HomeMy WebLinkAbout150 Anza Boulevard - Resolution�
RESOLUTION N0. � -83
RESOLUTIOPJ CERTIFYIP�6 ENVIROP7�4ENTAL IMPACT
REPORT APlD MAf;ING FINDI��;S WITH RESPECT TO
THE PROPOSED GRANADA ROYALE HOMETEL
LOCATED aT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, California
� that:
WHEREAS, a draft environmental impact report was prepared for the
GRAPIADA ROYALE HOMETEL at 150 Anza Boulevard, Burlingame, California, and
WHEREAS, said draft environmental impact report was submitted to
the Planning Commission for review and subsequently submitted for review
and comnent by public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to
the project, and by oersons, organizations and aoencies having special
exoertise concerning the environmental effects of said project; and
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on
October 25, 1982, and by its Resolution No. 8-82 recommended the adoption of
said draft environmental impact report; and �
WHEREAS, this Council thereafter did set Monday, January 3, 1983
' in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, �
as the time and place when and where its public hearing would be conducted
concerning the environmental effects of said project, and said hearing was
�' duly noticed and held on said environmental impact report, including the
final EIR Addendum to EIR-57P dated November, 1982.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is FOUND, ORDERED and DETERMINED that:
1. Said final environmental impact report has been completed in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with the Guide-
lines for Implementation of said Act prescribed by the State of California
Secretary of Resources.
2. This body has reviewed and considered the information contained in
said final environmental impact report.
-1-
12/29/82
'` , �
m
2
0
I�
3. Said final environmental impact report identified the items set
forth under Column A in EXHI6IT A hereto attached and incorporated herein
by reference as having signi�icant adverse impacts.
4. Changes, alterations and specific modifications may be incorporated
into such project which mitiaate or avoid the significant environmental
effects as set forth in Column B of said EXHIBIT A.
5. Facts supoorting the findings set forth in paragraph 4 above are
set forth in Column C of said EXHIBIT A.
6. Upon approval of the project by this City Council, the City Clerk
be, and hereby is, directed to file in the office of the County Clerk of
the County of San Hateo a Notice of Determination relating to the project.
� �
; _<-�.�r� G��
• MAYOR
i
i
I, EVELYN H. HILL, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
� certify that the foregoina Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting
of the City Council held on the 3rd day of _ January , 1983,
and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIlP1EN: AMSTP.UP, BARTON, MANG1�ll, MARTIN
��OES: COUNCILMEN: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL�4EN: CROsev
�,���,.� 7✓ 7,��c'-�.
ITY CLERK
-2-
i
i �
Siqnificant Effects
1. Height would exceed 50 foot review line
established in Specific Area Plan.
2.
�
Floor area ratio of 1.25 which
exceeds zoning review line of 1.0.
Lot coverage of 27.7% which exceeds
design guideline review line of
20-25%.
�
EXHIBTT A
GRANADA ROYALE Fi0h1E7EL (E1R-57P)
Mitigations
la. Accept; ar
lb. Reduce height to level consistent
with Specific Area Plan height limit
(50') and/or consistent with use and
adjacent buildings.
la
lb.
Findings
Height limit is a review line; there is
no maximimi hei9ht limit in the C-4
District. Proposed lieight does nat
exceed any limits established by FAA
regulations. Duildin9 woi�ld be loa�er than
the tallest approved in t�e area (±140')
but higher than adjacent (Seaareeze, 45').
Could reduce impact on adjacent buildings
but 4lould reduce vievr coi•ridors, landscap-
ing and be incompatible ��iith 4CDC access
guidelines; would not improve views from
nearby buildings; 4�ould improve view froin
lon9er distance.
2a. Accept; or 2a. FAR is a measure of bulk; project's FAR
exceeds revie�•r line.but is less than
zonin9 maximum of 2.0; should be reviewed
in light of other review lines exceeded.
2b. Reduce FAR to below 1.0 review line
3a. Accept; or
3b. Reduce lot coverage below 27.7%.
-1-
2b.
3a .
� �i
�
FAR can be reduced by placing parking
underground and other modifications to �
building and free-standing restaurant.
Lot coverage is a review line, there is
no maximum in zoning district; purpose
is to protect open chai•acter of area and
potential view corridors; if portion of
site is not determined to be visible or
view corridors not deterin�ned to be
important, then impact not significant.
3b. Lot coverage can be reduced by increasing
drea underground for parkin9; modifying
building and restaurant footprint.
,..� ...__._�__.___. __..._._ _— _.�.____. ..
4
5
6,
7.
S1 n9 ificant Effects
Setback from street should equal height
of buildin9.
M9nimum setback equal one-half
apparent ��idth of project.
Potential policing problem of
open park area located away from
concentration of activity.
Adequate water capacity to meet
fire flow requirement.
t4itigations
N
Findings
4a. Accept; or 4a. Desi9n guidelines call for setback to
equal hei9ht but minimuw :etback in
zoning district is 30'; setback of
building is 40' from adjacent street.
�
4b. Increase setback. 4b. Project could be revised to increase
setback; ho�•�ever, could not equal height
of the builcling because of long, narroti•�
shape of lot; building height would also
havc to be wodified. ^
5a. Accept; or
5a. Number of buildin9s and the clustering
causes apparent wicJtli to be exceeded; but
narrow lot and open park/view corridor at
south end of site forces apparent mass;
5b. Reduce apparent width of project.
6. Project provide private security
force which aiould patrol regularly
park area, public access and
buildings.
7. Would build to standards of life�safety
code and city fire and building code
regulations; would determine fire flow
capacity of water main(s) and make
necessary improvements including instal-
' lation of fire hydrants; provide
emer9encyacce�s to fire department
standards.
-2-
5b. Increase of setback from street would
result in building bein9 placed too close
to bay for BCDC; change in structure
design, particularly reducing nwuber of
structures, could result in reducin9 set-
back requirement to meet apparent �•+idth
requirement.
6. Private security patrol would provide
regular surveillance of public use areas
as well as buildings and would adequately �
supplement city police supervision ofarea.
7. If mitigations are conipleted, the effect
would be reduced to accep*.able levels.
a
�
Si�nificant Effects
8.
9.
10.
11.
Adequate capacity in secondary sewer
treatment facilities.
Increase in jobs would result in
increased need for housin9 in
San hlateo County.
Seismic hazard to employees and
visitors to the project.
Elimination of views of bay from
adjacent buildin9s.
Mltiqations
Findin s
Install secondary sewer treatn�ent
facility improvements prior to comple-
tion of project; provide on-site pre-
treatment to Regional Water Quality
Control Doard's standards of all wastes
from areas where food is pr•epared;
contribute project's proportion of
one time costs to make sewer Facility
improvements.
9.
Encourage housing construction in
Burlingame, particularly of rental
housing.
9.
10. Place construction on piles to reduce
impact of settlement; surcharge surface
areas to be used for parking and road-
ways; stabilize expansive areas under
roadways and parking with lime or
imported material; develop seismic
ground response spectra and incorporate
in final design.
10.
11. Cluster buildings on north end of site; 11.
landscape site front setback, bay edge,
± four acres at south end; city approval
of final landscape plan; provide public
access along bay edge and at north end
of site.
-3-
If no Federal 9rant is available clty
will, wlth developer cont�•ibution, build
secondary sewer treat�r,ent facilities
adequate to treat wastes from project;
treatmcnt improveu�ents will be cou�ple[ed
by mid-198�1; on-site pretreatment of
wastes 411�� reduce in�p�ct of araste from
project on secondary treatuient facilities.
Impact on housing will be county-wide,
city will do its part within inarket
constraints.
�
If mitigatioris are completed, the effect
would be reduced to acceptable levels.
Views from buildings adjacent to north
end of site will be blocked primarily by
the parking garage and hotel structure;
clustering at the noi•tli end of site aiill ^
protect other buildin9s and sites in the
area from view disi�uption; lowering height
to maximum allo�aed in Specific Area Plan
would not increase views from adjacent
sites althou9h placin9 parking undergr•ound
would increase views fi�om t�an of the
existing adjacent buildings.
� - - — — -� - --_ —�. ..._ ,...�.--�. .��:. R.�, .� ,, .
Si�nificant Effects
12. Increased concentrations of oil, grease
and pesticicles in local bodies of
a,ater.
Cumulative Effects
13. Establish a new police beat.
14. Level of fire protection.
�
�
�4itiqations
12. Install storm water collection and
pumping system; place oil separating
tra�,s at all drains in driveviays/
parkin9 arcas and collcction noints
before drainage.pumps; provide regular
maintenance of all 9rease 1:raps on a
predeterwined schedule established by
tlie city; durin9 construction provide
measures acceptable to the city to
protect against siltation in adjacent
bodies of 4iater; provide additional
precautions, acceptable to the city
Park Department, to prevent runoff
r�ater entering Anza Lagoon; use hardy
plants which require minimum of
fertilization and pest/weed control;
use pipes which prevent erosion; use.
concrete piles for pier coiistruction.
13. When the overall level of development
justifies an additional beat, the city
should add one.
14. City review policy on Fire Department
equipment and manning needs as
construction is completed in Anza
area.
r�.
Findin s .
12. bJhen implemented, as part of the project
construction and opc��ation, mitigations
will reduce eff�cts to acceptable levcls.
�
13. On-site and project security force will
reduce overall city police staffing needs;
an additional city police beat �aill
provide effective support to private
security forces.
14. Review will assume that city maintain �
service level at point �•+he�•e level of
risk is acceptable and consistent with
service in reinainder of fire Departn�ent
service area.
15. Air quality effects of development 15. Cooperate with a lead agency in 15. Determination of potential effect based
r�ithin the air shed. determining extent of problem and on preliminary study �,ith methodological
• appropriate mitigations. probleins; quantification of extent of
problem is i�egional agency's responsi-
bility.
-4-
.�
a
Si9nificant Effects
�titigations
Findin�cs_
16. Cumulative development in area could 16. Install low flow water fixtures; use 16. If mitigations are in��,le���ented,
require improvenients to water service drou�ht resistant plants in landscap- si9nificant effects �•rould be reduced
facility, iny; contribute project's propor- to acceptable levels and uiajor costs
tional share of one time costs to would be borne by tlie �>�•oject; maintenance
expand water mains. costs ���oulcl be cove�•ed by increased incon�e
to the city from developwent.
17. Improvement to wastewater collection 17. City install increased pumping capacity 17. The collection system lines and force main
system, on the sewage collection systein when have adequate capacity for cumulative
it is justified by the level of develop- development in the Anza area; when pumping
ment in the Anza area. capacity is exceeded, a n��w larger pump �
will be required and will be placed by
the city, costs covered by increased
income to the city from development.
18. Cumulative traffic volumes in the 18. Contribute bayfront development fee 18. Study has determined tliat specific area-
area and reduced operation of nearby for system-wide roadway improvements. wide improvements will address the cwnula-
intersections, tive impact of this project (Draft E1R,
pa9e 39); bayfront development fee will
pay this project's proportional share of
those iinprovements.
19. lncreased noise from cumulative
local traffic.
19. Provide pile drivers with noise shields; 19.
use vegetation on west and southern
sides of site which would attenuate
noise; select building materials which
would reduce interior noise levels to
45 dBA; surround construction area
with fence which would attenuate ground
level noise by 5 dBA.
EXHIBIT A
-5-
When implemented, the mitigations would
reduce effects to acceptable levels.
�