HomeMy WebLinkAbout111 Anza Boulevard - Staff Report (2)♦ •
P.r. 3/?_6/79
Item No. 3
ME��O T0: PLANNIfVG COMhfISSION
FROM: ASSISTAN�t CITY PLA�INER
SUE3JECT: SPECIAL PERMIT TO CQNSTRUCT Tf-iE SEABREEZE PLAZA, A 106,000 SF
OFFICE BUILDING AT 35 BAYVIEW F!_ACE
This app1ication by Joseph Kent of the Raiser Architectural Group is described by
their Initial Study (revised Februlry 8, 1979), pro,ject plans dated October 5, 1978
(reductions of which a;�p�a,�� in both the Initial Study and the "Project Sumrnary"
distributed i.o the Coirn�ission during the March 12 study meeting), and Negai:ive
Declaration NI;-195P, p�sted ��arch 13, 1979. Copies of the project application ��i�re
mailed to the Statc Clea��inc;house Februa.ry 13 for coir�nent. One respor,se has beer�
received (the February 21, 1.979 ►etter from [_inda Breedeny Staff Counsel for BCDC);
the P-larch 5, .1.979 letter -from si.aff and the March 2, 1979 letter fr�m R. David Mas�tin
of Raiser Construction Company G�dress the concerns raised by BCDC.
Over the past four moni;hs, follotiving the code amendment which made o�'fice pr•ojects
a conditio�;a�{ use in the C-4 Qistrict, tF;e City has held se����ra1 mee�tings to consider
deveio�!nent policies ar�d plans for the Anza area. On Febru� ;� 7, 1979 the City Council
selected "Plan 4" (�from the January 20 stal=f report which presented alternative
spec°ific plaris); Plan 4 allocates afifice development to 35 Bayview Piace. Since the
proposed office projec� fully comp1ies u�!ith all code requirements (off-street parking,
building hei�ht, lot cover�age, setbacks �r� yards, landscaping, etc.), and the �ity's
office loca�;�ion rolic,y for the Anza area, staff tf�erefore recomm�nds tha+ this sp�ci�l
perm��t be a{�pr�ovea. Nec�i��mended conditions f�r Cornmission review at the public hearinc
are:
].. that the permit be ap�rov�d to San Ma�;eo Square Investors, ai�d be non-
i:ransferable.
2. that ali construction and site improvements be consistent with the plans
and initial st�ady (c�ated 2/3/79) fi�iled w�ith th�is application by Raiser
Architectural Group.
3. that 6ayview Place be extendc..i as a private road by the project sponsor at
his expense, with the fina1 des-ign and construciion specifications to be
approved by the City; minimum s�andards to be observed are corcrete curb,
gutter and S�deUra71:.
4. that public access be provided between Bayv�iew Place and the lagoon adjacent
to the project site, and that the area between this lagoon and this project's
on-s-ite par�;ino be landscaped and provided with d paved pathway, two •rest
stops/view poinis wi�:h seats, and other amer�ities consistent with its maximum
fc�asible public use.
5. tha�; pr�er to the ;ssuance of a building permit by the City of Burlingame,
the following requirements �e met:
a. All perrnits require� -r�r•oni ocher responsib1e agencies be obtained,
such permits t;o inclucle (bu�c no�: be limited to) the Qay Conservation
and Deve1 opment. Coi��1�i ss i on and tl�e Sta��e Lands Commi ssi on ( for use of
ard impr•cvei7�ent� on �:d jacen t: Sta�te o��ned parcel s).
1 1
��
b. All landscaping and irrigation systems be approved by the City, and
be so designed that the max�imum feasible on-site parking spaces are
screened from adjacent State lands.
6. that a site development fee be paid to the City for off-site road and
intersection improvements consistent with the adopted plan for the Anza
area. This fee is payable upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
or the City awarding the first contract for road improvements to be funded
by tr�e site development charge, whichever occurs first. The fee is presently
estimated at $26,219. If the final fee is not established when the fee
becomes payable under one of the above conditions, the project sponsor shall
deposit $30,OOU or acceptable security therefor with the City; upon
determination of the final fee the difference shall then be refunded.
JRY/s
3/20/79
cc: San Mateo Squa re Investors
800 South Claremont Street
San Mateo, CA. 94402
Attn: Mr. John Raiser
�`� �\ . ��
J .
John R. Yos
Assistant City Planner
Mr. Joseph Kent
Raiser Architectural Group
,�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-STATE LANDS COMMISSION
sTar� �.�NDs co,�nissioN
1607 13TH STREET � E'�" � �°' � �� � �
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95614 B""' �L`°'
(916) 322-7£i22 ����� � 1 ��79
\(� // 6�'� G V di��il Y;%I'�IYIG
��.�p�►;�r�� cPr-r.
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER
PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT
March 19, 1979
Mr. John R. Yos�
Assistant City Planner
City of BurZingame
501 Primrose Raad
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear P�Ir. Yost :
File Ref.: YC 79
SUBJECT: Seabreeze Plaza, 35 Bayvie�r Place
This is in regard to the Proposed Negative Declarat:Lon
nnd Initial Study received under lett�r dated F�brua�y �.3, 1979
concernin� the cited projEct.
Page 11 of the initia� study sta��s that the development
of the project incluc�ea a landscaped public recr�ation area
and bicycle path alon� the �hore of �he easterly 12 acre
lagoon. Such improvements «ould be on land owned by the
State Lands Commission and it;s consent will be requiredo
Additionally, the land ad�aining the 1a�oon is presently
under le��.ae to Anza Shareholders� Liquida�ing Trus� and it
wi.11 b� necessary �o obtain Anza`a approval of th� improvements.
Page 33 of the initial s�udy indicates that occasional
water drainage will include p�troleum sedimen�s draining into
the lagoan, but that pit �yp� clarifie� (page 37) wi11
miti�ate �he amount of peLroleum discharged into the lagaon
wat�rs. We th3.n1� this should be cleared through the Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
The S3te Development P7.an (following page 14) was also
revie�aedo The develapmen� of the street identified as Bay View
Plac� will reach into State pa rcels 11 and 12. These are
State-owned properti�s, unde r lease to Anza, and permission
from each wi11 be required prior �o the construction of Bay
View Place.
, - .
Yost
-2-
YC 79
By copy of this letiter, t�ae are advising the San Mateo
Square Investors of the necessity for Sica�e consen� on the
matters discussed above.
The staff of the State Lands Commission has no further
comment� on the projec�; a� this time. Should you have any
questions, pleas� contac� the undersigned at (g16� 322-7822.
Thank you for �he opportunity to comment on the project.
Very truly yours,
/�-vrf.G�v� � �����!►nLfiLC
HERIIERT A. MARxCLE
Land A�ent
cc: San Mat�o Square Snvestors
800 South Claremont Street
San Mateo, CA 9�+402
A�tn: Mr. John Raiser
Ms. Linda Breeden, Staff Counsel
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Comm:Lssion
30 Van NPss Avenue, Room 2011
San Francisco, CA 9�102
Anza Shareholderse Liquidating Trust
770 Airport Boulevard, Sui�e 22
Burlingame, CA 9�010
Attn: Mr. David Keyston
HAM/nyo
�� . �
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
SAN FRAI�lCISCO �/�Y CONSERVATIOP! AP�l� DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION :^�;,,��.,
30 VAN NF.SS AVENUE �+e•a','?=„
-�, ,�SAN FRANCISCO, CnLIFORNIA 94102
PHONE: 557-3686 p i �^
R���H�f��
MA(Z 21 1979
March 20, 1979
C �NN c�'a�P��E
Mr. John Yost
Assistant City Planner
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame� California 9l�.010
SUBJF�T: Sea Breeze Plaza
BCDC ��nq:�.iry File No. SM.BU.6020.1
Dear Mr. Yost:
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER
PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT
I have received your letter dated March 5, 1979, including David Martin's
comments and also a letter from David Keyston on the same subject. I will
again highlight BCDC's concerns as a responsible agency which will be re quired
to approve the project.
1. Description of Project
Your comments indicate that the applicant proposes t,o complete tize public
access improvements adjacent to the lagoon. As you are aware' BCDCts Design
Rsview Board considered tYie Master Plan and the Victr�ria Station�Hospitality
Ho•ase application at its February� 21 m�eting. I have sent a copy of a letter
summarizing the meeting to Mr. Martino The comments are applicable to Sea
Breeze Plaza for several reasons. At that t�me� public access improvements to
Sea Breeze Plaza were shown on the master plan. As the letter states, in general,
the Design Review Board indicated that the 25-foot width shown on the i�Taster Plan
was too narrow to satisiy the Commission's concerns as to maximum feasible public
access to the Bay and its shorel�r:e. The Board also made similar comments on
Victoria 5tation and Hospitality Houseo Particularly� with Victoria Sta.tion
they expressed concern about parking which was locat,ed along the I3ay� The Sea
Breeze Plaza project proposes similar parking within the Commission's jurisdiction.
I urge the applicant to contact Mse Twiss to set up an appointment with
the Design Rsview Board. The Board is available to review projects at an early
stage and believes that such an ear7�y review may save the applicant substantial
later revisions. Mr. Keyston�s landscape architect� Mr. Ca]lender� has not yet
submitted prelirninary drawings azzd therefore is not currently scheduled to meet
with �he Board. Therefore, I do not lmow what plans� if any� on Sea Breeze Plaza
will be submitted.
2� Location of the Rpad
The BCDC staff has previous]�y e�ressed its concerns about locating a
possible four lane road irnmediate7,y adjacent to the Bay along the shoreline. It
._ . ._ . . �my"."�„ �' �
a '�
Mr. John Yost
March 20, 1979
Page 2
appears that such a road will either dead end at the exis�;ing bridge over the
lagoon or, at some ftiiture time, an application may be made to e�,end this road
across the lagoon. The future location of this road is presently undetermined
and may even ultimately result in f ill of the lagoon.
The McAteeri-Petris Act states that fill in the Bay can only be permitted
if there is no alternative upland location for the use proposed. The proposed
project appears to foresee incremental development of a road which may ultimate�y
cause pressures for fill of the lagoon, or be located so close to the lagoon so
as to interfere with maximum feasible public access. Zf the developer proposes
to accept the City's conditions regarding the street extension and public access,
the negative declaration should be revised to indicate that the end result of ..
approving such a project does not appear to be consistent with the Bay Plan and
the McAteex�-Petris Act.
Very truly yours�
��� � /�.e.r�-72.__
LINDA BREED�N
Attorney
LB�pm
cc: Dave Martin
David Keyston
���
STATE OF C:SLIFORNIA ' EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION .��-���•..,
30 VAN NESS AVENUE �g . i � ' 'm ?�
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 R � � � • � � � �
PHONE: 557•3686
FEB 2 2 1979
CCiY OF BURLINGAME February 21, 1979
� pI,ANNING DEPTs
Mr. John R. Yost� City Planner
City of Burlingame
5�1. Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 91�010
SUBJF�CT: Initial Stud,y� Sea Breeze Plaza
BCDC Inquiry File No. SM.BU.6020.1
D�r Mr. Yost:
This is in response to the ]"r�.itial Study submitted to BCDC on February 15,
1.979• As you know, BCDC has permit author.ity over all development and uses
within 100 feet of the shoreline of the lagoon. We appreciate the opportunity
as a responsible agency to examine the document at this time. The comments in
this letter are BCDC staff comments, as the Commission has not yet reviewed the
Sea Breeze Plaza project. The comments will� in addition� be based on a site
development plan� dated October 5, 1g7g, previously submitted to BCDC by David
Keyston. This plan appears in the Initial Study following page 1Li.. Based on
that plan' the following portion of the development is within BCDC's jurisdiction:
1. Portions of road improvements to Bay View Place;
2. A parking ramp on parking level and plaza level and aridge on plaza
level;
3. Approximately 36 parking spaces in the parking and plaza levels; and�
1�. Paved driveway area on both levels.
It is my understandang that the Sea Breeze Plaza applicant does not propose
to landscape along the lagoon shown on the der�elopment plan. In that respect,
th� plan inaccurate7,y depicts the project. As indicated in the proposed negative
declaration, those improvements �,ri11 be the subject of a separate local permit.
Fro m BCDC's point of view� it is unfortunate that the Sea Breeze Plaza application
does not propose to develop all the property along the l�oon. It will be
necessary for both the Plaza project applicant and the shoreline project applicant
to apply for two BCDC permits, since both projects are within BCDC's shoreline
band. The comments in this letter are based on the Plaza development.
As indicated in the enumerated summary of the applicant's project within
BCDC's jurisdiction above, the Sea Breeze Plaza project shows road improvements
to Bay View Place. The road appears to come to a dead end at the lagoon. The
Initial Stuc�y does not discuss the road improvements in any detail other than
to note that Bay View Place will be a freeway off—rampo The Triitial Study does
not indicate whether the City or applicant will construct the road. The plan
shows the road as l� lanes up to State Parcel 13 and then it abruptly decreases
to 2 lanes past State Parcel 11 and the Plaza property. A culdesac ending at
.�, ,�
Mx• John R. Yost
February 21, 1979
Page 2
State Parcel 13 or possibly at the "X" shown on the enclosed sketch could be a
possible solution to the dead—end street. Apparently, it is a proposed private
street. Public access to the lagoon and landscaping, benches, picnic tables,
etc.� could be installed adjacent to the culdesac to take advantage of the
lagoon. If the street were open to the public with public parking improvements
and access to the lagoon� it would be a more desirable project from BCDC's point
of view.
The Plaza project shows a parking ramp down to the parking level and also
on the plaza level within the Commission's jurisdiction. The parking level is
approximately 1� feet below sea level. Staff inspections of the Anza area have
revealed standing water in the lower p�rking level at the Legaspi Builcling.
Drainage will also be a problem with the proposed development. BCDC would
therefore suggest that the City engineering staff closely examine the current
proposal to determine conditions of a permit to assure adequate drainage and
runoff. The Initial Study on page 33 indicates that petroleum runoff into the
lagoon is likely to be a problem and that "means must be provided to prevent "
such discharge into the Bay. The negative declaration should indicate what
"means" have been provided. The City could re quire an alternate to asphalt
paving� require pump out facilities� or change the design to eliminate sub-
terranean parking. The Regional Water Quality Control Board should also be
consulted for further alternatives and suggestions. �CDC's representative on
the Commission from the Regional Water Qu.ality Control Board has raised the
issue of runoff on similar applications.
The Initial Study on page 17 mentions the problem of the seismic stability
oE' filled land. The required mitigation measures which alleviate this problem
sh ould be indicated in the negat,ive declaration. At page 29�. cumulative impacts
of developments are mentioned� but not discussed. Within the last few years,
the City has approved Legaspi Office Towers, Victoria Station, Skate Rink,
Hospitality House, and expanded parking at Anza. Cumulative effects have not
yet been considered. Since most of these projects are structures employing a
considerable number of people, an analysis of cumulative impacts is appropriate
at this time.
At page 37, the Initial Study indicates that BCDC's 10� foot shoreline band
is a setback requirement. BCDC's 100 foot shoreline band jurisclictinn is not
a setback re quirement. The Commission has in the past approved 5tructures and
portions of buildings with�s�. its jurisdiction. The building is not within BCDC's
jurisdiction if the applicant has chosen to set it back 100 feet from the shore—
line� measured from the top of the fill.
Finally, the applicant proposes parking and a paved driveway area on two
levels of the structure within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Commission
by statute approves pro jects within its shoreline band on�y if it can make a
finding that the applicant has provided maxi.rmun feasible public access. Each
project is looked at individually; hence� a determination of maximum feasible
public access is,made on a project by project basis. This project proposes no
public access within the project area� �rhich ends approximately 25 feet from
Mx�. John B. Yost
February 21, 1979
Page 3
the shorel�ne. It is the staff belief that the Design Review Board and the
Commission would require changes in the design in order to approve the project.
The culdesac mentioned above, elimination of the eastern parking ramp entrance�
deletion of parking spaces on both levels facing the lagoon� and expansion of
the rear plaza area to an orientation towards the lagoon are possible public
access improvements which should be explored at this time.
In summary� the proposed lnitial Stuc�y and negative declaration do not
cxmntain required mitigation measures on traffic� c�.rculation� drainage, and
seismic stability. Caltrans� the Air Qu.ality Board, and Regional Water Qu.ality
Control Board should be consulted� in addition to State Lands Corrunission and
BCDC. Due to the amount of recent construction activity in the area� it may
well be impossible to adequately mitigate for cumulative impacts without an
EIR which discusses cumulative impacts. BCDC's principal concern as a resporr-
sible agency is maximum feasible public access within the project area. Since
no public access is proposed at this time, it is likely that the Commission would
request the applicant to revise the present project to provide for maxi.mum
feasible public access. I have tried to give some suggestions for improved
public access. I would be pleased to discuss the application with you in more
detail at any convenient time. If the report dated January 2� 1979, revised
February 8, 1979 � any way revises the design plan dated October 5� �.97g,
we would appreciate a ca�y.
Very trul,y yours�
�u.,�uC�(, �''�-ee-`;�C'aL
LINDA BREEDEN
Staff Counsel
: .
�nclosure
cc: San Mateo Square Investorst Attn: John Raiser
State Lands Commission� Attn: Herbert Maricle
Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trus�t Attn: David H. Keyston
William J. Purdy, Jr.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Caltrans
Air Quality Board
. , q . ,. .� , . . � _ . . � �:� � �, �1 �
... Q_ , . ._ : . � � i
� , . . . �
. ,r� .� � . ;.:.." _ ..: . � �, .:
. _ t.. , _ . � � 1
. _ � , - . v y . !i i �r
�" :. -��� � . .- � ����.;IVfci� �; t,
. . . FEB 2 2 1979 � : � �� •
/;.
'` ��` � , � !/ � " � . .
,. .�� � . ClTY OF BURLINGAME � � ':,-;;
P.LANNING DEPT % • .
� � "�
. : �%;/ .• �.�, • -
.. . . � �� �. `' .
' . .. . . . . _ -,�•!',,• �� • :�' '
.. , � . , f�l� .- •�-.____.__.-�_.- . � -�_ • 'r ,� . . ,
� .-=; =----;__ �.==� '- = -_ _ __.__ � . _ . -� � � .j
__ �-'" �. .. ,
' �_ ,,..-- `-' � � : �'' � �; , � • �.c , ' �' �; `` . . • . . ° 1 ;
_ - - •--- _ _ - - ;-..-� ,� -, � 3� - . ' , � . . . - , : �4,
. .." . �' � � :s • � _ : ,' . _ `����`_ : � � �� � . . . . . . ' .' J1:/ ' ,-+�, :-._ �
�31,•
�1
'
�
�—
�-
c. _ �
S �p . '� `' `
o�_ �e
Y' ���., -. _ --__
- � ,�
� � r i` "_ _
�;, � . - = ' �
.•�� ' �! , \ � :�_
� .. �� - �_
.� � _
_ �
. . T� ..
, � --_
. ' --
. . ,.
. �.� _..
• L—
• \
= '.'�`i,'=- �
. ; � �: .
. . �._ , .
1;.:_._ -;..
w . . , � . .� ; �
=o o ,.�f � , _ . . :
�;
� � � '`-, .,- .
�
� � i .
°� ", • �- � �1--- �= . � . .
� �. •� � � .. , :�,� . •,r ..:.
.�, . =�,,�!'a, � t��.-..•.. ( .,_ ♦ ,. -'. Y' `
1
��
� , .�
�1
� 1
��
,t
�'
-,_� .
. � �J-
. t
.- �
_ ,��__ ---- _� �.
_r I
— ,
� oi
�. .. - .. `e. .. x , i �
, __ .
_ I
1 �-_ � -------_ i -v,
' � � - � 'I
- ..a __ �
: �o ; � - _:
�. � f° Z _ ;
. ,� _ .
4 _ :� 4 ; _ _ �_ Y _ --- ��
� � � � •. � °�- -
= c � �
.- � . � �. , °.. , -
. , •, �._ .
� .. � .. , . . . - ----- � �
:.; . . - �
: . ',
. .� Y ��. _ . � . � , f.� �' . ,. � .
_ . ' . • �� ` , . � ' tY
CI
LINGAME
�.�.Q �.l,L� Q�� � ��,L1.0 6.� c��YC.e
SAN MATEO COUNTY
GTY HALL-501 PRIMROSE R04D
BURLINGAME, GALIFORNIA 94010
March 5, 1979
Ms. Linda L. Breeden, Staff Counsel
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011
San Francisco, CA. 94102
Dear t4s . Breeden :
TEL:(415) 342-8931
SEABREEZE PLAZA, 35 BAYVIE6�1 PLACE, BURLINGAME
BCDC INQUIRY FILE N0. SM. BU. 6020.1
Thank you for your February 21, 1979 letter in response to the City of Qur7ingame's
proposed Plegative Declaration and Initial Study for the above project. Your letter
will be copied for Planning Commission information March 12, 1979, when the Seabreeze
P1aza project wili be discussed and possibly scheduled for public hearing March 26, 1979.
I believe that many of the concerns you have raised about this project are addressed
in either the City's Initial Study or Raiser Architectural Group's report dated 1/2/79
revised 2/8/79. However, other facts may not have been clearly presented in these
documents. The following cor�nents are intended as clarification, consistent with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act:
Paragraph 1. The project applicant does propose to landscape the lagoon shoreline
- 2 (ref. Raiser hlemorandum prepared by R. David Martin, dated March Z,
� 1979, copy attached). This "off-site" landscaping will be a
`�� °'�� ��� recommended condition of the City's permit for this office project.
2. It is not intended that lagoon improvements be the subject of a
separate City perr�it. It is proposed that these improvements be
made a condition of the project's Special Permit. The City
acknowledges, however, that these improvements will be on land owned
by thE State of California and may involve review and consent by the
State Lands Commission. The "separate permits" referred to in
Exhibit B of the negative declaration were also an acknowledgement
of the permit(s) which will be required from your agency for this
project.
3. The project applicant will be responsible for all BCDC permits
required by both on-site and off-site improvements.
Paragraph 1. The private road which will extend beyond the present end of Bayview
3 Place, and provides access to the Seabreeze Plaza project, will subse-
quently be extended to other sites (presently unimproved) farther
' along the shoreline, adjacent to the Bay. Construction of the first
phase of this private road by the applicant, at his expense, w�ll be
a recommended condition of the City's permit for this project.
Ms. Linda t. Bre�eden
Staff �ounsel, BCDC
Page 2
March 5, 1979
2. Bayview Place is presently a road with two traffic lanes, but wide
enough for one lane of parking on each side; the future need to
widen Bayview Place (east of Airport Boulevard) to four traffic lanes
is not fareseen at present. It is the City's judgement that in the
short term (until additional projects are approved for other sites
on this cul-de-sac) the private street extension need only be wide
enough for two traffic lanes, but without spaces reserved for on-street
parking. It is anticipated that the next project to be develohed on
Bayview Place will be required to widen this street to accommodate the
extra traffic and provide the necessary width for two on-street parking
lanes.
3. The Bayview Place extension will be a private street for construction
and maintenance purposes, but will be open for public use and access
to the lagoon shoreline.
Paragraph 1. The project's lower parking level is 4' below streei grade, not 4'
4 . "below sea level". Please refer to the Raiser Memorandum, op. cit.
2. All final construction drawings will �e carefully reviewed by the
�� Department of Public ��orks to insure that adequate site drainage is
provided.
3. Petroleum run-of
will be mitigated
(see p.37 of the
f into the lagoon from the project's parking areas
through the use of pit type clarifiers, etc.
2/8/79 Raiser report).
Paragraph 1. Prior to the approval of a building permit, the City will plan check
5 the final design and engineering calculations to confirm the project
meets all seismic stability requirements and Uniform Building Code
standards .
2. The cumulative effects of development in the Anza area are of special
concern to the City of Burlingame. In 1977 the City hired John Blayney
Associates to prepare a set of three planning reportsl and asked J. D.
Drachman Associates to orepare complementary reoorts on the traffic
• implications for the adjacent road systems2. At the conclusion of
these studies the City Council directed staff to prepare a further
�''�.:• report on development oolicies for the Anza area; this was completed
���� :'. November, 1978. Alternative "specific plans" were then developed and
tested using additional traffic generation data prepared by Drachman
Associates; the selection of the preferred plan was made by Council
February 7, 1979. A report on implementation procedures was recently
1. Report One: Burlingame Bayfront, Basic Data and Issues, September 1, 1977.
Report Two: Bayfront Alternatives, received March 17, 1978.
Report Three: Proposed 6Jaterfront Element and Draft Environmental
Impact Report, August 1978.
2. Report One: Traffic Study Progress Report,
Report Two: Sketch Plan Alternatives, March
Report Three: Traffic Impacts of the Proposed
September 8, 1977.
1978.
Plan, September 1978.
Ms. Linda L. Breeden
Staff -Counse'1, BCDC
Page 3
March 5, 1979
finished and has been scheduled for Council discussion March 14, 1979.
It is staff's recorr�nendation that a Master Environmental Assessment
(per Public Resources Code Sec. 15069.G) be prepared as soon as practical
for the expected future projects in this area.
Paragraph 1. It is understood that BCDC's 100' shore7ine band is not a setback
6 requirement. The project applicant has chosen, however, to place the
building just outside the 100' band to diminish its visual impact on
the public areas adjacent to the lagoon shoreline.
Paragraph 1. It is the City's belief that this project will orovide and promote
7 public access to the lagoon from Bayview Place. Your concern that
"this project proposes no public access with the project area" is
clearly understood, but may reflect a too formal concern for the legal
boundaries of Parcel W. The "project" (the on-site and off-site
improvements) will provid� public access through improvements to land
irrQnediately adjacent to Parcel W; these improvements will be firmly
. bound to the City's consent to the construction of the office building.
2. The applicant is awarQ
it is anticipated that
staff shortly.
Paragraph
8
of the need for maximum feasible public access;
he will be in touch with your design review
1. In our judgement the present SeaBreeze Plaza project does coniain the
required mitigation measures to enable a negative declaration to be
posted. Copies of the reports and drawings prepared for earlier
versions of this pro;ject are available for your review; these reports
document the mitigation measures taken by the applicant to arrive at
the present design. •
We appreciate your interest in obtaining a good quality project for this property,
consistent with the City's policies and standards and those of your agency. The Bay
Conservation and Development Commission will be informed of all permits approved and
conditions required by the City of Burlingame for the SeaBreeze Plaza.
JRY/s
Attachment: Raiser Memorandum, R. David Martin,
March 2, 1979.
Sincerely,
J�. �e . -t-
John R.
Assistant City Planner
cc: San Mateo Square Investors, Attn: Mr. John Raiser
State Lands Commission, Attn: Mr. Herbert Maricle
Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, Attn: Mr. David H. Keyston
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
.. .,. , ,
MEMORANDUM
�
. . �, . . 1
. .
I .� ° •� '!
qA18ER GONSTRUGTtON CQ, ING
60� SOUTH CLAREMONT STREET
SAN MATEO. CALIFORNiA 944D2
. 415 342-9026
FROM: Dave Martin
DATE: March 2, 1979
RE: Comments on BCDC letter of February 21� 1979� addressed to the City
of Burlingame in regard to: Initial Study� Sea Breeze Plaza
BCDC Inquiry File No. SM. BU. 6020.1
Paragraph l.'Outiine of BCDC jurisdiction is essentially correct.
1
Paragraph l. Sea Breeze Plaza applicant does intend to landscape the area along the
2 lagoon as shown on the site development plan. (2nd paragraph - page li)
(Also 2nd paragraph, page 12 which states "There is also a bridge
connection to the lagoon waterfront which shail be developed in accordance
to the City of BurTingame's Master Plan.") It should also be noted that
the existing land is 5' below adjacent land; i.e. lagoon dike. (See
also top of page 38: "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
shore into a recreational entity.") ,
2. The "separate" permits referred to in the last sentence of the project
� description of Exhibit B of the negative declaration was in reference
to the BCDC permit for the project including the lagoon landscaping.
The Plaza application to BCDC witl include the iandscaping shown on the
. site development plan. As to the "development of all the property along
the lagoon, this would include the development of approximately 21.
. additional acres and is far beyond the scope of this project.
Paragraph l. Road improvements to the extension of Bay View Place are of a temporary
3 nature pending development.of parcels 3. 5. and 9. Since this roadway
must be extended along the lagoon to provide access to Parcel 9 a
Cul-de-sac at the lagoon would not be practicable at this time. Public
access has been provided from the end of the public right-of-way of
Bay View Place to the lagoon by the public sidewalk along the northerly
property line as shown on the site development plan.
2. Benches on the lagoon shoreline will be provided as shown on the site
' development plan. Since the passage of Proposition 13, it is unlikely
that the City of Burlingame would assume maintenance of picnic tables,
etc. (See paragraph 2� page 38 of Initial Study.)
[]
4f�.
�� �.,.
A �,`�1�% CONT. LIC. 215490
+���..�.
� �„�a.. •
� �
. µ
`_ . ,•
� . .........1. .� - '•—� •----r ....___
� � . . � �.. . �
t -
I ,.'�.._. I J ' ..i I .
Memorandum
March 2, 1979
Page 2
Paragraph 3. The extension of Bay View Place is shown as a two lane road at this time
3 because the particular projects to be developed on Parcels 5� 9 and 13
�- are unknown at this time and the location and configuration of the
- reqaired access to these parcels can not be determined.
Paragragh
4
_ ..� �
1. The lower parking level will be approximately 4' below street grade,
not "sea level`..'; and the elevation of the lower level is high enough
'to allow gravity flow to existing storm drainage system. This elevation
is approximately the elevation of the existing ground; and the lower
parking was established at this elevation to mitigate the visual impact
of a two story parking structure. _
. �
2. The reference to petroleum run-off in the initial study is correct.
However� on page 37 of the i�itial study� the first paragraph indicates
the specific mitigation measures that will be used; i.e. pit type
clarifiers, etc.
Paragraph
5
m
3. A change of parking surface would not lessen the petroleum run-off
from the parking area. While the short-�term run-off from the paving
will be slightly increased. by this use of asphalt� the long-term run-
off would not be affected. The need for mitigation measures is caused
by the deposit of petroleuru products an the parking surface from vehicle
exhaust gases and the oil dropped from the underside of automobiles.
1. On the question of seismic stability of filled land, the question is
directly addressed on page 17 of the initial study by reference to the
Unifo�m Building Code� recommendation of the soils engineer, etc. The
same problem exists for great areas around the Bay includi�g almost
half of the dvwntown area of the City of San Francisco.
2. The cumulative effects created.by various land uses of the Anza property
was also of concern to the City of Burlingame; and as a result com-
missioned the preparation of two reports. The one by John Blayney on
land use and the one by Drachman Associates on traffic are included as
part of the initial study. The City is now in the process of adjusting
their zoning policies to respond to the cumulative impacts pinpointed
by these reports. Sea Breeze Plaza will be reviewed by the City under
these new constraints. .
Paragraph 1. Reference to BCDC 100' setback requirement on page 37, is in error.
6 However� as a mitigation of the visual impact� it was believed that
keeping the building itself at least 100' from the lagoon would be not
only good planning� but would enhance the usefulness of the public area
along the lagoon.
� , .
Memorandum '
� March 2, 1979
� . page 3
Parag�aph 1. In regard to the statements that no public access has been provided�
] 8 8 the writer evidently has not understood the plans and the statements
made in the initial study. As stated in the middle of page 38, it is
the belief of the developer that ease of access to the lagoon will be
, . increased by this project.
2. Perhaps� as developers, we were remiss in not discussing the project
� with BCDC staff on an informal basis. A great many of the staff's
,concerns could have been alleviated. However, under BCDC's rules we
cannot formally apply for a permit until we have received final local
approval from the City. �
�
<
n