than � at locations less subject to the moderating influence of the Bay. �Ve are unable to discern clear differences in energy consumption among the plans. Water Qualitv Again, the plan that jenerates the most vehicle trips will have the most adverse impact. Petroleum products from streets and parking lots and fertilizer from landscaped are�s �Nill drain into the shallow lagoons, affecting water quality, hut the differences among the plans are not substantial. 10 Visual Qualitv There are no inherent visual advantages to any one alternative. Eaci1 could result in a Miami Beach-type wall of buildings along the water, but each also could be regulated to prevent this. Probably the most difficult task will be to avoid the tombstone effect of more or less evenly spaced mid-rise building slabs surrounded by parking. There will be little view of the Bay from the freeway when one or two story structures are built, so Bay views are not a major issue except from within the study area north of the freeway. Views of the Bay from the hills south and west of El Camino will not be substantially atfected unless very tall or bulky buildings are permitted. The quality of buildings and landscaping likely to be attained probably would be highest under a residential alternative because developers will be attempting to attract hi�h-income buyers. Speculative office buildings, hotels, motels, and restaurants have, on average, been of lesser quality. Individual restaurants or office buildings may be we11-desioned, but lar�e amounts of unscreened surface parking have made Bayshore Boulevard look much like any other new strip com- merical areR. • � :7 � 11 APPENDIX 1 • Revenue Projections Revenue Derived From Assessed Valuation Revenue derived from taxable property accounts for about 30 percent of Bur- � lingame's total municipal revenue, excluding the ;vater and sewer utility services .which are operated as self-supporting enterprises. While total assessed valuation has increased about 14 per.cent per year durin; the last four years, property tax revenue has increased onlv by about 6 oercent annually, based on a tax rate that has declined from $1.15 per �100 assessed 1 valuation in 1974-75 to �0.89 per $100 assessed valuation in 1977-?8. Because projection of future tax rates would be speculation, a continuing tax rate of $0.89 is assumed for this analysis, and is ad;usted to �0.92 to reflect additional income derived from penalties, which in recent years has averaged about 3 percent above the basic revenues from application of the established ta�c rate to total assessed valuation. Revenue from homeowners and business inventory tax relief, rebated by the State, is included in the above calculations since it merely replaces local revenues which would be derived from the tax rate ap- plied to full valuation before exemptions. r Property tax revenue supports, in part or fully, ei�ht City funds, and is the primary source of revenue for seven uf these. Projected assessed valuations for future studv area development, in current dollars, are based on comparable current valuations for similar uses elsewhere in the City, or are based on JBA jud;ment as to probable valua.tions where com- � parable use data are not available. Projected valuations do not necessarily reflect the full 25 percent of market value, because assessments frequently lag market conditions and often are based on other assessment methodologies such as income valuation. The followin� assumptions were used to develop property tax revenue for the • alternative plans. Existing Site Valuations: Total assessed valuation of the 161.2 acres subject to land use change and private development is �4,863,030, or an aver- age of �30,168 per acre. Valuation of individual sites varies from about ��,000 per acre (the drive-in movie site) to more than ��0,000 per acre for choice �vaterfront locations. Only minimal irnprovement values are included, since most sites are vacant, and a uniform valua- tion of $30,200 per acre on which tas revenues now are received is assumed for all sites in order to calculate net valuation increases un- � der each plan. 12 Offices: 5ix selected office developments in the study area containing 446,000 square feet have average land valuations of ��9,200 per acre and im- provement valuations of �5.81 per square foot of building area. FAR avera;es 0.9. Improvement valuations are higher on the more recent examples — up to �9.63 per square foot. Land valuations are more consistent. Assumptions used to reflect projected office develoQment valuations under all alternatives are $50,000 per acre for land and $8.00 per square foot for improvements. Restaurants: Six major restaurants in the study area were exarnined. Total area cvas 56,200 square feet on 7.8 acres, with FAR of 0.17. Land valuations average �52,500 per acre, and improvement valuations , average $11.60 per square foot. Assumptions applied to alternative plans are $55,000 assessed valuation per acre, reflecting higher valued waterfront locations assigned to restaurants in the plans, and �11.60 per square foot for improvement valuations. Commercial Recreation: There are no current examples in stud,y area of equi- . valent uses. Projected assessed valuation is assumed to be �25,000 per acre (low due to restrictions on use of the particular site iden- � . tified for this use) for land. Improvement costs and valuation could vary substantially, depending on the exact nature of the uses. Assuming � a pcedominantly open use (i.e., skateboard park) with impcovement � costs of �5.00 per square foot of site area including parking, improve- ment assessed valustion is assumed to be �5�,000 per acre. Improve- � ment valuations could differ substantially under an income valuation approach. Hotel Overflow Parking: Offsite par4cing facilities {3.8 acres) are assumed to be located on land designated for hotel use (or for residential use . under Plan 3). Land valuation is assumed to be ��0,000 per acre �,vhen � used for required hotel parking. Improvement valuation is projected at $55,000 per acre, based on assumed construction costs of �5.00 per square foot for fully improved surface parfcing. Hotel Facilities: Five major hotels in the study area now provide 1,193 rooms on 22.8 acres. Current land assessed valuation foc these hotel aver- ages $54,800 per acre, and improvements average �3,300 per room. � Improvement valuation includes incidental restaurant and other se�- vices within ttie hotels. For plan alternatives, land valuation is assumed at $55,000 per acre and improvement valuations at $3,500 per room ' for hotels on new sites. For additions to existing hotels, improvements � are assumed to be valued at $2,500 per room, with no change in land valuation. Retail: For the 1.4 acre convenience shopping facility shown in all plans, a land assessed valuation of �50,000 per acre and an improvement valiia- tion of �211,?50 is assumed, based on an estimated building of 1?,000 � square feet �vith a construction cost of �50 per square foot, and approxi- mately 49,000 square feet of parking and site development costin� $5.00 per square foot. 13 � Airport Parking/Car Rental: Land valuation assumed at �40,000 per acre, with improvement valuation at ��5,000 per acre (same assumptions as hotel overflow parkin� costs). Valuation might vary if based on income approach, but limited comparable data is available. (Lower land valuation assumed due to probable use of less desirable sites.) Office-Warehouse: Typical existing tises in this category have land assessed valuations at about $30,300 per acre and improvement valuations of about $1.75 per square foot. New development is expected to have somewhat hi�her valuations, both because of increasin; land shortage •and because e.cisting uses occupy older buildin�s with char�cteristics closer to those of a warehouse �than the combination assumed in the alternate plans. For the plans, a land valuation of $45,000 per acre is assumed. Improvements valuations are assumed to be based on aver- � age building costs of $30.00 per square foot and site development costs (parking and landscapina) of �5.00 per square foot. At a floor area ratio of 0.4 to 1, improvement assessed valuations would average $163,350 per acre. Residential: Townhouse, apartment, or condominium development is assumed to have land assessments averagin� �70,000 per acre, based on review of assessments for several comparable developments in Burlin�ame. Improvements are assumed to be valued at �i6,000 per dwelling unit. For development averaging about 30 units per acre, these assessed valuations would reflect an average selling price of about �80,000 per unit. Vacant Sites: Assessed valuation of vacant sites remainin� in future years is assumed to increase from the current averag�e of �30,200 per acre to �35,000 per acre. This assumption is based in part on the expec- tation that revaluation of vacant sites in the studv area, now being studied by the Assessor's Office, will result in higher vacant land valuations on the next assessment r�oll, particularly for sites in the area south of Broadway where valuations geneeally are lower than current sales prices would suggest. Revenue Derived From Commercial Activitv Commercial and industrial activity generates three principal types of revenue: � 1. Sales taYes, with one percent of the 6% ta:c returned to the City be the State, produces about �2,775,000 annual revenue. Eating and drin!cing es- tablishments produce about 8 percent of the sales tax revenue; auto deal- erships account for some 23 percent currently; all other retail tises produce another 17 percent; and non-retail uses (offices, distributors, manufscturing, _ and services with ta:cable sales) account for 52 percent of the revenue. . 14 2. Cigarette tax revenues are rebated to cities on a formula basis which in- cludes hoth relative sales tax receipts and population. For purposes of this analysis, these are treated as com mercially-generated revenue. Only about $170,000 annually is received, curr�ntly constituting the equivalent of 6.1 percent over sales tax.revenue. The amount received annuallv has cemained relatively constant. A multiplier of 6 percent. over sales tax receipts is assumed for this analysis. • • 3. The City's transient lodging tax on hotel-motel room sales is expected to produce �400,000 in 1977-78. The annual revenue has increased sub- stantially in the past four years due to opening of additional facilities, increasing occupancy rates, and an increase in the ta:c from 5 percent to 6 percent. Equivalent revenue per room currently is �323. For the pro- jections, a revenue of �325 is used, which assumes that current high levels of occupancy are maintained as rooms are added to the inventorv. The following assumptions were used to develop commercially-based revenues for the alternative plans. Offices: Some sales tax revenue is generated by occupants of office buildin;s, but representative sales tax data for typical office users were not secured in time for inclusion in this analysis, and are not estimated at this time. Sales ta:c re�enues pcoduced by offices are believed rela- tively minor in relation to sales taxes generated by restaurants -- the principal sales tax generating use proposed by the alternative plans within the study area. Restaurants: Sales data for three major restaurants in that gross sales currently average about �134 The typical restaurant of about 9,000 square i to yield $12,000 annually in sales tax revenue: sales level of �135 per square foot is assumed rette ta:c revenues equivalent to 6 percent of is assumed. the study area indicate per square foot per year. eet �vould be expected � to the City. � gross for the ana.lvsis. Ciga- the sales taY receipts Commercial Recreation: Although some revenue could be derived depending • on the nature of the commercial activities ultimatelv located on these sites, no significant sales tax revenue is assumed, and no revenue from this source is included in the analysis. • Hotels: Transient lodging tax revenues of �325 per room is assumed for rooms added to existing hotels and for rooms in new hotels. In addition, new hotels are assumed to include incidental convenience, restaurant, and bar activities, but with lower sales per square foot levels than major restaurants located on separate sites because all plans �rovide sub- stantial land area for separate development of eating establishments. Eating and drinking space at a ratio of 1,500 square foot per each 100 rooms, and generating �ross sales of �90 per square foot is used in the analvsis. � 15 Retail: Sales tax revenue is assumed at �5,940, based on annual gross sales of �150 per square foot, with 33 percent of the sales being taxahle. Airport Parking/Car Rental: The analysis assumes no significant sales ta� revenue would be derived from these sites. Office-Warehouse: Although Burlingame derives significant sales tax revenue from non-retail activities such as those likely to locate, on sites in � this category, specific data on existing sales tax, vields were not avail-� � able at the time of the analysis. Sites in the study area typically are one to five acres, and may be occupied bv a number of small offices or distribution and service businesses. CitS�wide, the non-retail sales . tax revenue of about $1.4 million is derived from nearly 850 firms, for an average of �1,700 annual revenue per establishment. This aver- � age may be skewed by substantial taxable sales of a few large manu- facturing or distribution firms, but until better sales tax data (on orCer from the State Board of Equalization) are available for studv, an assumed revenue per establishment of �1,500 annually, with an aVerage of one establishment per acre, is used for revenue projections under each alterna cive. . Residential: Although additional population added under Plans 3 and 4 would contribute to sales tax revenues for purchases made in the City, the major share of taxable sales in Burlingame come from eating and drinking, auto dealerships, and non-retail uses. The cont�ibution of new residents in the study area would be relatively less significant, and some of the sales might occur in Burlin;ame (auto sales, for example) cvhether new residential development were located in the study area or the same potential population were accommodated in adjoining communities. Thereiore, no sales tax revenue is assigned to residential land use. This undoubtedly is a. conservative assumption. Current retail store and restaurant sales ;enerate �48 per resident, sug;esting a revenue increase of �188,000 under Plan 3, but a proportional inccease � cannot be assumed without detailed knorNledge of shopping habits. � Revenues Derived from Population Seven principal revenue sources are derived directly or indirectly from poQula- tion-based formulas or from fees largely derived from service charges to resi- d�ents. These include State alcoholic beverage license fees, motor,vehicle in- lieu tax fees, state and federal grants, local recreation pcogram fees, feder- al revenue sharing entitlements, and state gas tax revenue. Over four years, these sources together have produced a consistent, slowly increasin� level of revenue averaging $36.�6 per capita, and account for about 1� percent of the City's revenue exclusive of water and sewer funds. C7 � 16 Residential Use: Residential use envisioned under Plans 3 and 4 is assumed to average two persons per dwelling unit, and per capita revenues are assumed at 537.00 • • Other Revenue Sources About 14 percent of the City's revenue (exclusive of water and sewer) is generated from a variety of sources which cannot be as directly related to specific land uses or to population as the revenues previouslv described. Still, these consti- tute an important source of funds — budgeted at $1,000,000 for 197i-78 — that will to some estent be affected by the overall levels of economic activity in the City. These "other revenue" sources include interest on reserves, business license and other permit revenues, franchise revenues, property transfer taxes, vehicle code fines, and a variety of charges for municipal service. In order to reflect the potential increase in these revenues as an indirect consequence of an increased city budget and overall level of economic activity that is likely to result from additional Bayfront development, an allowance of 10 percent over the increased revenues derived from assessed valu�tion, com mercial uses, and population in each alternative sketch plan has been included in the analysis. � 17 � TABLE 3 SIIMMARY OF SELECTED REVENUE BY DERIVATION City oi Burlingame � � • Assessed Valuation Based Revenue Total Assessed Valuation Net Assessed Valuation Total Rax Rate per 5100 AV Property Tax Revenuel HO/BI Tax Relief2 Total AV-Based Revenue Pooulation Based Revenue Alcoholic Bev. License Motoc Vehicle In-Lieu State Geants Federal Grants Recreation Fees Revenue Sharing Gas Tax Total Population Based Revenue Burlingame Pooulation (State Dept. of Finance) Revenue per Capita Commerciallv Based Revenue 'I1�ansient Lodgir� Tax Revenue Tax Rate Number of Hotel Rooms � Revenue per Room (dollars) Sales Tax Revenue Eating and Drinkir�g3 Auto Dealers3 Other Retaii3 Non-Retail3 Sales Tax Total Cigarette Tax Revenue Total Commercially Based Revenue (thousands of dollars) 1974-T5 19T5-T6 1976-77 160,863 198,079 207,046 148.093 184,385 192,907 1.15 1.00 0.92 1710 1868 1T86 188 194 188 1,898 2,062 1,974 19?4-75 1975-76 1976-77 22 2? 20 252 2T3 300 72 29 10 25 5 15 143 164 148 1TT 194 248 288 276 282 979 968 1,023 26,750 36.60 21,250 27,450 35.52 37.27 1974-75 235 5� 1,090 216 163 347 409 1,120 Z,039 165 2,439 1975-76 I976-77 101 329 546 5% 1,240 1,240 243 265 187 204 441 536 441 459 1,254 1,351 2,323 2,550 178 170 2,802 3,049 1977-T8 237,129 221,645 0.89 1997 213 2,220 1977-T8 20 320 25 0 168 � 200 218 1,011 2^,450 36.83 1977-78 400 6% 1,240 323 222 638 47? 1,443 2,??5 169 3,344 1. Includes current, prior year, interest, and penalty revenue. 2. Homeowners and business inventory tax relief funds re5ated to City from state revenue sources. • 3. Seles tax revenue by source estimated by John Blayney Associates from SE3E quarteriv ceports of tsxable sales. Source: Generalized from City budgets by John Blayney Associates. 18 TABGE 4 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL REVENUE . City of Burlingame � (thousands of dollars) � Fund and Derivation 1974-TS 1975-?6 1976-77 1977-?8 General: AV 35 268 134 154 . Pop. 371 334 345 365 Com. 2,439 2.802 3,049 3,344 Other 665 668 T54 479 Library: AV 363 409 462 . 471 Other 20 23 24 68 Recreation: �V 115 152 213 179 . Pop. � 143 164 148 lfi8 Other ' 1 0 0 3 Park: AV 436 445 416 399 Other T 28 13 12 Stor m Drain: AV 66 45 42 73 Retirement: AV 643 560 555 784 Revenue Sharing: Pop. 177 194 248 200 • Other 46 49 44 42 , Gas Tax: Pop. 288 276 282 278 Other 103 32 50 53 Civil Defense: AV 1T 11 11 12 Other 9 8 5 5 Debt Service: AY 1T3 1T3 141 138 'h�affic Safety: Other 115 100 100 120 CETA: Other . N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. HCDA: Other N.A. N.A. N.A. 6? Total Above Funds: AY 1,898 2,062 2.,974 2,210 Pop. 979 968 1,023 1,011 Com m. 2,439 2,802 3,049 3,344 Other 966 911 990 1,000 TOTAL , 6.282 6,743 7,036 ?,565 Water Utility: . Water Sales 773 900 1,020 1.113 ' Other 55 �1 33 39 � TOTAL 828 921 1, 053 1,152 r Sewer Utility: Service Charges 299 345 500 7?0 • Other 67 60 90 207 TOTAL 366 405 590 927 TOTAL ALL CITY REVENUES: 7,476 8,069 8,679 9,644 ' Source: Generalized from City budgets bv John Blayney Associates 19 � � By Lend Use Office R estaurent Commercial Recreatlon Ilotel Retail Airport Park[ng/Cer Rental Otfice-Warehouse Residential - Vacent N � 7bta1 Projected Revenuefl By Derivetion Assessed Ve►luatlon Commerciel Activlty Reside:ntial Populetion . 1'olnl Projccted Revenue° Allowence for Other Revenue Not Assignul,le by Lend Use or by Derivetion (10`k,) TO'fAL PROJIC['GD ftEVENUG� (Excludin�; Gnlf) a. Amo�inls mey not totnl due to rounding 0 TABLE 5 � PROJEC'fED REVENUE BY LAND USE AND BY DERIVATION Beyfront Study Area • (in lhousnnds of dollnrs) ----.P1P�]_1__ _._ ....__ Plan_2 __.__-- ------- Plen 3 --- Plen 4 � 1985 1990 Ult 1985 1990 Ult 1985 1990 Ult 1985 1990 Ult 88 l52 294 88 152 189 88 104 104 88 148 196 215 296 296 215 368 426 215 312 312 215 332 332 1 'l 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 195 293 3'l9 145 293 952 195 2G9 269 195 243 611 0 9 9 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 12 12 12 12 2 12 1• 2 12 1 2 100 100 100 l0U 100 100 100 100 100 100 ]00 100 0 U 0 0 0 0 235 402 ' 951 194 194 194 20 10 0 20 9 0 9 2 0 11 6 0 5B2 824 992 582 886 1671 814 1200 1298 775 l036 1398 202 278 380 598 0 0 582 824 58 82 640 9U6 368 626 0 992 99 1091 202 278 308 380 608 1302 0 0 0 582 88B 1671 58 89 167 640 975 1838 354 386 75 814 486 586 128 1200 sie 586 144 1248 32? 386 61 775 392 582 61 1036 423 914 61 1398 81 120 125 77 101 140 896 1320 13T3 852 1106 1538 APPENDIY 2 Service Cost Projections While the majority of City revenues can be allocated to various land use cate- gories based on revenue generating characteristics of the uses, costs required to serve a major portion of a city with multiple uses are more difficult to assign except where costs of specific services or facilities can be .related to a specific use. Review of the fiscal impact comments contained in numerous recent EIRs prepared for projects in the study area, together with discussion of public costs likely to be incurred under the development assumed hy the alternative plans with City department heads, coniirmed that only order of magnitude costs could be projected in the context of total development of the stud,y are�t. r The approach used in this analysis has been to review likely costs under each alternative for major City services with the departments oroviding the service, and to identifv those areas of eost where expected service requirements wo�ald differ among the alternative plans, either with respect to timin� of capital construction or annual operating and maintenance costs. The cost projections are based in part on discussions with City departments and analysis of recent City budgets, but the assumptions and results are the responsibility of the authors. For some City services, the level of service or quality of service is some�n�hat elastic, and minor incremental additions to the City's population, economic activity, traffic, employment, or other indicators can be provided at no addi- tional cost. For other services, continued development of Bayfront lands will at some point require either enlarged facilities, added eauipment and personnel, or perhaps will result in adjustment of service levels on a per unit basis. Evaluation of services and costs in this study did not include extensive analysis of existing service costs or because preliminary review indicated that most � City services and facilities already were built or staffed at a level that would permit additional Bayfront development at moderate or no added cost. A major effort to allocate service costs by land use was not considered critical to the study's conclusions. The following sections describe our assumptions and cost estimating procedure. Police Protection Regular patrol act}vity in the study area now is provided bv one officer per shift, allocatin; about half time to the study area and half time elsewhere in � the City. Additional response to emergency calls is provided as elsewhere in the Citv. Continuation of Anza's present private qatrol service is not assumed in the following analysis. Police Department estimates of manpower requirements at full development sugoest that the area north and east of the free�vav is geographicallv ideal for treatment as a single patrol beat, requiring one officer per shift or about 5 . officers total. This would represent an approximate doubling of present patrol 21 costs in the area. Assurning a net increase of 2.5 officers at current annual costs of about �25,000, and one additional patrol vehicle at an average annual replacement cost of �4,500, police costs f�r patrol and emergencv response activities would increase by some �67,000 annually at full development. Timin� of manpower increases to maintain current service levels would vary depending on the rate of development and the mix of land uses occurring in the study area. Residential multi-family development would create a high level of calls, because neighbors are in close proximity and call frequently, but at the same time resi- dential development would require less traffic contral than alternative uses. Hotels .;enerate more demand on police than alternate uses of the same site (such as residential or office development) because they serve a transient clien- tele, and are 24-hour business activities. iYlajor office structures frequently have private security to supplement police patrols, and rarely generate extensive night or weekend activity. � Citywide, Chief Palmer estimates about 75 percent of current police services are residentially related, with the remaining 25 percent being attributed to the City's commercial and industrial areas. Projected police costs under the alternate plans assume a base cost — essentially for patrol services — increase of $67,000 annually at ultimate development, with a proportionally lower cost in 1985 and 1990 based on the percent of full development indicated by assessed valuation. An additional 2Q percent was added to the base cost to represent the estimated cost of non-patrol activities, and to reflect the likely higher costs of the greater number of hotel rooms assumed b,y Plans 2 and 4 at uitimate development, 10 percent was added to the cost under Plan 2 and 5 percent under Plan 4. Fire- Protection Discussion with the Fire Department confirmed the conclusion of previous E:Rs that no measurable capital costs are expected as a result of further development in the study area. Geographic coverage already is provided by esisting fire stations and manpower. The southeasterly portion of the area, encompassing principally the drive-in theatec site which is beyond the desired 3-mile service radius, can be served when required by mutual aid assistance from the San �VIateo Fire Department. Buriingame requires more sprinklering of all new construction, including residen- tial development, in the Anza portion of the study area, and additional protec- tive features are required for high-rise construction. Erpected periodic ceplace- ment of eYisting fire protection equipment iNould be programmed in any event, and the alternative sketch plans do not propose any development with unusual or high risk fire hazards that would require new or specialized services. Northwest of Broadway, sprinklers are required only for structtires e�cceeding `30,000 sq.ft. or f our floors. . Although Chief Fricke estimates that the Department will be able to continue its current fire pcevention inspections on its 8-month cycle, ultimate development of the study area with major structures inevitably must result in some leve! 22 of increased cost due to both fire prevention activities and fire suppression, if current service levels are to be maintained. To provide an approximation of potential costs, the following methodology was used. Fire Department costs have averaged �6,040 pee each million dollars of assessed valuation (a rou�h measure of property requirin� fire protection). Assuming about 10 percent . of the Department's costs might be affected by increasin� development, a cost of �600 per million AV increase in the study area was used to reflect an admittedly "order of magnitude" reflection of the cost of added Fire Department service demands resulting from plan alternatives that could not he absorbed by existing manpower and facilities without affecting service levels. � � Public Works, Trafficways, and Drainaae Trafficways: Streets serving the entire study area already are in place, but . some improvements may be required to better accommodate traffic flocvs and peak conditions. Additional public streets may he required to serve residential develoQment under Plans 3 and 4, but specific needs cannot be identified now. Construction would be a develoQer responsibility, but minor incremental costs for cleaning and :naintenance could be expected. Widenin� of Airport Boulevard alongside Bayside Park and the disposal site (or alternatively, relocation on an alignment throu;h the disposal site) remains a probable need, but such an improvement would serve existin; traffic requirements as well as traffic gen- erated bv additional uses under each sketch �lan. Concurrent evaluation of trafficway improvements is being done by J.D. Drachman and Associates, and cost estimates of alternative traffic improvements will be included in the Drach- man report. Because the peak hour traffic volume is 77 percent greater for Plan 1 than for Plan 3, the traffic improvement cost differential could be sub- stantial. . Li�htin�: �Viinor annual operating cost increases can be eYpected for street li?hting (a developer responsibility for installativn) along undeveloped Westates frontage, and for improved lightin� along �irport Bouleyard adjacent to Bayside Park, but the cost (about �75 per year per light) would not be significant. Engineerin�: No added costs for public works administration and general engin- eering services (over current Citywide levels) are included because these activities already encompass the study area. Draina�e Facilities: City•policy identifies storm drainage as a responsibility of each development, and improvements required in the studv area by individual developrnents will not be a City expense. Incremental annual maintenance costs are believed to be insignif icant. Parks and Reereation All sketch plans assume retention of the existing Bayside Park. In Addition, Plans 1 and 2 assume development of a 9-hole ;olf course and driving range on the refuse disposal site and Plans 3 and 4 assume park expansion to occupy the same area. � � 23 Both the goli course and the major park expansion would serve community-wide purposes, and while they �vould be complementary, with the emphasis of each plan the two uses probably are substitutable and either would enhance any of the alternative plans. The �olf course is assumed to be feasible on a"no cost-no revenue" basis (see discussion below). Costs of developing and operating the park expansion have been included in the analysis of Plans 3 and 4, although for comparative pur- poses the net cost or the net revenue resulting under any plan in any year should exclude projected park costs. � Residents of the study area (Plans 3 and 4) would likely create some added demands on City park facilities, although the type of housing and the probable characteristics of the occupants sugoest that the use per capita of City parks by study area residents would be lower than use by the average Burlingame citizen. Similarly, some added demand would be created for participation in City recreatin programs. However, discussions with both the Parks and Rec- reation directors indicated that initial demands could be met b,y reducing par- ticipation in recreation activities by non-Burlingame residents (who now parti- cipate on an "availability" basis) with priority ;iven to Burlingame residents. Housing development envisioned by ,the sketch plans would be likely to provide recreational facilities that would, in part, meet requirements of the residents and further Iessen usage of City facilities. Major hotel development could create some added demand for passive recreational facilities, but these are not expected � to be significant. Development of a 9-hole �olf course and a driving range, as anticipated by the Bayside Redevelopment Project,and by pcior City plans, is assumed to be feasible at no net cvst to the City. Prior studies for the City by golf course architect . Robert Graves and by the �Villiam Sherman Company (Feasibility Report) indicate that the golf course, m�intenance facilities, clubhouse, and par4cing can be con- structed on the City-owned site for �1,605,500 — or about $1.' million escalated to 1978 costs. The ieasibility report assumed construction as part of the Bay- side Redevelopment Project. If the City were to construct the facility and lease it to a concessionaire for operation, debt service over 30 years assumed at 7 percent could require annual payments of $137,000. Whether the potential operating balance oi the course in future years would be sufficiently promising to support debt service, or whether alternative construction assumptions would increase feasibility of the Qroject are questions beyond the scope of this report. We have assumed that the course will be built at no net cost to the City, but b'ecause construction timing and potential revenue the facility might return to the City are uncertain, no revenue has been shown in the revenue analysis. f Park capital costs for a minimum level of development are assurned at �55,000 per acre. This is based on costs cited in the :�ddendum Report to the DEIR for the Bayside Redevelooment Project (October 21, 1977). Costs cited vary, depending on whether park facilities are minimal (grading and turfing for an � essentially passive park) or include ballfields, plavground facilities, restroom facilities, and other features, and whether �xtensive imported fill or topsoil is required. 24 iVlaintenace costs are assumed at �1,300 per acre, based on estimates by Parks Director John Hoffman for maintenance of a 50+ acre minimal pArk with one ballfield. • Timing of development assumes that about one-half of the park would be con- structed by 1985, and the balance by 1990, althou;h this is an arb'itrary assump- tion because park development is not an essential condition for development of the privately owned sites envisioned by the alternate plans. No allowance is provided in the estimated park and recreation cost projections for develoqment of facilities in the inner lagoon area, or for recreation programs that might be associated with such facilities. Additionally, no allowance is made for possible costs associated with widening or realignment of Airport Boulevard and the impacts such improvements miaht have upon the existing exisitng Bayside Park. These implications will be explored further during the next phase of the work. . Plans 3 and 4, with residential development, could generate added demands upon the City's recreation programs, but no per capita costs are included in the cost projections on the assumption that these demands could be met by equivalent reduction of use of recreation programs and facilities by non-City groups. If residential development is included in the final Bayfront plan, further study of the potential recreational program needs of likely residents might be done. The slightly greater par�c cost for Plan Inner Lagoon pr000sed by this plan but leasehold from the State on this parcel developers. 3 results from the 1.3 acre park on the not by Plan 4. It is assumed that the would be purchased with fees paid by Library Service Library service essentially is related to resident population, and is not expected to be affected bv development under Plans 1 and 2. For Plans 3 and 4, the assumption is made that increased population will result in increased library usage, and thus increased costs, but at a per capita cost of �10.00 annually — only about half the current cost of library service — reflecting an assumed ability of present facilities and staffing to serve additional users without in- creased cost, and the likelihood that study area population, largely childless, will have lower usage than the average Burlingame resident today. General Government Services Durin� the past four years, the costs of Citv administration, insurance, retire- ment, public builidng maintenance, debt service, and other "overhead" activities has averaged about �0 percent of all other City costs, e:�cludin� utilities. The ratio has 5een increasin�, but for purposes of this cost analysis, a constant ratio of 50 percent of the annual operating and maintenance cost increases projected under the alternative s�cetch plans is assumed as repcesentative of added admini- strative and overhead costs. 25 City Utilitv Services Water Service: In a 197? study of the Burlingame water system by George S. Nolte and �ssociates, a series of improvements, grouped by priority, were pro- posed to improve service in specific areas and strengthen the ability of the system to function adequately in potential emer;ency situations. Two improve- ments were proposed that �xould imorove service in the Bayf�ont study area, but neither is a prerequisite for additional development. Both were rated as second level priorities, to be completed within five years. Project 2.3 would � provide additional water system connections between California Drive and Rollins Road, at an estimated cost of $188,800. Project 2.4 would construct an additional connection across the freeway to Lang Road near the southeast City limits, and would cost an estimated $138,500. � Both projects currently are programmed for construction between 1981 and � 1983 with likely funding to come from issuance of revenue bonds to be repaid from water service fees. Construction timing could vary by a few years, depend- ing on the pace of new develoQment in the study area and the completion of higher priority projects. � Sewers: Sewer service requirements were evaluated by the Public Works Depart- ment for the alternate plan p�ograms presented in September 1977, following Phase 1 of the Bayfront Study. The conclusion was that all alternates easily could be accommodated by available treatment plan capacity. Similarly, exist- �� '�� ' ing sewer lines now installed throughout the study area would have the capaci.ty � �. . for expected flows. A minor extension of lines to serve the tiVestates property � � would be a responsibility of the developer. Under each of the alternatives, a se�vage pumping station serving the Anza properties would be required, at an estimated capital cost of $18,000. Although specific evaluation of the alternatives presented in this report was not conducted by the Public Works Department, our discussions with the Depart- ment indicated that because the range of development anticipated by the first set of alternative plan programs and the alternatives presented h�ere for fiscal impact evaluation is similar, the earlier conclusions would apQly. Recent studies of alternative proposals to improve wastewater treatment facili- � ties serving Burlingame and several adjoining communities identified capital costs at �71,000 and increased annual operating costs of �11,500 for improvements to the Burlingame treatment plant, but these expenses would be incurred under a"no development" assumption as well as under all of the sketch plan alternatives, and thus would not be expenses related to Bayfront develoQment choices. � Because both the water and sewer utilities are operated as self-supporting enter- prises, financed by service charges, connection fees, and other related revenues, anticipated costs and revenues under the sketch plans are excluded from the analysis. 4Vhether one set of land uses or another would �enerate fees from new development that would offset any capital and operating costs required b.y that development would require a detailed analysis of existing service demands • and fee structures. In general discussions cvith City staff inembers, no major costs associated with uses proposed in the study area were cited that could � not be recovered from service char�es, and the rate structures generally are believed to supoort costs of service to broad land use groups — residential, commercial, industrial, and others. 26 TABLE 6 • SUNI;VIARY OF ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS City of Burlingame ' � (thousands of dollars) 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 2f72 1240 1341 972 351 469 556 � General Governmentl 1580 2046 • 2360 Police Services 980 1008 1154 Fire Protection � 1043 1165 1270 • Public Works2 651 723 ?45 Recreation 296 326 323 Parks 376 424 . 428 r' Library 390 434 500 . Total Above Services 5316 6126 6780 Water Utility Sewer Utility Total All Costs • ! • 7soi 763 838 1090 1125 425 517 775 850 6504 7481 8645 9576 1. Includes management, financial, and related general city activities; insurance; public buildings; building cegulation and safety activities other than police and fire; retirement; and debt service costs. 2. .Includes engineering, street-related function, refuse pick-up, and storm drainage services. Source: Gener�lized from City Budgets by John Blayney Associates. 27 � ` � Service Police Fire Public Works. Traf[icways. and Drainege Parks end Recreation N O0 Library ' Subtotal General Government �• TOTAL COSTS TOTAL COSTS� Excluding Park Costs � ' TA13LE 7 ANNUAL OP�RAT[NG AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Bayfroiit Study Area (in thousands of dollars) � Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 1985 , 1990 Ult 1985 1990 Ult 1985 1990 Ult 94 60 80 94 60 S7 55 7G . 8p 13 18 24 13 18 24 23 32 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 69 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 17 19 57 78 104 57 78 111 122 194 203 29 39 52 • 29 39 56 61 9? 101 86 117 . 156 86 118 167 184 291 304 86 117 156 86 118 167 132 187 200 Sewer and water utility costs not Included in costs. n ►_. Ptan 4 1985 1990 Ult 62 75 84 21 26 28 0 0 0 34 68 68 8 � 8 8 125 176 187 63 88 94 188 2G4 280 137 163 179 '• BURLINGA;�1E BAY FRONT TR.AFFIC STL'DY PHASE III � The Proposed Plan Traffic Impacts � .� � � J. D. Drachman Associates • September 1973 . . . ___ _ . . .._ .,.��....,� .__ .._.�.._.� . _ . , TABLE OF CONTE\TS BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY THE NETWORK ANALYSIS SUNIbZARY ,� .; Page 1 1 3 5 1G EXHIBITS 1 Proposed Plan Incremental Traffic A�Iorning Peak Hour � Proposed Plan Total Traffic i4Torning Peak Hour 3 4 ,� .; Proposed Plan Incremental Traffic Afternoon Peak Hour Proposed Plan Total Traffic Afternoon Peak Hour � Page 8 0 10 11 LIST OF TABLES � Table 1 2 3 Trip Generation - P. M. Peak (4:30 - 5:30) Mid-Block Volumes - P. M. Peak Hour Intersection Capacity (4:30 - 5:30) Airport Boulevard & Bayshore Highway Intersection Capacity (4:30 - 5:30) Bayshore Highway & Broadway 101 Ramps Intersection Capacit3� (4:30 - 5:30) Airport Boulevard & Coyote Point Road Airport and Bayshore Capacity Utilitzation Per Acre of Land Developed in the South Shore Bayshore and Highwa}� 101 Ramp Intersection Capacity Utilization Per Acre of Land Developed in the South Shore Airport Boulevard and Coyote Point Capacity Utilization Per Acre of Land Developed in the South Shore Page 4 6 13 _ 14 15 17 18 19 4 � 5 � 6 � ? � 8 � � ,� � r _ . _ �::; ..�:: -�. ....:,.; ..;. . �._..::d, _ _:_: ,: ....._. _. _ N_.�� ... ... .. . .. •__._�. �..� �..,�...�r`.�r�.�w..�.��.� �._...�.. � \ J � BACKGROUr'D This technical report is the third and final submission in relation to the Burlingame Ba.y Front Traffic Stndy�. The first report was presented in the form of a progress re- port in September 1977. This document provided analysis of existing conditioi:s and the impacts of short range committed and planned projects within the study area. The secoi;d report covered possible development scenarios in the area to the year 1990. Four pro- posed land use patterns were anal3�zed during this phase of the stud�•. In additioii, tl:e Phase II report provided technical guidelines in order that staff and other interested persons could assess the changes in traffic impact resulting from the various combinations of proposed land uses within a given area. These guidelines allowed polic5• making bodies and City staff to develop their own approximate estimate as to the impact of any numher of additional or revised proposals within the study area. As a result of the previous work phases, certain traffic and other environmental impacts were isolated for further consideration. Through the course of t:zese studies a consensus was reached among the professional staff, the policy makina bodies of the Cih• � and ddhn Blayney Associates, the urban planner. This report is addressed to the traffic impacts of this "consensus" land use plan, hereafter referred to as the proposed plan. � The Phase III report is a shorter, more concise, and more detailed report than tlle previous phase since on13� one, rather than four, plans were considered. � METHODOLOGY � � The methodology employed for the traffic anal5�sis of the proposed pla.n was similar to that used to evaluate the four plans in the Phase II report. A detailed description will not be repeated in this text, other than to note chanoes in procedure. The morning and afternoon peak hour trips were again generated in accordance with average Bay Area traffic research counts for the various land uses. These re- search counts were also used to illustrate the hourly variation in trip generation duri�g a typical weekday. In the appendix to this report a graphic illustration is presented that shows the hourly distribution of traffic for three major types of generators, residential, offices and restaurants, as compared to the overall variation on a typical arterial street. This exhibit is based on counts taken at nineteen locations in the Bay Area. An overall average daily traffic volume was also developed to assess the total impact of the proposed plan. However, the afternoon peak period usually is the best measure of the adequacy of highway network. The P. b7. analysis is presented in more detail in this report, although A. M. volumes are included for reference. The geographical trip distribution of the generated volumes was detailed somewhat more accurately than the previous work phase. Five separate distributions were used based on locations within the study area, and type of land uses. Geographical percen- tage trip distributions were developed for the following categories: 1. North Shore 2. South Shore - North Portion 3. '� 4. � 5. South Shore - South Portion South Shore - Residential Rollins Road - Ialand Area The most significant overall difference between these distributions were between � � residential and other land uses. Trips associated with residential uses exhibit an average shorter trip length than other land uses. Residential trips include many trip purposes, such as convenience shopping and personal business. On the other hand, offices, restaurants, and hotels draw vehicle trips from a more wide-spread regional ba.se, and are consequently more oriented to regional transportation facilities, such as the freeway system. The trip generation phase of this study resulted in an afternoon peak hour trip generation of 5, 850 two-way trips 1 A summary of the trip generation stratified by sub-area and la.nd use is presented in Table 1. The final process of the methodology was the trip assignment of the generated volumes to the optimum route selection between areas of development and major geographical locations. This assignment was carried out in a similar manner as de- scribed in Phase II. However, in this instance, the assignment process was e:ceouted in more detail. In our previous report the total assignment considered the four major sectors only. For this phase of the study, the assignment was from 21 clusters of development (traffic zones) to the desired geographical orientation. For each of the 21 zones, the generated trips were traced through the network and volumes were accumulated on every link and turning movement at major street intersections and freeway interchanges were developed for the P.1�T, peak period. These volume diagrams were the base upon which capacity and impact evaluations were made. THE NETWORK The uetwork used in this analysis included all existing facilities �vith some improve- ments and some new access facilities. The improvement of existing facilities included � some� �pgrading and signalization of the Airport Boulevard - Old Bayshore intersection in orc�er to accommodate some heavy turning volumes estimated to occur at ultimate development. This improvement project would also include the widening of Airport � �� Boulevard between the Bayshore interchange and just north of Anza Pacific Boulevard. The new facilities include a reworking of the Peninsula-Coyote Point-Highway 101 interchange, and a pair of button hook ramps between the Peninsula and Broadway interchanges. 5, 850 two-way trips is the total origins and destinations of trips within the sti�d3• area during the ever.ing peak hour. . . � . . . 3 - r... ---,...— ._" � �....' �„r �"'ti' —"'�' -- """ `-- � North Shore South Shore - North ' South Shore - South Rollins Road-Inland TOTAL Table 1 Trip Generation Summary - P. M. Peak (4:30 - 5:30) ,, • . � Propoaed Plan Offices & Office Warehouse In Out ', 200 70 250 60 580 870 330 x,i7o 280 2, 650 Restauran In Out 170 100 110 70 3G0 220 G40 390 Hotels In Out ' ?0 50 350 270 50 30 470 350 Residential In Out 430 250 I 430 250 Othe r In Out 10 20 10 io 20 20 40 50 • Total In Out 440 1, OZO ' i 540 690 i,1oo i,sso � 80 300 ; • � � 2,160 3,690 � i � ... -... ,.... �..� ,.�.�..v........+--.lr:r..+-arr.��. ._. _--•_-sa�._--cTr._'-�._-_ �_._. _ _ _ _ The improvement in the Peninsula Avenue interchange will provide better access b3• a more direct route to the freeway and to Peninsula Avenue, while do�vngrading tl:e ; resent mfnor tra.ffic movements from/to Coyote Point Drive. This improvement is currently being studied by the California Department of Transportation (Cal-trans), and is in the preliminary planning sta.ges. The button hook ramps will provide access from the south on Highway 101 to the South Shore Area, and from the South Shore Area to the north on High�vay 101. These ramps will tie in to Airport Boulevard at Anza Pacific Boulevard (N'orth).- These ramps will also include a low-level structure over the Lagoon. Ah'ALYSIS After the traffic assignment process was completed, an analysis of the resulting imcremental volumes was undertaken for mid-block locations, and at the three inajor intersections of Bayshore-Airport Boulevard, Bay�shore-Highway 101 Ramps and Airport-Coyote Point Road (existing). Table 2 presents the increases in volumes at a number of representative loca- tions throughout the study area. As indicated, the maximum increase in traffic on Bayshore Highway occurs between Cowan and \rIitten Road. The increased volume of ,� 660 no�thbound vehicles per hour is slightly more than double the existing volume. This volume, however, is within the capacity of the 53-foot curb-to-curb width available at this location. On Airport Boulevard, the maximum flow is 860 southbound vehicles behveen Bayshore Highway and the new ramp connections. The existing volumes on this section is presently 280 vehicles per hour. This total of 1,140 vehicles per hour will be within the capacity of a widened Airport Boulevard through this section. The existing and � � � . Table 2 � Mid-Block Volumes - P1�1 Peak Hour � Proposed Plan Incremental Increases � Street Section Vol_ um� Bayshore Hiahway Cowan-Mitten 660 1�'B 290 SB � Bayshore Highway Hinckley-Ma.hler 160 NB 360 SB Bayshore Highway Burlway-Airport 220 NB 410 SB � Airport Boulevard Bayshore-New Ramps 290 NB 860 SB Airport Boulevard New Ramps-Anza Pacific S. 820 NB ?50 SB � Airport Boulevard Long Road-Coqote Point 570 NB 1160 SB Rollins Road 1�lillbrae Avenue-Brode=ick 180 NB � Rollins Road Marsten-Broadway • 40 NB � Broadway Highway 101 - Rollins Road 890 EB Broadway Rollins Road-El Camino Real 190 EB � 1��Iillbrae Avenue Highway 101 - Rollins Road 230 EB Millbrae Avenue Rollins Road-California Drive 100 EB ' � �� 4 � � 70 SB 130 SB 310 ��'B 350 V�'B 200 ��'B 18 0 «'B estimated increases in traffic on Rollins Road are generally small and well within the capacity of this facility, A significant increase in traffic volumes occurs on Broadwa�• on the short section between the Highway 101 interchange and Rollins Road. The esti- mated increase on this section is 890 eastbound vehicles per hour in relation to the existing 670 vehicles per hour. On the section of Broadway, .behveen Rollins Road and El Camino Real, the maximum increased P. M, peak flow is 350 vehicles per hour westbonnd in relation to the existing 1, 460 vehicles per hour. Duri.ng the morning pealc, the proposed plan wfll increase the eastbound traffic flow on Broad�vay from 1, 520 to 1, 810 vehicles per hour. Both the morning and evening peak will have. an ad�-erse impact on the intersection of El Camino Real and BroadwaS due to the increase in traffic volume on Broadway from 19 to 24 percent. A similar magnitude impact will result at the intersection of Broadway and �� J Rollin.s Road. At this location, the highest vol.ume increase will occur at the right turn movement from the south on Rollins Road to the east on Broadway. This movemer,t will increase from 630 to 1, 490 vehicles per hour during the morning peak, and from 210 to 920 during the evening peak. The impact on blillbrae Avenue will be nominal. The proposed plan results in traffic increases in the ran�e of 100 to 200 vehicles per � hour. The existing P. NI, peak hour, peak direction on this facility are in the range ,t . of 1,'300 to 2, 000 vehicles per hour. � � � • � �� . The most critical impacts attributable.to the proposed plan will occur at the intersection of Bapshore High�vay and Airport Boulevard, and Bayshore High�vay and the Broadway - 101 ramps. These critical elements were subject to a detailed capacit�� analysis covering the existing condition,_ a.nd the quality of traffic IIo�v at the time that the proposed plan is imQlemented. Exhibits 1 and 3 illustrate the eipected increase in volumes, during the A.1�1. and P. M. peaks, at the Broadway - BaS�shore Highway - Airport Boulevard and Bayshore Freeway complex. Exhibits 2 and 4 indicate the total eq� ` � y�'��' 9 � ♦ � �� 1 Qo P�� / �yIEVARD d �o ,t 4 � �r � / A�O 9,��\ � 9�. '9E�►� \ �'�� 8 \ � _ Marth rot to sesl� EXHBR 1 - BROADWAY INTERCHANGF P�0 PLAN - WCRE11�NTAl TRAf�IC MORNIN6 PEAK HOI�i VOLUIIAES �f�i IA Dinetional Vehicbt pa Ho�r -.-• AM I . . , � . �� 9�0 ,a ,� 1 �9��\ 0 � �i' /O 1� � � 0 'n�` � '%��►�, � � �� 9 �pUIEVARO ��. l�� . r } / North-not to sc�l� EXIflBR 2 - BROADWAY dUTE�;q�ANGE PROPOSED PLAN - TaTAI TRAFfiC MORNING PEAK HOUli VOLUTAES [Directio� UbAids per Hour . -� �] J .� �.� !�� o y'�� ` � ,�,, I 1 . ` I so 9�0 ,t . l �o N � ,�o �b ♦,��j' y�9 � � 0 9��e`� '�o �'o q` �a° 10 �p�1LEVARQ y�� Q►'�. `� 60 l,�Q,� � � � �� ' � / - North not to scak EXHIBR 3 - BApApyyqY INTERCNANGE PROPOSED PIAN - INCAEMENTAL.TRAFfiC AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR YOLUMES [inaeases e �111CtlOfla� i�i11C�S �f i�OUf - 1�30-5�30 PM] r�y 0 �o _!'� r� o \ T�= �-- � � ,�t0 � �= � 11 � Nath- not to�scals EXHIBff 4 - BROADWA1f AYTERCHAIIIGE PROPOSED PLAN - TOTAL TRAFfIC I1fTERN00N PEAK HOUR VOLUMES C�r'�Ci1011i� i�11C� p!f HOUf -430•5�3DPMJ existing plus increases generated by the proposed plan, at the same locations. Exhibits 3 a.nd 4 formed the basis for the capacity ealculations shbwn in Tables 3 and 4. �This volume-capacity ratio estimate indicates that at the Airport Boulevard-Bayshore � Highway intersection, the present level of traffic service is B. With the proposed pla.n and no intersection improvements, this intersection wvuld experience fa.ilure. However, with intersection improvements to accommodate the left turn volumes, the level of service would be improved to level D. This would be an acceptable level of service for urban conditions. A similar traffic condition will prevail during the mornirig pea.l: hour. Included in the appendix to this report is a qualita.tive description of these var5•ing degrees of traffic service. At the intersection of Bayshore Highway and the Broadway-101 ramps, the current level of service is B. With the completion of the proposed plan this intersection �vould still operate at an accepta.ble C service level. A similar capacity estimate was made for the existing Airport Boulevard-Coyote � Point Road intersections. This intersection currently is a free flow operation (level �), but will deieriorate at an E level a.s a result of the proposed plan. However, this intersection, together with the freeway interchange, is currently in the planning stage for major improvements. When these improvements are implemented, this location � ,t should revert to an acceptable level of traffic service. The only problem that may actually occur is a period of traffic congestion between the time of completion of the proposed plan, and prior to the implementation of the interchange improvements, � assuming the proposed plan precedes the improvement pro ject. During the morning peak, this intersection will operate within a C level of traffic service with or without improvements. This is due to the diversion of inbound traffic to the new off ramp to the Anza area from Highway 101 south. The total P. M. peak traffic approaching this � �. _... �... ... .�.i �. .�in ��i■, �. i� Table 3 _ � Intersection Capacity (4:30 - 5:30) ♦ Airport Boulevard & Bayshore Highway Critical Movement yshore Easlbound Thru ' ayshore �astt�ound Left Turn irport Southbound Thru ff Ramp Left Turn mbe r V otal C - vel of Traffic Service Existing V Volume (V) Capacity (C) C 370 1, 650 . 22 2 90 1� 780 . 05 200 1,440 .14 .12 .53 ii Proposed Plan No Intersection Improvements V Volume (V) Capacity (C) C 1,230 1,650 .75 320 1,780 .18 270 1,440 .19 .12 1. 24 F Proposed Plan With Intersection Improvements V Volume (V) Capacity (C) C 1 50 1 � 650 . 03 1,180 2,000 .59 320 1,780 ,lg 270 1,440 .19 .12 1. 08 D 1 Moves on Left Turn Phase 2 Included in Through Movement � � � �E: � �� : � � T�ble 4 r�• Intersection Capacity (4:30 - 5:30) � Bayshore Iiighway & Bro�dway lU1 Itamps � A Crltical Movement Bayshore Eastbound - All Bayehore Westbound - All Off Ramp Northbound - Left Turn Amber V Total C Level of Traffic Service E�cisting V Volume (V) Capacity (C) C 1,150 2,960 .39 410 2,350 .18 100 1�910 .06 .12 .75 � Propoaed Plan V Volume C 1,560 ,53 540 .23 190 .10 .12 .98 C �. . . �u .�r� �r ��. .�� "�- � a'�► ','� -� � s . _'�"-- � �i�° '�: - � �! -� _ :_3 _._s w Table 5 Intersection Capacity (4:30 - 5:30) �.� �� Airport Boulevard & C�vote Point Road Crttical Movement �. u Coyote Point Southbound - A11 Bayshore Northlwund - All Airport Eastbound - Left Turn Airport Eastbound - Right Turn Aml�er V Total C Level of Traffic Service * 1390 - 700 1700 for un-oppoaed right turn Existing V Volume (V) Capacity (C) C 190 1,700 .12 150 1�700 .09 15 1,700 .01 345 1,700 - .12 .34 A Proposed Plan V Volume (V) C 250 .15 660 .39 120 .07 1,390 .41* .12 1.14 E �� i� �) �I intersection is 1, 720 vehicles per hour, during the A. bi. peak this volume is reduced to 960 vehicles per hour because of the diversion as noted. Deta.iled capacity anal3rsis was not undertaken for the :�2illbra.e Avenue interchange, although incremental traffic increases were estimated for all ramps. The on15� ramp at this interchange that will experience a major impact is the northbound on ramp. This ramp will be increased from the present 490 vehicles per hour to 840 vehicles per hour. This will still be in the range of available capacity. The other ramps will experience only nominal increases in the range of 50 to 200 vehicles per hour. Finally, for reference and possible future use in the plannino process, Tables 1) �I �) r� �, � � � i� � 6, ?, and S are presented. Similar tables were included in the Phase II report (8, 9, 10). These tables provide a tool for anyone to make a rough approximation of the capacity consumed at the three critical locations resulting from one acre of devel- opment of the indicated land uses. SUMI�IARY The intensity of increased land uses indicated for the proposed plan wi.11 have a significant impact within the study area and the surrounding environment. It is esti- mated that this plan will result in the generation of 165, 000 daily vehicle trips, �vith 2,16Q�rips inbound and 3, 690 trips outbound during the critical P.:�I. peak and 3, 030 1 inbound and 1,180 outbound during the A. M. peak. These volumes can be handled by all the street and highway n�twork elements, gree of traffic congestion during an interim period. This period of traffic congestion with the exception of the Coyote-Airport interchange which may experience some de- will be dependent on the timing of the improvements to the Peninsula Avenue interchange. Three major access improvements were considered during the course of this study. They were a button hook on-off ramp configuration betweer. Highwa�- 101 a.nd 16 � i �� ,� � �.� I �'� � �' .� ri � �� I �' 1 �, � �, i � I M� � �� I ►� i � � TABLE 6 AIRPORT AND BAYSHORE INTERSECTION CAPACITY LTILIZATION PER ACRE OF LAND DEVELOPED IN THE SOL'TH SHORE Land Use Residential Offices Office/Warehouse Hotel Resta.urant Retail Commercial Park Golf Course Car Rental Airport Parking Commercial-Rec. Percent of Capacity Used by One Acre 0 ,t Cu�rently Consumed Capacity Future Available Capacity � 0. 66 1. 24 0. 27 0, 77 1.01 2. 48 0. 06 0. 03 0. 34 0.11 0. 25 46 Percent 54 Percent » Hypothetical Exclusive Acres of Use to Reach Available Capacity 82 44 200 ?0 53 22 900 1800 158 490 216 �i r) � � I. � �' �I � If ! � I f i •� I � � f �� i TABLE 7 BAYSHORE AND HIGHWAY 101 R.AMP INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION PER ACRE OF LAND DEVELOPED IN THE SOUTH SHORE Land Use Residentia.l Offices Office/Warehouse Hotel Restaurant Retail Commercial Park Golf Course Car Rental Airport Pa.rking Commercial-Rec. •f Cur�ntly Consumed Capacity Future Available Capacity Percent of Capacit�• Used by One Acre 0. 35 1. 04 0. 24 0. 42 o, s4 1. 36 0. 03 0. O1 0.19 0. 07 0.15 78 Percent 22 Percent Hypothetical Exclusive Acres of Use to R,each Available Capacity 63 21 92 52 4 16 ?33 2200 116 314 147 � 18 ►: i �� ,.� �f ! i � � ' I f 1 .1 1 ♦I i ' �� TABLE 8 AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND COYOTE POII�'T CAPACITY UTILIZATION PER ACRE OF LAND DEVELOPED IN THE SOUTH SHORE Land Use Residential offi�es Office/'Warehouse Hotel Resta.urant Retail Commercial Pa.rk Golf Course Car Rental Airport Parlflng Commercial-Rec. Percent of Capacity Used by One Acre 0.43 i. 20 0.19 0. 36 0. 48 1.15 0. 03 0. Ol 0. 69 0. 06 0.11 Currently Consumed Capacity 42 Percent Futur�� Available Capacity 58 Percent t Hypothetical Exclusive Acres af Use to Reach Available Capacity 135 48 305 161 121 50 1933 5800 84 967 527 • 19 � the David Road area, the Stanton Road area north of Broadway; and a similar ramp configuration south of Broadwa.y between the freeway and Bayview Place. Consideration � of the ramps on the north side of Broadway was dropped from further stud}• after it f became evident that they could not be financially justified in relation to their limited � improvement in traffic access. The ramps on the south side of Broadway, however, � are vital to the successful operation of the street and highway system for the le��el of development delineated in the proposed plan. These ramps will provide significant � relief to the Peninsula Avenue interchange, the Broadway interchange, and the intersection of Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard. These ramps, includir.a ' the structure over the Lagoon are roughly estimated to cost in the range of one million ( dollars. The ramps, together with a highway rest stop and tourist information center, is presently under consideration by the California Department of Transportation. ►I �I � ,* 1 ( � �I :tl � � ZO � . • � I. � � � :� ; ,. : � - t ; � : a , APPENDIX � �4 E � . � �. , • � . . . � . e � . • ./ � � � � �� ! '� ► � r ,N -N � � � S � � � � P e0 . � V v Y '�'� y _C • �. � � �1 • v r � � � ' j /. . • t'W � . � . _ i � i �/ � � l ; ( . .� � l . , �` , a l � ' /,/ /�/ ,, _O t , • � 2 � . � . � j . . . .� i � � � . . �•� .�� o� /' . . � `��. � �. �• z . /�� . �i-` ` . . . , . . _ . . . • . . • • • • ' .� . • `. L � ' � .�'� n � - . •i ��: ' • � • . . . . � . � . , � � . • • �•�� • • . •' . . � � . Ll. . � �� t � '_ � `_ �, . . �\ . . . • \ �7 � . � ' • . . . . . . . . . . � . �`• \• � � . . � ' . � \ ' � . � i . . , i� ` � � : - � - � ; . , .•�, �. . . . . '��• . .. . cV � ' � • , .• • / ,/� • — — , � � �'. � , ` . , . � � � - . . . . � . . . ` � �` . , . . . . . . J ! .'. ` � � � 1 .. . . . . . � �� /� . . _ . . . . . . . . . . •• . . � � � r � � . . . . .... � . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . •�. • / \ 1 G . ` • � . .. I i . . •; � . . �I . . .. . � 'T' � - . ' . ... . . .� - • \ . .. . ..... ._ . . ,1` :�•.� • � . .. . � _ .. , . � � • _ �� . . . • • . •.•�' " -\� r G ; . . . . . . . . .`. � ..... ., ... . .. .\: "Q . . . _ . . . . . . : ,,} �� . _ . . . : � r i . . . . . �.� � � �. . . . � � / . . • � /• � � . N i` . . . . . J � / • � : _. ' � / � . . • • / ,/ ' �. .. . • � n � : c� N o�' o- ac r' v- � �' �''� N ., — — _ � , . . . . . � . . , . . . ; _ .. . . . � . _ - • � ' Z (`f 1 0 11., � A ar-{ ; . , . r � � � • � �, • ; f� � � At evel of service A, there are no loaded cycl�s (i.e., the load factor is 0.0) and few ar�e even Close to loaded. No approach ph�se is full� util- ized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer tn�n one red indication. ' Level of service B represents stable operat�cr., wlth a load factor of not over 0.1; an occasioral , approach phase is fully utilized and a substa��t��l number are approaching full use. In level of service C stable operation continues. Loading is still intermittent, but more frequen� . with the load factor ranging from 0.1 to 0.3. Oc- cassional ly drivers may have to ti�a i t throu;h r�o��Q than one red signal indication. Level of service D encompasses a zone of increasi^.� restriction app roaching instability in the l;mi� when the load factor reaches 0.70. Delays to a;- proaChing vehicles may be substantial dur:�g Shor: peaks within the peak per�od. but enounh cycles � with lower demand occur to permit periodic clear- ante of developing queues, thus preven�;ng exces- sive bacic-ups. ,� . � • �_. Capacity occurs at level of service �. :t re�re- sents the most vehicles that any �art�cular in'�r-- section approach can accommodate. Although theor- etically a load factor of 1.0 would represent c�- pacity, in practice full utilization of every c�c'e is seldom attained, no matter how great the de��znd, unless the street is nignly friction-free. a load factor range of 0.7 to 1.0 is more rpalis��_. At capacity there may be long queues of vehic?e= waiting up-stream of the intersection and cei::ys may be great (up to several signal cycles). Level of service F represents jar^�ned conditior�s. J Load Factor Measure of degree of utilization of an intersc•�_�•��. approach roadway during one hour of pe�K tra;ric f]ow. � Sour�e: HRS Special Report 87. Nigh•nay C�pacity r��'��:? �'�� 0 • • � � REPORT PREPARATION • REPORT PREPARATION This report was prepared as an extension of the Environmental � Assessment form pursuant to the directives of the City of Burlingame. Acknowledgement is hereby given to the City of Burlingame Staff: Mr. John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner, and Mr. Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works, for their assistance and cooperation in preparing this report and in working with us during the design- development stages of the project. Further acknowledgements are extended to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Anza Airport Park Master Plan, and Drachman Report, the Blayney Report, as well as the following individuals for their professional assistance: • Mr. John Raiser, F.ASCE Mr. Eric Cox, P,E., M.ASCE Mr. Joseph Kent, AIA LeRoy Crandall & Associates, Civil and Geotechnical Engineers Mr. H. G. Hickey, P.E., Civil Engineer • • - 47 - �