The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About411 Airport Boulevard - CEQA DocumentEXI-'IBIT A- NOTICE Oi� DET�RMIN7ITIOPI ��T �o� Tentative Procedure �c .�.� f'� 5/1/74, Subject to Revision 1� � eur�iir�:C;Ai�E 411 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Proaect Adclress or Lacation � -- •.�.;'�-j�:; T0: COUNTY CLERK �� r{ �1�'"� e County of San Mateo � �9 � "��z � � � . ND-225P �,,,np,,�„E« Redwood City , CA. 94063 File No. cc: Secretary for Resources, Sacramento, CA. � ` Project Title: COMMUNICATIONS 4JORKERS OF AMERICA Applicant' s Name : Rai ser Archi tectural Group Address : 800 South C1 aremont Street City : San Mateo Z ip : 94402 County : San Mateo Contact� Person: Joseph Kent Area Code 415 Phone: 342-9061 Ext.--- PROJECT DESCRIPTION; LOCATION• The site consists of 26,000 SF of barren, low-lying ' land fill aboui 300 south of San F�rancisco Qay, adjacent to the Airport Boulevard bridge crossing the channel to the inner lagoon. The _ project is a two story office building with approx. 10,600 SF of floor area. There will be 16 parking spaces below the building, and 20 spaces at grade, with access from a private � street over an adjacent parcel. It is anticipated that there will be 30 permanent employees�_ OTl S1 G. The City ot Burlingam�, by JOHN R. YOST on DECEMBER 5 19 79 , completed a review of t}ie proposed praject and determinecl tl�uL: l. The project is eyempt from CEQA requirements as: ( ) ONGOING PROJECT ( ) FEASIBILITY A?�1D PLA'•1NIT�C S'1'UDv ( ) CATEGOhICAL EXEMP�l'I�i�d ( ) EMERGENCY PROJ;�'CT ( ) MINISTERII�L PRUJ�C�l� 2. It ��f�X�X,XY,�X� �(X��;�(��F,�i(X(wi]_1 not) have a signiFicant effect on the cr�vironment . 3. It is (app-ravec�} �`�X��(��4��:i��"'��p . � detai 1 ed pro ject study t•�as fi 1 ed by the ----- appl i cant l�JI11 Cfi enabled a h�gati ve Declar�z•� Reaso�.zs for Conclusion: tion to be pasted for this project; copies of. these documents were circulated to the State Clearinghouse for cominent. A Special Perm�it was subsequently �_ approve by the ity'$ P1 rJiri Cor,rn»ission Ja ar 14, ]980 wi 6 nditions; in the abser�ce of an a�peal to �ounc�l �,�iis �erm�t became efi�ec�ive January ��, 1��50 An �nviranmental Impact Repor_-L- �1��(has not) been prepared pursuatzi� to the provisions of the California Envirorunental Quality. Act of 1970, �s amended. , JANUFlRY 31, 1980 . � Date Signed Date Posted: ATT�ST: JANUARY 31, 1980 �% �: %- � , � % �� - t 'll.r ' �- � �`� �'� '�� • EVELY� � fl. H1 LL, Ci ty Cl erk City of }3urlinc� zme •� �"�+ . � � � � __ Sig�lature of Proce�sing Ofticial. CITY PLAyNER Title EXi?IBIT A- NOTIC� Or DFT�RMINATION ♦ CITY Tc:nta�ive Procedure �c'�v'��'P�:"3'`°� 5/1/74, Subject to Revision 411 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Pro�ect A �ress or Location _� � .. �uri..�rvt;�r�� - ,•;,::��iT�� T0: COUNTY CLERK � �� ,�.'i`c'r e County of San Mateo �, �'� �� ` � � . ND-225P �,q,r�;��„�6 Red�eood Cit , CA. 94063 File No. cc: Secretary for �esources, Sacramento, CA. Project Title: COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA Applicant' s Name : Rai ser Archi tectural Group Address: 800 South Claremont Street City: San Mateo zip: 94402 County : San Mateo Cantact� Person: Joseph Kent Area Code 415 Phone: 342-9061 Ext.� PROJECT DESCRIPTION; LOCATION• The site consists of 26,000 SF of barren, low-lying ' land fill about 300 south of San Francisco Bay, adjacent to the Airport Boulevard bridge crossing the channel to the inner lagoon. The _ project is a two story office building with approx. 10,600 SF of floor area. There will be T 16 parking spaces below the building, and 20 spaces at grade, with access from a private _ street over an adjacent parcel. It is antici�ated that there will be 30 permanent employees on s� e. ' The City of Burlingame, by JOHN R. YOST on DECEMBER 5�_ 19 79 , completed a review of t17e proposed pro�ec`—t and deterinined th�L: 1. The project is exempt from CEQA requirements as: ( ) ONGOING PROJECT ( ) FEA�IEILIIY AND PLANNIT��G STUDY ( ) CATEGORICIIL EYi:,MPTI0��1 ( ) EN�RGENCI' PPOJI.CT ( ) MINISTLRIAL P?'.OJEC^1 2. It Qfi��P��X,XX��?��5�(X�k�4?�,�J(�(�a��XX(��ill not) have a significant effect on the environmcnt. �� 3. It is (approved) �(X�X��'��(�p��X=�(�(��U4 . A detai 1 ed project study was f� 1 ed by the applicant which enabled a Negative Declar�- Reasons for Conclusion: tion to be posted for this p��oject; copies of these documen�ts __. were circulated to the State Clearinghouse for comment. A Special Permit was subsequently _ approve bv_the Citv's_Planninc� Coi;in�i$sion Jar��tary.,14,,1980 ti��i��j 6,�}�r�ditions; in the absencc An Environmental Impact Report �1��'.�(�(has not) been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. JANUARY 31, 198U Date Signed .�� . �- -- � Signatuxe of Processing Official Date Posted : JANUARY 31, 1980 , CITY PLAiVNER Title ATT�ST: ;.� ��`� • f-.UFLY H. flILL, Ci ty Cl erk City of �3U1 �.lI1�J�1I11C'_ �XI'.IBIT A- NOTIC� OI' DET�RMINATION 411 AIRPORT BOULEUARD � CITY Tentative Procedure Pro�ect A dress or Location `�'v a.. .. .,;.. r� O� �c.r 5/1/74, Subject to Revision _�� EURLIf�.r,Atr1E �- ,��:�,��jt�; � TO : COUNTY CLERK . ��;�:F; a�;i,,o. County of San Mateo '. ND-225P 'bq„�o,,,,„�� Redwood City , CA. 94063 File No. cc: Secretary for Resources, Sacramento, CA. Project Title: COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA Applicant' s Name : Raiser Archi tectural Group Address: 800 South Claremont Street City: San Mateo _ Zip: 94402 _ County : San Mateo Contact� Person: Joseph Kent Area Code 415 Phone: 342-9061 Ext.--- PROJECT DESCRIPTION; LOCATION• The site consists of 26,000 SF of barren, low-lying ' land fill about 300 south of San Francisco Bay, adjacent to the Air�ort Boulevard bridge crossing the channel to the inner laqoon. The __ project is a two story office building with approx. 10,600 SF of floor area. There will be � 16 parking spaces below the building, and 20 spaces at grade, wiih access from a private _ street over an adjacent parcel. It is anticipated that there will be 30 permanent employees _ on si e. The City of_' Burlingame, by JOHN R. YOST on DECEMQER 5 ^ 1979 , completed a revi�w of the proposed project and determiiiea thaL: 2. It Q�`t��Y:JXX�X�X��X��'��(�3��(X(��z�-1 not) have a significant effect on the envirorunent . 3. It is (approved) �(X��it��?�X�;J(�AUUO . A detai 1 ed project study was fi 1 ed by the applicant which enabled a Negative Declara--. Reasons for Conclusion: tion to be posted for this project; capies of these documentsy were circulated to the State Clearinghouse for comment. A Special Permit was subsequently approve i; �;he Ci t'� P1 n in Coipmi$s i on Ja ar 14, 1980 ��ri h 6 di ti ons ; in the absence �f an ant�c,al to Cou�ci 1 ��i� s�ermi t becam� e��ec�i ve �lanuary �Z 1��. 1. The projeet is exempt from CEQA requirements as: ( ) ONGOING PROJECT ( ) FEl�SIBILITY AND PLANNING 5�1.'UD'i' ( ) CA'1'EGORICAL EXLMP'1'IU��1 ( ) �MERGEI�CY PROJ�CT ( ) MINISTERIAL PROJEC`i' An Environmental Impact Report �Y��(has not) been prepared pursu�nt to the provisions of the Calitornia Envirorunental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. . . JANU�IRY 31, 1980 Date Signe JI�NUARY 31, 1980 Date Post�d: .J�"'�� . � � �� __. Siqnature of �Process.ing Of_iicial \J CITY PLAiVNER Tit1e ATTEST: ` , -� J �v . ��1� -� . • E EL1' H. HILL, City Clerk City.of �3urling�me V R EXHIBIT B - NEGATIVE DECLARATION Tentative Procedure 5/10/73, Subject to Revision T0: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 1400 - lOth Street Sacramento, CA. 95814 411 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Project Address or Location File No. ND-225P Project Title: Type of Permit: Legal Description: COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA Special Permit to construct an office building in the C-4 District Parcel D, a portion of the resubdivision of Lots 5& 6, Block 8 Anza Airport Park Unit No. 6 Applicant: Name: Zone: C-4 "Waterfront Commercial" Property Owner: Name: Communications Workers of America Address: 533 Airport Boulevard Burlingame, CA. 94010 Con tact Person: Joseph Kent PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APN 026-363-290 Raiser Architectural Grou Address: 800 South Claremont Street San Mateo, CA. 94402 Area Code: (415) Phone: 342-9061 The site consists of 26,000 SF of barren, low-lying land fill about 300 feet south of San Francisco Bay at 411 Airport Boulevard, adjacent to the bridge crossing the channel to the inner lagoon. The project is a two story office building with approximately 10,800 SF of floor area. There will be 16 parking spaces provided below the building, and 20 parking spaces at grade to the back, with access from a private street over an adjacent parcel. It is anticipated that there will be 30 permanent employees on site. The office building will cover 21% of the site. Approximately 14,000 SF (54% of the site) will be landscaped. The building will be set back 30' from Airport Boulevard, and 35' from the channel which forms the eastern boundary of the property; a public pathway will be developed in this shoreline area. Because a substantial portion of this building and its parking will be within the 100' shoreline band subject to BCDC jurisdiction, separate oermits for these improvements will be required. The City of Burlingame by John R. Yost on Decernber 5, 1979 completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: ( X) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( ) �Jo Environmental Impact Report is required. ' i � � � � ` • . . 4 . . , � . I • � ' � � - . �� . . . .. . . .. n .. . ' . . ..f . 4"': . ' . ... . . � � . �. . . .e . . . . . . .. . �Ti .... . .. .. . , i-.,. v� . . . • . � .F'f-��q,'�' . �'ISC O � ,. :. . : �:,, f _ ... .. ..,.: . .�. .. - . ,.. w- r° . - . , ... . , ..�•�. ' �...,, .;,:�.� s„ . ... . _ . . . . _ . , 5./J: v„"t_,.•.i^F. _.s. .� a.� ..:��P.7,' �P-:.n.:.� . '�.i:�i::a:� i. .a�'' ,H _ . . ,: r�' . .`{�? �. . , .. � y.� .L"r. � • . . . .. �. ....r. .:.. . , a..�.,., ��e �] 3 .-. :...y '4a� . -..:5; 'Y.�.�.:,' :1��?}' 1' ..�. . . . �: _. ... 'I�.V .. • rl S - , � - s... . . ,._ _ . ..f.. .. � . . �,- :q_ . :��5 . . . ..i � , . . .. .. . . . . , ''4- ./�� .�.(�.`�` i-i�.�� . . + ..��,� 1 �. .. .. J- • .�>�. . . � . .. .. . . . . . � � �.. e' � Y L'- . G Y ( �� (�•� 1J � � y ! 1 � � � .�_� *r y � � ' . - .<< . ... <,... ,. .,.. .'. ' . ; . . . . TM� Sli� � .-- _ , • � . ,:' i .� : _ £ � � �. �' , . �' - �..,� ;, . . . ~ .. ..`1.�. . ,q�T'k�'nilc!-"TTy°I'`+�•ti,t� 's n.,J,s" j^q -^ '�'�,:�i°,i'�-�C,F�'�`,'{'^'s2a-'...��f.� . . . � . r � - .. .. -. > .�1.. -�t�.w, .d R,�,.i..s':, xn � . l , �. . _ � �� . . ,. . _ ., ._ t�°' i, � - ' `_�: ,. :=- .,Q,- �.:. �, � ' ' .� ` � M� � � �� " a r - M� 4�ts�r� � • .. , . ;� I � p t , .y:,?a.`,; , �,� .� � � gr� •r�or''ia1 sou��.r�s �4 ,. �.. �. � : ' MNw •��1�• M�� .M�II�.��• M��...iK��• .M• ! 1 •��• M�� ♦ � • ' . � � ��- . _ ,�. _,�_ .• .,.....a... ; _ . .,a� � •�• .� ,. . . . : _ -•- } ... .. T+.� .•NO • Y�. . , ._ R . 4 � K - S � .. � �6 � � ". . . .� _ M � . .. 1 f � .Ty!+ - � ♦ �• }�Y � 4 �~ _�� ` � � ' - � . _.... . . _.,:� S � y . . . -�_ ;��• .. '- . . .. .:•� `• --, `�`V��r ♦��ie \ ' � _ / 4. .� �� \ � � ��L�d •��.. _ ,, �� __ � •• .. •� _ � � �� . r� =-_ •. � . ,.��.. ..R;�x�-=- - - . � �e` .` ��"� -� \�f c� � � \ i� -� .�� 'e �� . RJ: ! ..�. ` � /•Y�.f dJ — -�r. l l� �'� -- �� " � � .�� // � \• , �, : �.�z�`. , , ��,a • � r. �•^� � • �� \� 9 0 \ 1� \\ Q —J \ �� ` � � �: : � . � �. �� •, <" �, �. � � � � � \• . � . '�\ . � � �� ."Z��IEBVG �/9,A� L..QC:6�Ylt7i�3 � � 6A � � �3 4 � � � � � ,a A�879 . . � i . . ' �� . ' �; �' .�. � � ;� � , • . � � ;. ." .; ;�_�'E= ;-,� ..._..�:.�...... � , .,....: � �" �;::'.�' ._.,...___ �....... � - .._......... � 0 � I I I ' ' ., I .�1 1 � � i << - � � `� i f �.� �I;I I II?i � cosvMv��arroN ,! WORKERS OF � AMERlCA o�st■�e� r�we Rlnt�MO�r� C�lre��• �i r..� �--� AO I 3 Avg �g •,y � T��, REASONS FOR CONCLUSION: -2- An Initial Study was prepared for this project, and it determined that the project, as modified, will not cause any of the following effects: 1. Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; 2. Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; 3. Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; 5. Breach published national, state, or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control; 6. Substantially degrade water quality; 7. Contaminate a public water supply; 8. Substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources; 9. Interfere substantially with ground water recharge; 10. Disrupt or alter an archaeological site over 200 years old, an historic site or a paleontological site except as part of a scientific study of the site; 11. Induce substantial growth or concentration of population; 12. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; 13. Displace•a large number of people; 14. Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel or energy; 15. Use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner; 16. Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; 17. Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation; 18. Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards; 19. Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development; 20. Substantially diminish habitat for fish, widlife or plants; 21. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; 22. Create a public health hazard or a potential public health hazard; 23. Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or sci enti fi c uses of the area; 24. Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. December 5, 1979 Date Signed J�r�. � Signature of P ocessing Official CITY PLANNER (Title) Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date Posted: JANL'ARY 3, 19�30 DECLARATION OF POSTING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on �,n.«<c Lz �� , 19 �� Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No � � .z.��: �� 7� -�� ^ EVE N H. HILL, CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME EXHI�IT C - INITIAL STUDY Tentative Procedures 5/lQ/73, Subject to Revision T0: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 1400 - lOth Street Sacramento, CA. 95814 411 AIRPOP,T BOULEVARD Project Address or Location File No. ND-225P Project Title: Type of Pe rmit: Legal Description: COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA Special Permit to construct an office building in the__C-4 D�strict Parcel D, a portion of the resubdivision of Lots 5& 6, Block 8 Anza Airnort Park Unit No. 6 APN 026-363-290 Zone: C-4 "l�laterfront Commerci al " Property Owner: Name: Communications Workers of America Address: 533 Airport Boulevard Burlingame, CA. 94010 Contact Person: Joseph Kent PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant: Name: Raiser Architectural Group Address: 800 South Claremont Street San Mateo, CA. 94402 Area Code: (415) Phone: 342-9061 The site consists of 26,000 SF of barren, low-lying land fill about 300 feet south of San Francisco Bay at 411 Airport Boulevard, adjacent to the bridge crossing the channel to the inner lagoon. The project is a two story office building with approximately 10,800 SF of floor area. There will be 16 parking spaces provided below the building, and 20 parking spaces at grade to the back, with access from a private street over an adjacent parcel. It is anticipated that there will be 30 permanent employees on site. The office building will cover 21% of the site. Approximately 14,000 SF (54% of the site) will be landscaped. The building will be set back 30' from Airport Boulevard, and 35' from the channel which forms the eastern boundary of the property; a public pathway will be developed in this shoreline area. Because a substantial portion of this building and its parking will be within the 100' shoreline band subject to BCDC jurisdiction, separate permits for these improvements will be required. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The proposed project will be located in the Anza Airport Park Subdivision, ajacent to San Francisco Bay in Burlingame. Until the early 1960's the area was tide and marsh lands. In 1962 and 1963 permits were obtained to fill this property; street patterns and utility systems were laid out with City approval, and work largely completed by 1970. In 1972 the zoning of the area was changed from light industrial to "waterfront commercial" (offices being a permitted use in this district at that time; they now require a Special Permit). The project site is in an area of high seismic activity, although removed from both the San Andreas Fault and the Serra Fault. The natural soils immediately beneath the recent fill consist of highly compressible soft clays with a thickness of about four to five feet. Being close to San Francisco International Airport, the site is subject to 65 CNEL sound levels; this is acceptable for new commercial projects with modest exterior sound attenuation. Air quality in the vicinity is generally good; the site falls within an area which has approximately 15-20 days per yea r with high oxidant levels (0.10 ppm). Because the site consists of recently compacted fill, none of the animals on the Department of the Interior's "Rare" or "Endangered" species list make use of the property. -2- Present traffic levels on Airport Boulevard (adjacent to the site) are very low at non-peak hours. During peak hours this four lane, central median street still maintains free flow conditions. All the utility systems in the project area are new and have substantial surplus capacity. COORDINATIO�J WITH OTHER AGENCIES: The proposed project complies with the terms of the Boundary Settlement and Agreement between the State Lands Commission and Anza Pacific Corporation; this agreement requires that this land be developed in accordance with the City's "waterfront commercial" district zoning. A shoreline permit will be required from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission for development within the 100' shoreline band. ENUIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT: (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided at the conclusion of this section.) Yes Maybe No l. 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? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X 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, i nl et or 1 ake? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 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? X X � X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X ' � -3- Yes Maybe No 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? X 11 � X X 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)? X- Favorable b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 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? X X X X X X 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the pro�osal produce new light or glare? X 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned use of an area? X 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. L�lill the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X X 0 -4- Yes Maybe No 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? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or grourth rate of the human population of an area? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? � � y 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movements? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. PUBLIC SERUICES. 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 . Wa�te r? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? X X X X X X X � X X X X X X -5- Yes Maybe No 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? 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 ooen to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 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. X X X X a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substan tially 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 pe riods of California history or prehistory? X 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 envi ronment i s one whi ch occurs i n a relatively brief, definitive period of time whi7e long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulative�y 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 signif�icant.) X d. Does the project have environmental pffects which will cause substantial adverse�effects on human beings, either directly or,' indirectly? X RESPONSES TO IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: ITEM l.b. The site is a part of a reclamation project that was developed by filling a low tideland area some 10 to 16 years ago. Based on the three test borings, the fill ranges from about 20 feet in thickness on the north and east sides to about 12 feet over the remainder of the site. Minor regrading v�ill be required for the basement garage and the landscaped earthworks between the building and Airport Boulevard. ITEM l.g. The primary geologic hazards affecting the proposed development are directly associated with the settlement-prone bay mud subsoils and with severe ground shaking relating to an earthquake generated on the San Andreas Fault. The low height (2 stories) and small size of structure, together with full compliance with all engineering and earthquake codes, will ensure the life safety of the employees in this building. ; , � -6- ITEM 3.b. Extensive landscaping will oreserve approximately half the total site area in 'soft' surfaces. Runoff from paved surfaces will be collected into an independent storm system at the southerly end of the site. A clarification tank will be provided to prevent contamination with petroleum products. A lift-pump and underground pipe will then discharge the runoff into the adjacent channel. ITEM 4.a. It is proposed that 54% of the site area will be developed with landscaping. This will have a very positive effect on what is presently a barren, compacted earth parking area which is sporadically maintained. ITEP� 8. The site consists of 26,021 SF of barren, low-lying land fill. It is proposed to construct a two-story executive office building with 10,800 SF of floor area. ITEM 13.d. It is estimated that so►ne 70-75 trips per day will result from this project. Research data indicates that 24% of the average weekday traffic is concentrated at peak hours, resulting in only 17-18 cars involved at maximum loading. This will have a minimal impact on Airport Boulevard, which was designed and constructed to substantially higher volumes than presen tly exist. ITEM 19. The major part of this site is within the 100' shoreline band adjacent to the channel which connects the main Anza lagoon with San Francisco Bay. The building will be set back 35' from this channel, and a pathway will be constructed through this landscaped area in accordance with the City of Burlingame's access policies and plan for the Anza area. The project will assist the development of the channel edge into an overall recreation system. DETERMINATIO�l: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find the proposed project COULD PdOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen t, the re will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures which have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATIOPd WILL BE PREPARED. ) I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date December 5, 1979 J�,R. � Sign ure CITY OF BURLINGAME INITIAL STUDY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING � � CODM9UNICATION WORKF,RS OF AMERICA BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA October 31, 1979 � RAISER ARCHITECTURAL GROUP 800 South Claremont Street San Mateo, CA 94402 • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ' � HISTORICAL SETTING PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Location Access Easements � Setbacks Building Scale � Ma.ss Location on the Site Site Design Building Description � C7 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Climate and Air Quality Geological Characteristics Soil Conditions Noise Biological Traffic Utilities Water Distribution Sanitary Sewer System Storm Drainage System Electrical Power, Gas and Telephone Systems Page No. 1 E 8 8 9 9 10 11 12 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 24 25 � ENVIRONN�NTAL IMPACT Climate and Air Quality Geologic and Soil Characteristics Noise Biological Traffic Utilities UNAVOIDA�LE ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL USES AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEN�NT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES CONCLUSION ENVIRONI�NTAL IMPACTS CHECKLIST Page No. 26 26 26 27 29 29 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 � � • • • • INITIAL STUDY FOR ENVIRONI�NTAL ASSESSMENT Communication Workers of America Burlingame, California INTRODUCTION The proposed project, a headquarters building for the Communication Workers of America, consists of a small two-story office building over one level of parking, with additional parking adjacent to the building. A detailed description of the project and drawings appear in the section entitled "Project Description". An Environmental Assessment was filed on May 29, 1979, for evalua- tion by the City Planner's Office. At the same time, a Special Permit application was submitted requesting approval of office occupancy in the Waterfront Commercial Zone (C-4). Office occu- pancy was, up until recently, a permitted use in the C-4 district. Subsequently, the architects for the building, Raiser Architectural Group, were requested to prepare a supplement to the Environmental Assessment following the State of California guidelines for an Initial Study. that request. This document is being submitted in response to - 1 - rt � �» �:'4ir ry t . . .a- '+ ,;, � . , �; ..c r� .�,:; � , a t � �... .rr". ., ' ~ 1. yr^� i. ..:. l i � i. �.� i .•�d ^n: i ._ � .. .� i"'" � � ... . �.�.._ . .1. �_. `. _. j. <.. �. .�t_�.. � ..� �±„ - "�� J� � w i -��i.� �u ,� � ..,; �„'�'!!�e n � ' -� y �, . �+ �1h ;� �:e�. �� ,,� �._ •.,e�-.-.� ,.�.+•+�? 1��+ `,�%•1 �a:.::.�� ' ,�� u?,��,lN. :'_� � a � ' `� �f �.: j�L ��, h. , ' � , 1 ";'��, �_ e . � �,� � � i 4ti if�'� �;� _ �t#* ��,�� 1��..�►l►i�c,,� <' '`�'.E _��.. -i� I► � �t ��! ti�;'r��,. �� il,��s li -*'� .+1► +� . �. tt �. �� . r Yi�« , � _ —�Y„� - ��"�v.:.ra e r►� ,: r� �� ' ��' ,*r�i�� :1 . _ � + �1� ��y�� • E�� ;:4�� ;.� ��-� �! h� :�a� � ,,.i:.= ,�b�► -_ "V ;• � s.' .�`P' �,,:�; r '►'"-"� 'T� ��.-.7t'=�ti-� � P�� .,y .,��'�'' . j,�a.� at.,,, �„`,T� � •�� '.��' � . ' �: � �� .,,,,M•_ �� ,�� c��+l�� .- • �� % ... � . ��- . �� . -.: j� ��4��{1 ~�� t �'Jy s ♦ ♦ � 3 t� :., - ,��i �� `±�� . -.. ,, �#r��i•� ;4 � , � }..� .: -�-.�. �.� . -��: ...:�'� -.,_�;�;�; =�.� r•�� f:�:l•�:i r �- i� e � �! . ��;, 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 Pen- insula, approximately twelve miles south of San Francisco. T'his • area has historically been tide and marsh lands which were grad- ually 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 barrier toward the bay, until the original Bayshore Highway, • constructed in 1928, and the subsequent Bayshore Freeway, con- structed in 1946, 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, generally speaking, the drainage and tide gate systems had det- � eriorated, and during the winter periods of severe rain, areas on � - 2 - both sides of the Old Bayshore 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 mud flats, 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 devel- opment 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. � • - 3 - 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. 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 wasbeing reconstructed, around the perimeter of its properties to form a dyke to prevent future erosion of the proposed fill. In 1964, Anza Pacific Corporation was formed, and Anza's main � project was the development of Burlingame bayfront properties, including Anza Ai�port Park. Shortly after this, the initial State legislation regarding bay fill which created the Bay Con- • servation Development Commission was enacted; however, a grand- father 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. • � - 4 - 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 Improvement Districts No. 1, 2, and 4 to accomplish the installation of these streets in the project. T'his work was largely completed by 1970. The remaining property of Anza Pacific Corp, was rezoned to the new Burlingame classification, C-4, Waterfront Commercial, pro- • viding for office uses, hotels, motels, commercial, recreational and other compatible and related uses, which took advantage of the bayfront setting. • 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 Liquidating Trust for the benefit of its former shareholders. � In February, 1978, the trustees of the Communication Workers of America purchased the subject site from the Anza Shareholders � Liquidating Trust with the intention of building their own head- quarters � � - 5 - The major part of the small site is within the 100 foot zone from Bay Front Channel. The proposed design is in accord with the master landscaping plan for the entire development pre- pared by Peter Callendar Assoc., which is now under review by the staff of BCDC. This plan assures that all the diverse indivi- dual developments will finally create a unified water-oriented public amenity. � L • � � � � - 6 - � � i � T� �+ . �v �` . 0 tfS1�ENTIAt USES INSTt1UTIQNf INDUSif1�t USES ��_� a lOy 0l++»�t »�� L�iK� i!l!r(Mi�tt �C�+OOt ��'�OVl��y � O��CI u1f �-.-__ •�_ a r�l04aM •r�7p �.i� i lu�+�0• �iGw StMaO� � 3t�•G! 0�1�'CS�J e�•'!� S'��.,,! � "` ' _�"� �..t �wr wG+� r� SO l�/«, i�� O M f C� O O l —_\ ..� `~~�� — CIRCUlA110►� �+ `• ':',. ��x == � �c,� ce►.un ��,�.. a.�.�_ i •,��•re tcMoo3 i��rc►�• • � �... -- �r��.�� •�..��•� •r • � x = ■ �' � ti' � ��c-_� � � I.�H.r� �.q� M+ •�o� (.r) �.�.� � � ! [ �' � ► ,t '% a a.� .� .. : :._- .� Or�t� t C�v�:� �_.� , �� \ � ■ ■ :�`�'=�'�9:•:• � '��' ��r--`�-.� COMlMIfRC1Al USii .o.�ct arr �,•t an ��•�• � •••�o� •t�� •� , x��ir'a �Si�=�x=w L �-t } � � �� ;• �- a ftlriCi •-_•._. �.�_a •ftl��l • � ~ .[' � � � a � r � a � � � . �i �-r'�_' � fMpIIINC O QT7 rYil � 1l�iJJ f ��•` ��*� �*l��x'ti�� zj .. eti- ; ._�� CO\.!C►O� • Ir• I...s 1 t l a y a f �*j �, + S��Yf�� j�ltl�i i��i `i aj+'S�ruYji� �iai i=i�"-v=s�� • .� �ARXf G��01 St��e.t,�r ��= '� � �— � �s ��t�a=�.;Ta� •;�xr=�� =ra�aa� ' , _ pI�+C! Yfi MltGN�Otw000 ��y . �• ��. �ai1�0�0 �� f ��I� [ ��"r�'��t ��r��4 �*_�. _ wAil�lfOM1 COrn!lCIAl �Own)�uf7 � N43lfvt Q •......• ��p 1l�•�S�t , t� � ;`i� `� � 7[= R Y r i' Ji �a�, t �= �_` �� r � rr � . . . �Z , • ��_:.._. . �_� _ � - . • 1 f T �[ f' �1 . rs-z'�: ; t � `�ir� ,��= r'�� ;t'� r ss� . - _ • � - _ ...' • _ t ... w.p� � .� �,r'�. � • . . ; - ` �- \ -_ ' _ _, �,....-�.�....�..-. - --- -"-- . -- _ s -•�,, �. '�r'�• is=� -�r ■�-r+r=r'�, � �� :�.. � -_- �`"�..`_ - F�.'-� ", ��'• .� ^J ' �� r}i'�� .r rr=��=� •J.: _ -� ",..,,, �:':� THE SITE • .- - - `� _ . ,_.../ ��: � ;_*�� r� �r .... '� � : -;,�.. `,�� '�'r �_�'~ -trt_�r;ic�. .... � Z,- --.— - _ - _- = s � �� ,�'s:> � .�Y'�R�j7�:��'�f �� , _ _ _ _ ��-- — ��_� • Y�>' �_. � ��R yr��=�=r�t�t 1 . - __ .- — - ___ � -- _ '_' . �' ��E��r�� 'J � :�tYrRa .��t .o �rT� ---- -- _--- - - --�- - _� _ - ` t��t�� ,s� ��i • • • _ ., r`!`• '_ �i � ` -a�i =. � _�� . . . s s �� • . � .ra � ��.{_ , ,�. .. ��_ / •� ! ;t -��lt'� ��\"�', � l fr.. `y�� • �: •• � j: _ -- w�..' .., .- .. . _ /` / #Y�c ■�� a . �• {A . }.r^� i i`�:a- LY �• .� • .. � l'. . 1. �t:% . // \ __ � ♦• �� 1 � y,.,� �r:�r,�r��'�4,.,�. =r..1 . . 'r�' � � .� � . . � - - /' . � ♦��y .Ji ' �: . . 1 � • � x � Y`� �, jy� � �i � � �� y y � ' � ��_ � ` y , ��, �rit' �,rf � � 4. . � a . . . . � ' - � '/ �� .iZ� F7 -.Ja::�� •��• . .. .��.�. � .•.•... . '� • � ,` � •� �/ .'+ � / '• �� .. .. •. •. . ' •s='�.11� ....y: • � R.�* � � \ � �i . : • • • � .�� a i ■ � _ � '� / �� ♦ .. � ` ` ��, ',. . �: j7. �. - - .�,:• u.s�Ny . _. � 1� t `� � �/� :• • K. f��li=Y; . . �� ` � �� \� `� r `` '/. . _ . � � �• " ` \� `�1�i � 'it� •� � _ �r.� b+.�.+r.rar+ ♦ _ � � , t � `'��j �i��,, —i- � L/ •� � ;. 14,.a. � ,: � `` �� " , u� .�,` '� ` � . \ < <.. �� - � — . . � .• c. �. 1 / � � - ,, , t � . �� _ __ _ _ ''C' ;, �,y►d',, �C� � _ � ` �� . _. `, / " �,` � � ` � � r2 i+ � r .� ��_- . � � . ��r -� . � � , �. � ` � •< � ` � �� ' k• � ~ ��—� i � , . ,, � _ _ / � ` � "` ` , -�� ' _ , � s I t�• ( /�f�t� � — - � �• ` � . �'t' r��.� � � ` ♦ i � � \ !�'1 '� �_/�� /• �- � ` ', �� \ ```" '!%� � ': '�' �'� � . C :� Z ,�'� � ,3t�' � • � ' c � �� ^1�� ' �� y : C ; • , •« • �%j �' e�� 'r r `„� �� / r �. , t ,� ��'� . � "%�j— ' .v � � �• � `� � " ` �, � � , ` ' �� • y `� � �\'.'�� `• � Ly � � :� • , . ; t !� ,�+ / �.� � .• • • � ' f�,: .�. �•� .,, �. ► �� - �� _� .� - �r � v. a `v -� •'. , _ �r� L , , � • � .. . _ i 7 l c . :-� (��J �r • �, � � �� _ V _� � , - `�� , �'a � •t �. .. � / 1 ' ' / C i� � • ,� ' ` � • � \ " _ ' �jc_ �� - . �� ` � � : 1. , i�F. �: � /f = � j � � ,� � � � "",.' '� �> � � �' ` �` .., . ,f - • � � - � ti+ c .: •.. ,..., �, � ,h a� _ .,.• _ ,.f � / , �:�-==�M _ .� '. � �. � , .= 3:. v • . �� . 'y�' _ � � �` . ; ., i � . c ZZ + � � ♦ .J � �; • i �� + � t \ �\ � _ - rl C= � - —. — - - - �� - y�� ! — : �� ,•: ., � 7 l� Gj - ��, •, .� ^ � u:� `'� . /i . . ,.. i. . :'� � �' � . � • ;`� . .y� . - ,' L � .�/�� .., � �� hi � L �� .... '��., ;� ,� S ,�.. '1 c., •_._._, � /� , a G �.� � C � • . :: J ( • �;, . _ _ N e : . - � . � fj . . , ��_, �' ` _ . . _ _ % : , ' ' � -- �i'!. . ' �a 1 ,7 N - i C7��RA�. PLA�I CITY OF BURLJNGAIi�F GEN�RAL - PLAN _ R�v�s�o �►��t�� Zt. 1975 er STilD��S ��so�uT�c�� No 23 - �s COI�Il1NICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA Project Data Location: City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo Dimensions: 203.6 feet by 127.8 feet, averaged Area: 26,020.7 square feet; .597 acre Easement or Covenants: 20 feet of maintenance and public access along canal Zoning: C-2, Waterfront Commercial Setbacks: Minimum: 30 ft. along Blvd; 10 ft. sides; 25 ft. rear Proposed: 30 ft. along Blvd; 15-22 ft. east side; 35 ft. west side Height Limit: 50 feet maximum; 27 foot parapet proposed Lot Coverage: Not defined by regulation; 210 proposed Floor Area Ratio: Max 2.0; above 1.0 requires permit; .�12 proposed Parking Requirements: One space per 300 square feet of building area Landscaping: Minimum of 15% of lot area required; 54% proposed Applicable Code: Occupancy Classification: Type of Construction: Fire Zone: Uniform Building Code, 1976 Group B, Division 2 Type V, incombustable (sprinklered) II, Compulsory Sprinkler District Building Area: Second Floor: 5,620 First Floor: 5,180 10,800 Open Garage, half level down: 6,480 Net Rentable Area: Single Occupancy, 2nd Floor: 5,544 Multi-Occupancy, lst Floor: 4,000 9,544 Employees: C W of A Staff: 12 current, 16 maximum Rental Office Employees (@ 285 s.f./person): 14 Total Projected Employees: 30 Parking Spaces: Traffic Generation: Covered Parking: 16 spaces* Outside Parking: 20 spaces* 36 spaces * Including a handicap space 71 daily trips; 17 per peak-hour - 7 - . � �. . _ . � 5��, I �`�'RA,ti'CISC O , ' , , . . . TI �� . . . . . . . • : • .. . . � f .';• ..� .. •. ' .�.- r:.. . . . � � ir . . . . . ... , ' ` � � � . . " � . '��•'¢'3:#�'�'le','i�� ..�,� . :.'..:g�ti..� ��1'�'S'^,'�-T +rRb� 'i�. . . . .,�ir� , � � M� � �� , i�,.-. r A� �t1��"� r � � O ` ' .. . � w � ♦ . 1��fA1 . . �� •Oulf w�� ,1 .�Mw .... ...... ....+�w� � `'`. . . . M+�� . , �� I��• �OJ . . ,. . • w. �.. .. w ... ..� • . � ..�......•...�.�.� ...... � • . «N � .: �� ... • ,. �...�.�. *� ` , ••'�`�"��.� . ww�. .w.. .. . ~� .'�.� �� . M � . . . .. • • • . • , ' • .. v � . R. _ . _ r �'+�r. � .. . . : . _ . � .,�� . . ., ". q'► : '�.c� �� '• `� � w •w •.•: ,_ �: .0 ;• p - . r„'. ,. , , , � r;�y ��, �� ., .::. i ..y ._ : e-yr. . .« •t. ...� � . ��'. /. �.� /I . ,�,� �� - . - . . , ' y ' . rrr .��w� Y . � - " �. ,- J : ` . .:. �...:_ . . �. �... � . , r . .,. .... � . o.. . � . ., ... . .. ? � .. .. . . .. . , - .. . . . . .. ... . � ' � - ��.�� r�rA �trt r 1 � �� ' �t lb �� 1 � - -- -- ` •' -� _ � � / �i � � _ _ � �. `� _ O ,,� - ��, ♦ _ :� .I �i � tl •� � .. �� i *i ��_— � . � � • ^ / • \ � � \ �/ � O •f 0 / ) •1 � ^` �, ,� �� `V �� / [! I� 0 ' � � �� : / �• � •. -C ♦ � �_ M • Q • „"' �r� ' / � - � .. ;,,�' �� •, �_ �i � ., ` •- t ° �' a� s .\ `. _� 0 �� c� �. '�Q .+ �' r.� �"� � � � • ��f � � �� •� ` ,�\ `' I, / � � �' � • ��i'y �� ./ � _ . _ � • � _ � - '� - - � - �� .� � \ ,• t �, = • � � _ Q �' � • '� �/: : �. -� ~ • •• � _ t� / _" �� . �i ��• I� �� i �. .'. �'. \ � �. �� ' �_�� '. � } �� A _ � . �•. � .. •, � � �1� � . ,, ., , , � _ . � 0 E � v � ,a � •r � ' O �I �, \\�� 1' _- �� • � 1 ; � Q 1� , �� ` •� / � ` 1 `J / � ` �� I � � ��sQ, r \ � � � �4 � I� � �r � I� �j � �� '�`. I� �\ I �i " , I � �, �I � O\ / •� � Ui? .N.r. _i % i' J 'T �i � � � �i ' �i �., �'i �. � � ZONlNG MAP LOCATION �-� � �.. = � �- � � � � � Northeast corner of site at Channel $ Airport Boulevard. � � � � � � Looking north toward Bay from southeast corner. � � � 0 View eastward across Channel toward Coyote Point. �k3„ � \SD ...r : , ... - . o�.ry�r ,ra.� : �' ' � ... .,,,,,,,, ...,,,,..,,� . . -� ' ,� ' . ' ? � E�°��M� a.�..�.. �.. o..w�,.,o �•TMI �n c1 b u ra T'tlw dn�m �Iti w��ro �r�rnin�wvw�R�w> I � }" 1 I � I I Nwwlar�� COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA O�STRICT NIME lURLIMG�YE C11LIiORM1• IOIi�%7 w�s AO I 3 Aug 79 • � • � � �� 6 � �� , � ; � �� ..t.. ; �..�� .a. ,� . -. � �� L, <, .V . � r�I I M... � � u ��. ;I 1 � a � �� , r s;,; �,. O o�+^re . . , � R� -� `�' . Iw�iri _ + � A I�PGRT $L`.' L' r —J a,... �.,.. I 0� i 7� 1 I ,4g � --- __ --- •_ --rc — — , - -'k-- --- �. twr��s � � n,e,��. � � f�M M ��wrat -- �. „i.' ''iw= , � �.�--T ' _ . L � �': ' , ,I I 1 ,<.�`. � .tt�" ',� . -- °- � � `- - t�, i" �; � I� � , . �.J� r � :'`: ��'°" , � e•,�.�r„� : � I �.rr I:�.. � . � �w..��r+ I'. i ':' � I • ,f ,'w' ��I �� w '' �� II ' k /.III 1' �� 'I� , �� 1 1N` I ^ ' • •,f i •�i. ��; 4 .... � ...... i , - - +� ,...� �-., 1 ' I � I � � � � � '' i ��r i �' i i� � r�r p.'t,• t.'s 1 I il � I ► . � ; � _ !i • O � .�.��.:� . . . ��r w � '�'`rl„"!� 1Ri9Gt �� , i. . i f � '�� ; a �``; � '' ,� � ; � , i. _ t � `t � , , � ,t . � d , � cNarNr� � �� :. � ; �. . ' - i': � � ' i i �. " J i, '" � �' i � `. . , k , . , i i" ? �F''"� �i ." `.`� n � ^ 1 . _� r . ;-� � . : , y �. . A *i. . G: f ' , ti. . A .� �` k;, � } � �' � � 1 y* � �� ,2 � • = � � - �---- , r. ; � �uc`6ww � � i i • � �'_'� � / ; I -------�— � ..........a �r � �� w�� f� ��.._.�..__. I— — I— — --_ I �� I �� , I � � IO�MhKi pAl('IY MONt I . I I I � REC'G�i/�I� � � J�y�J'1 � 19�� I CITY OF� BURLINGAME I pLANNING DEPT, I � ��t�ilit�tC�iitUM � I AFTER PpEP� I ' I � �� I I 0 4 Y f Y y M 1I � f � , — -1- - At,T�R�f A1'� � �� O MUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA o..,.,�. .., ��,�.a... u,�.o..�. SITE P�AN -��„ A1 u°. ��. ia A�8 �g r PeSEH F. sxE awr�Np w ooe��Y w�q�� v m��T�M'�n uraT�M r.� Mw��IpV COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA D�STAICT NINE lURL1NG�ME C1ILIFONNIA SECTIONS A2 � 3 Au9 79 � "s�F,� �...,ro.�. �.,• a..im,.:e sw�r� m. weo.;n�� M"n e:°.: .a�*M�nranb.rabu�p�w� mw �nY vm�M ��p M �m� �n wn W .tl ww.��wws.� �inur�yP �—J.JMAIARy� %ikL Pns�u� � . 5� �pa�-s (�� 90o sr. o(Fu/�` _ �0¢00 S�. n,2y . o�rasy 7rca , �,w.� � �.. � � �..ries COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA DISi�ICT MIM[ WRlIM6�r[ C�LIF011M1♦ GARAGE PLAN �,g .� �� ,�vs;��-d A 3 !3 Avc, 7% � � � � ;1 A N '� E .. _- __ _— �� CNTAI � e o� �� 0 � �@ YL4eAGE � F\\ I � F ��r\ __-- i� vnu M INI,q1YE 5f00./�GE y/ Q GBRF�OcR RENiA� _ _ --_ FIRST FLOOR PLAN 41.tIUY6 f 1a�(�fA�N 9AIIpY6 SECOND FLOOR PLAN � i 0 5 to � 30 40 50 ' e;�„ � ___ o�..y r omr. w w.�eso��u�.ww:map �un.'�.°.w�.. �.. am> � a: �� m � w: m u"�x.a.w e� e.a ti.w.'.:�i a..��o .�a.a'h°.wo- COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA O�STRIGT MINE WRLIMG�YE C�LIiORMI• FLOOR PLANS '79 a..�-.A. _ e,.� „ A 4 13 Av9 79 � � � � � � � � � �a �� <� W�BER F. nB[2 O�Y��OwW �wvhM'n . IwMdrquw0�as. n.�«a.�e eo.�+nuw. � � a �+wwMra rni.n�iw.n�ni� m.e�..0 �a.maa �ar rMm�aae.�eqmonra� mv�w.e w mwan w �rmNq ia� �o n�M �.cnn��iaur COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA o�sreict �me weu�o�rt e�ino��• ELEYATIONS A5 i3 Auy 7� �R %.�CE �0 a Det�wrY CWnq �ne Soc� u c�n �My �n�in�N�i��nWd w ro��T�vY�nnMN Nwah �MO..rm ael� a �n�n�bu m mi�>m�c ol h' Krwm�nl in..niM na.nn �CC> M+bM� COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA 019TfllGT MINE BUNIING�YE, CAL1Fp1MY ELEVATIONS A6 i3 a�y �9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location The Communication Workers of America, District 9, are presently located in leased space at Burlingame. In February, 1978, land was purchased for a headquarters building in the Anza land development along the Burlingame waterfront. The organization now proposes to proceed with the construction of a building which will make optimum use of this six-tenths acre property, including some rental space that will allow for future expansion. The site is about 300 feet south of San Francisco Bay at 501 Airport Boulevard, next to the bridge crossing Bay Front Channel. From the upper floor it will be possible to look out to the Bay on the north and Coyote Point to the east. The view to the west is partially interrupted by larger building. Across bare undev- eloped land to the south, Bayshore Freeway and the Burlingame Hills can bee seen. The view directly across the 100 foot wide channel to the east is presently interrupted by an extensive drive-in movie, but the �roperty is under option for appropriate permanent development. There is an obligation to provide landscaping for public access to the waterfront in accordance with the requirements of planning agencies, so that both sides of the channel will eventually be transformed into a public asset. �.� Access The site fronts directly on Airport Boulevard, which connects with Bayshore Freeway 101 through the Peninsula Avenue and Broadway Avenue interchanges. The City of Burlingame is pre- sently working with the State to develop new freeway ramps leading into nearby Bayview Place, which will be financed by assessments on new developments in the Anza Park. Between the site and the adjacent larger five-story office building and parking structure there remains a 70 foot right- • of-way which is required for future access to about 16 acres of land to the south. An easement has been granted to the C W of A for access through this right-of-way, in order to allow efficient use of the property. This project will include an 18 foot wide driveway in the easement, which will eventually be incorporated into a wider street serving the lands beyond. Easements and Setbacks The north frontage on Airport Boulevard is subject to a 30-foot setback, within which there is also a drainage ease- ment over a 36 inch pipe. The side yard setback along the private road to the east is a minimum of ten feet. The required 25 foot rear yard setbac� is greatly exceeded. - 9 - The City of Burlingame requires a public access along the waterfront. The Bay Area Conservation and Development Com- mission has the right of review on all new construction within 100 feet of the tidal water, which amounts to 780 of the site. Along the Harbor Channel Frontage on the west is a 20-foot maintenance easement which is required to permit dump trucks • and draglines to periodically approach the banks. Since there must also be a passage along the water for pedestrians and bicycles, the proposal utilizes a double-duty pathway, eight to ten feet wide, and sufficiently firm to support infrequent use by trucks. Building Scale and Mass The factor establishing the size of the building is the zoning requirement of one parking space for each 300 gross square feet of building. The following cases were considered: 1. Single Office Floor, External Parking This alternative would imply maximum coverage of the site and resulted in a building that was marginal for the owner's current needs. 2, Multi-Story Offices over Multi-level Parking Not feasible for this site, as the high water-table would eliminate basement parking and ramps to upper level parking would be basically inefficient on such a small lot. �i[i� 3. Two Office Floors Over One Level of Parking, with supplemental external parking This is the optimum solution, as proposed. It results in a compact building mass, 75 feet by 90 feet, and only 25 feet tall. The parking underneath is concealed from the streets, and the supplemental external parking is behind the building on the lower portion of the lot. The outer envelope of the building is indented on the lower floor • at the northeast corner, forming an obvious entry point. On the side facing the water, the center third of the building is deeply recessed to form a sheltered deck oriented to the water. From the standpoint of pedestrians along the pathway, the nearness of the building is mitigated by its division into three short wall segments whose distance from the shoulder of the embankment is 36, 55 and 31 feet, averaging about 40 feet (Alternative B). � Lecation on the Site 'The proposal detailed in this study locates the building 35 feet from the waterfront property line, leaving space for a public � pathway along the embankment. This leaves a side yard setback varying from 15 to 22 feet. Parking is placed no closer than 25 feet from the channel. The design attempts to balance between � the interests of the street versus the waterfront pathway. � - 11 - C7 If the planning agencies agree that the public waterfront access is the key criteria, then Alternative B is available. It utilizes the minimum sideyard setback along the proposed private street, leaving the building corners 42 and 46 feet from the water. This orientation provides the maximum spatial opening between the bridge abbutment and nearest corner of the building. Along with this shifting of the building, the parking is revised to eliminate spaces closer than 40 feet to the water. With these changes, a landscaped band 35 feet wide can be preserved free of construction or parking, measured to the shoulder of the embankment. Site Design 'I'he topics previously discussed largely determine the site plan, along with one of the basic program requirements. The building is to be the home for an organization which wishes to create a symbol of progressive civic responsibility, rather than being taken for speculative commercial venture. On the other hand, the complete building must bear scrutiny as a prudent investment of its members' funds. Therefore, the design solution seeks to be both elegant and efficient. The site is so small that there is little to give away, and it will require the understanding consideration of all jurisdic- tions if the high objectives are to be realized. A prime objective was to avoid the extensive "sea of asphalt" common to most nearby commercial buildings. This was assisted by the slope of the land and the modest scale of the building, intended to employ only about thirty people. - 12 - The site extends only 132 feet along Airport Boulevard, and 203 feet along the channel. The high point is Elevation 12 at the northeast corner near the bridge, and the bare ground slopes nine feet to Elevation 3.0 at the sz�uthwest corner. This allows vehicles to enter the twenty-car parking area on the lower porti.on of the site, then drive under the office building where there are sixteen more covered spaces cut. into the slope. These covered spaces are hidden from view on the other three sides, except for ventilation slots on the north and south ends. The exterior parking will be completely screened by the same kind of dense fast-growing shrubbery that can presently be seen along the channel. Alternative B will go further, by depressing the external parking slightly. Thus a person passing along Airport Boulevard would see a small two-story building surrounded by landscaping, with a wide approach to a pathway leading along the water. The main entry is prominent on the corner of the street intersection. The approach walk leads from the private side street. As one enters the street, the down- ward slope of the land becomes evident, but landscaped backfill against the long side of the building provides a consistent base for the building. - 13 - If one enters the pathway on the channel side, one sees a more varied stepped-back building shape, enclosing a terrace over- looking the water. Transparent masses of shrubbery provide some privacy to the lower f]oor offices without blocking views. As one walks along past the building, a dense wall of shrubbery will completely screen the parking. Few people will come this way until other developments are completed to the south, so there will be time to grow adequate screen planting. ❑ In the proposal detailed here, the south property line will have five feet of dense shrubbery, but in Alternate B a decorative redwood fence will be proposed. 7'he space saved by the fence will permit leaving a wider landscaped band along the water. Building Description All of the new buildings in the vicinity have tinted glass and aluminum curtain walls, with some painted concrete or stucco. 'I'he � given program asks that the building be compatible with its neighbors, yet not too starkly simple like a box. Therefore, the design emphasizes the structural frame standing upon a concrete pedestal.. The curtain wall is set back within the frame at varying depths, with the lower wall recessed furthest. Premium materials have been selected for all the exterior surfaces. The prominent frame will be sheathed in precise metal shapes, factory - 14 - finished in glazed enamel. The glass walls between will be tinted panels over smaller opaque panels, color related, and with recessed frames and mullions. Solid wall panels will be opaque glass. At the main corner entrance, the walls are set back to create a porch effect, which also serves as a landing for the stair from • the garage. The lobby has a stair to the second floor and an elevator serving all three levels. On the waterfront side, a whole bay is removed, creating a large sheltered terrace for lunchtimes and receptions, which will be furnished with chairs, tables, umbrellas, and containers of plants. A spiral steel stair rises to the C W of A offices, and stepping stones lead to the public pathway along the embankment. Handicap parking and access is conveniently related to the elevator landing in the garage, which rises to both floors above. From the street, on-grade access to the building is via the channel pathway to the terrace door. J 0 - 15 - A 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 temperature 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 fifty 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 surr�ners. Winter rains (December through March) account for about three-fourths of the average annual rainfall of about eighteen inches. 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. - 16 - ., � � .. -- .r �....;�r .�•� ..�;:� ..'.�•.;. - .:� _: . • � . • . , , , ' _ � , . . • � • . Q�R pOLLUTION CONTOURS C V ' I , 200 . � ,� I . � .-� . • a r { � � !- �,,,r ' •� • ••: � � ...... ./ �;. �� ,�� . ...r z• t•: �'- � � � . �f:: , . � , , . . � +1:�� . �� , ' T"''1` �' .• ,./ d \ rJ►e�•', ': ` ;,� f� ' � � "� ; �'-�--� � .••%''.. '�;� i+ r� i . e,T . ^`� �� .�.•.. �� .. �•�` ��,� �. . � �ri � � . � � .,�,� r�• ,� :` � .��,�' 1 ( „s� ��"� `� �^ y�� y .a� + .� � �.��... ' .� �.L w � \ • � ► �� . �%� �.i• • �t Ault �t,,'��'� �� T �� GV�-7:r �� . .t4 � 4 ,� . � .J. . �r"�` —• , ♦`�"�1"'i � .v . �� . �..... � _� ,, . ;•�; �. ;. 30_. , - �� ' • • r_ �` �r � !�` �; , • f :! � ;f :: � ��w� �.. I : ��: �' `. �'�". f , • �f'`.� � �1 � ••~ � r� 1 � - �•� � •• �'^`, • •' � \r � �►�� rI �� ' •'-� � � �• � � ��• ��• �, . �� v e�S:.��• � �� • � ` �.�; '� . � '�' . � �rw� ' I I 1� ��. � , •. � �� .� ;ti� ,�� ? � . -�, ., �;, � :,t.; `�,;,,;,:• 40 • r..w ��1�� % / � V•�h �.r •\4 . ,• '� + • • • •~ : y� `y� ' 4 \ � • �' /� ar'. Iw� 1 �� V i�.i }?: ��"'. `� '��: `,'�`��•�'��^� � �� \r �� '! .1 � . � V.�' � � ;� '�•� � �� •• �- \ . • � � \ . � IJ • •��• ..�. —, • ''�. ' �;y �'' . 60 � � '�� • ~a..1 I =t ��' ; -:� �>,`� 70 ; - � ' S0 ' � �- � . � � � � •� t :.! . • • � �i1�� . �r �� . <. . ... � : : , `� , : i�- 90 , �ti .,....;;,. � ��' ; . _--: .;,t, �: ^ � -, •; _ � �. N � 1 • . • • �,� ..1 %1 ' � •• � ►'• • •• I•`• •, �� r � � r • ``,iA�� "� • ,j, '', �� •.J _� ,� �`. 1 . � ` � �"�� ' /� i`•/ � J�i♦ �.. - � • .r d � i • ` � .. � ` '��~. �O E ,,, � . .. � , . , _ -: : . .- . :+ ,.� ••. :' - •n.n - "J`,, ,. . �„' � - � � )�'. � 1 �i ��,� �� ', � w• • - ~` ~ ~•� . 1•��' ' � � , . . � .� ♦ •N � ,� • �� i.� ' ..�.. �� . t . �' �'� ,+`\� � ,J i �'�• •.�� •• ��':,. . �; `� , � � � � � • �J �\��t\� 1� Ji. •r�r '�� t •' /�, ' � •, •.• . . .. .:'�: . . ` � : !�` � •, . �� •�L� �� w r .• � � � ' . • ♦ • •. � � � �� . • N .� �... � � • �L r� ' • � • ��."'• � t � L:.e�-� • � .,i .. � •h.� -►r- • ; — .'. I �� .i� V � �i1 • i� ( � .� ` '. �� . . . , • ��. ti i w.� • J �(/�j� � I ' � ` �`� •• y��, � • � ` •`�� ' • �, � �:. 3 » � .- ' _' '•� -:=:.�. • �:,- �� •�:, � .':,1. � :. . . : � _ � � _ . ; : . �� "� , . � =� ' i ,� . '.r ; � t.,: . � � � - • � �( • � r,�•\� ' .�.� • �. � �♦ =' �. ' � � ' �•i • �•��s` -; ��• . _ • .�� ,, • • �� • �/��+�' } �•� � � ;� .��:'�..�• �; •. . . .. .. . . .' /�,?��+1 Z • � } �� •.. �. �'i� • . . ��•,... ,. . , . . .. ., . �.. . ., , . � ;_ � �q�.� .�� .. , . :.: ,. �'� J ` � �•� �„ ,.r.� • � � � �,. • � . � . . •,c, r .,-:,,, � ..........� .. ..�, �; -.-:;,� . . :. ' ��r,:; � • _ .. ly , �� { ��iw�� , : . . ��l.�•�. `.. �ii. " ♦ . , ^ 1 � . �la� ��y • . •� • , i: � � j ' � . • ��:: : `� `' _ � • _� . '. . � `/` ` � L: �..j ' •. •Lv, a. � �. . . A� �. �. ! • � � • �l�• ��• ` . /� • .� �. � � .. • • ,'. :�S .'• � , . V ' � • 'l � �- •.�r � � �� 1. . • . , .� � � : � �� -1 7 . •jt�. . ��` •� �. ' ) :_,/''�t 1 `� .�1 � �' A• � . ... . •.. . . � /��J � 'd �\ •��••�••� ♦� � •� 1 �� •i �, y • .•�`� ��:, �',� t 'i•� � I • . • . � ..�... � �; ' `l`��j'�`}i .��•. t,,r � . -. �.y � • ;.., .�`� •. •-.' � � w�� J :r �% v�` �� -��` '` �-'%1. :.1 '~ ! � •��`. ..�►�. .1' �\' . . ., .....,.. . . .. � _ _�• r� :' : . '� = `- ` :.: • ., . ` . - = ;` � • .:� `• ' . , �� .'w. .. ..w: . ,. ��'� •�, ��5�`+:� � � t�� . �`�•��' _ .�. . � .�:. f:. �•w. � � 1 C �`r` � '�� ♦ v- �•.. . a. • •�' ' � �� . ' ( '� 1 ti� - .: • -. ' �� . L �, . . . �. . •� , s. �` .��J� � Y��♦ • I . \��•. :� � . N ' • " ".' .. . �`�• � . •� r� • . V �f,•• •. � •• • ' ., ' •' r• • � � • �j � /f� \' � - ��. r � '�� I •� � 1�t= �� '.. �' � ' -a `_' "10 ' '"" � ' 2fl 3Q Q� �r — � . .r ..• �.• �= � . ?entative qeoqraphic disL-ibutLon oE days per year with . IO ppm high hour oxidant, based on 1969-1970 BAAPCD data. .. , :,,� . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING � Geological Characteristics 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 ru99ed, 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 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, _ 17 _ 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 li.fe 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-Forel Scale, Carnegie Institute, 1908) during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The 1976 Uniform Building Code requires a seismic design factor as set forth under Section 2314. Soil Conditions The consulting firm of Harding-Lawson Assoc. was retained to do soil and foundation analysis, and obtained the following prelim- inary conclusions: The site is a part of a reclamation project that was developed by filling a low tideland area some 10 to 16 years ago. Based on the three test borings, the fill ranges from about 20 feet in thickness on the north and east sides to about 12 feet over the remainder of the site. The upper three to four feet of fill appears reasonably well compacted. Medium stiff to soft fill was encountered below the upper three to four feet. At the base of the fill a two to four foot layer of soft clay (San Fran- cisco Bay mud) was found. Stiff clays and dense sands and gravels - 18 - were encountered below the soft clay. A very dense granular layer of soil was encountered from 35 to 50 feet below the top of Boring 1. Although a stabilized ground-water level was not measured in the borings, based on our previous work in the area, we estimate the ground-water level at about six to ten feet below the level of the top of Boring 1. We conclude that the site can be satisfactorily developed for support of the proposed building. Noise The airport and freeway pose potentially severe sound sources. 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 constructidn." Many planes contin- ually pass by on the north, but being on their final glide path, the engines are almost inaudible. The other noise factor in the vicinity is the Bayshore Freeway. However, the project is adequately buffered by 800 feet of open space. Freeway noise effects are inconsequential inside the build- ing, and are acceptable outside on the terrace and porch because of shielding by the building itself. The project will not draw large, excessively noisy trucks. - 19 - Biological The site presently consists of a cleared and compacted vacant lot, with some grass and weeds along the channel embankment. No vertibrates or evidence of their habitations were observed, although rodents may be presumed to occasionally pass through and a variety of bird life to fly over. Natural life forms are repressed by the random passage of automobiles to and fro across almost the whole parcel. The greatest amount of plant materials nearby occurs in the landscaped areas across the street from the site. A single clump of evergreen shrubbery near the bridge will not be disturbed. Since the site waterfront is a steep concrete rubble embankment, its appeal is limited as a habitat for the marsh-dwelling species which once constituted the predominant eco- system of the Anza Park area. None of the animals on the Department of the Interior's "Rare" or "Endangered" species list are likely to make use of, or be encountered upon, the site. - 20 - � 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 accorr�nodate up to two 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 capacity for future development. 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 • - 21 - 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 excellent 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. _ 22 _ 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. w 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 t 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 watersupply is pretreated by the City of San Francisco and is of excellent quality. 23 Sanitary Sewer System Generally, the area's sanitary sewer system consists 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. � 0 Storm Drainage 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 Anza Park _ 24 _ during the worst storm and against the very severest high tide and wind conditions. The project is adjacent to the lower end of a 36" � storm drain which flows westerly before terminating at a flap • gate into the Bay Front channel. This in-place system which uses the street as a collector is under-utilized, as most new buildings have used depressed parking levels which cannot drain to the street. • In this case, individual buildings have their separate on-site systems discharging to tidal water through clarifiers, pumps, and individual outfalls. 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, stream- line 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. - 25 - � v � � 4 s;:�....� ` .rf.1.y/^- V : ?ootw<� 4 � i.: .-.:i-�c Q A/I�.✓ �Y "'t s-i�'G �! f�i/.�. � .. , , _ -:�•.•sYr ' � � � • �� ;�-: � �� • _* ' -. ,., ... , �.r-.��.�.,;eu-::. . _.I =.. � .. �.:.-.r-.;.. ..+:,Alau.._�s.M;.._ -.=;`si+'F..,. . . `�--+- � � � :s.:�, . . . .: & s:.+: i . . . .. - ,. , . . ., . _ . . . � . . . . . . . ._.. - : .. �...- . . . .. , .' .. F_ . . .. . - . � , . 'df�N:ti=••�RcsjL.. -. .. _ . ... . . . 6 i.:,►i.r:� +�.i.r.I e "a,,. � --.�� i �r- �� — — — — — `_:.... � �N�.wl v.c.; sc� �isa�s�sr t.t.✓. y � ��,;c : � � . y/o "�t/ir. �.�,�I,.✓ . i a w.�s� - ` ; � : -' :. is •w� r. ..s.�.c✓ • _.• /'�j , ./ /��I/{/ . . �� ~ y.�':.'. � ��/`/4 � +1�..�: �n• ��. ��{/�.I� ��C��/� ` • Bc ✓o. �E.�sr, � L.�I�OA�/_ � u :; u �.�i.= . � 1 ` '�s �`' tw �. �,�„�e�` r ;;:- � . a 1►TER N t. -, � . /2 1✓A� 1,L Y� � :�.:, � . �u.y e�rv��wP� � . � �_---� � � �-` .'_ ' � /iv'�IK�Iri� �/�IIpI . �d NAII�� iKI/✓ I .. t : � ..:s, .,. ' . l /l IIK�IlI�t wwl.�✓ � — ^ ^ ' - � ••� �" 1� '.re .ic�r �awi�sJ� Li.�ts ' � s •I✓.�s�..e �il..d � � �. , . _� � _.. _... . .. , .�. - ..<., . . . ... _. I A� �t'�IT�'A.�Qi1i/ NO,�`T�/ � ,., . , ..,.. � : .: , .,,�, _, ._ �:.,: .. �sc•�c �: i �A'�/p-r o,� cir�. " . / �4A0�'Iil �i�' ��i�/ri' � /1.`1E 0 I � � i 0 i i I . � , � . ,�,�Tf,p s:�.�,�.�Y SYS7"EM . A.C/_T.4 �I/�PPO�T P.4iP.0 i1�1.=�s TE.2 PC�%V n C�- ,��%! N G. f/ic,C-� y c E_ ��i,� ,�,w�„r �t•4toQy,ti �y. ,` � . � � f: .c,�� //ouLi✓.f� p.t �� I � �i A''L/: L� A /1. ✓ i/.✓�f.t f�',-,'!„c v r� • sr.H,Qa�s: �� dsis/tTi�✓✓s. ,I•C./. /�/A1t. — — — F✓r.�a ��-sc...r.i.�/. . � I . . - .;. _ -. , . . . , . . .... • � . . ... � .,.:� _. .. .��, - - _ ,. } ,:. ., , ... - . _ ... -4;. . a .�,.., •. � i ��o�sct f#c�o✓.ftr/ �w✓t' . s/ ".r II�.�MI • • �..�� . �� t .z"1� _ , ti� . ��. ' ��::'. . ,/� � � ' .4.VL'A ,.,.-�k.:��" . , . . A�t/r.4 �.4ci��t :_ Bt vG! rE.ss,—� � `��.� �CA�piOK/ >�c' . , . :�� ;.:�-� - ::;� `,� s .�.,v � �`''� >, 9 � 4!Y v/e � ti� f2�c� �� . � v. ' _ � ,,; ' � r� � � ,. v�► � 3�`��oe...., ts��,ro.�.� • s�.f V ' • ~ ?/ �.t, i�,�,��/ .Alb�ic! ' �/.L��v,�? • • �( .o.rc� .oc�-r �.s,�v � l' B� vp • ' 0 ' • �t � . ,.. . .-. - .. � . , . �d �.i/�MwI J►!'.I.y/ � Na��►,�/ • .r,+.vw a��:.✓ w�r.�.; J. . �.:.:45:�� . , , , _ , . . ' � ' � � ..�.:.:; �sc.��s: ' � �A.�/p.S' : ... ,.. , . . .._ � � :r4avft�� , OF �'j�-r �. . • � 8l/.�[ /�t/�il�G1E. . � � . �L,4GqQvJ . � . . • • . • . • sY.�lBots: . . � . , . . , . . �.�.� �a,w�•i,s.r .r.�.i�.✓. s.oe•. , I�.i.w �s�.� .►�r A ....�..w :�w,� � • ' . . . � � • ' . . , � . • , . ! • . � . i � . . , . I � � • ' , STt),QM �,PA/rtl.4�F sYSTE,v1 � � � � . A•vz,4 .4/,P�4.E'T .�,4.P�1 � �L1,;�STc,Q PL.4�t/ DEl/ELG7�iyl.E.VJ" � . . � � �iic.��-r, c. E: � \ 0 i � • . . .V. r, ..:..o .,,.: :._ �....... - -�.:.�.�...... ,. .. . . � . . _ -� �- �:.�_ - . � - _ . . � ;r.� . .. . . . . . . . . �� ' � � . �✓�y� s�w..w...,/ i� � � . : _ �� oJ��T Oto�e.crl' L.r./C !.. s�s�rt /wi�'.s_! .yas, � _ . �:�, ° . � r— �..�,•� � — �, �'/ >.V N/ 'ii+d�!''v�3:.(;, ... ( � i ( �.✓I2I.�lJ � � ' � fny� ' ' V II1 swRa Q SPr✓ .VIi✓ • r- • - —� >�� •.4•Nr,4� , �. +.;� ' . � E.. ��wr.w .► w..��.,rs � • � �A��O,t/ . . ..�.`,,.._. � � ��ss�.. .._1. � A•vr.�f �.ic�Fi� \� � � , '�➢ . ..»,�,�, .'� � .. . . �. .� BC ✓p,-�S,s� � t ...h;..• '71�• �<' � •<4'�S :�.F1i' E - � \ ' ' " _ ---_ ' • r�r1.�G i ',` � V � \ e� s�vi�t �4,,✓ � �''�, Y . 9'rf�l�iSt' .p� � � ' .�Si� !H/. f t �.e � , . .�us..v., ,s�t,�, ` � r ' E.c/f� B�/'iiRCQ � � . � w/wM/ r✓ ? ,�''�.�./ su , ' , _ `�::� ' �' /r.+R�irtt tE.rw ../LI.rI � � ``.c.�i c�� a< `. � .sE�rl t►✓�t�ww �.w.�.r�i' .r�+�. s.+�c *►i/ � `] .� . aC�<'t�✓i.�4.lE sE�Ali! `. ' /O'sa�.�/Et w.�Iw✓ ` i'C fI /.NI d� P�.I�d! � �� Ti� ` � ' • � Ip.C� 'f't�, �'"'�'_ ��• �'-//'� �? \ �1 ✓ ' �......�..s �� c...✓ l � i'.cvPit sr t�w�f r.. '4�'�'f'p w�M /Me�s�sy 'e% B�✓O i.��.At! �'I.✓� . s.4�c/i%�1.e1� s�.vEe � �� "" o `�: ��.; , . w.r� . �w•r sr,� sw.✓ • � :.�,;�:�. ,�„ • "�,,;�;, ''-�..,.�,. - �.-� .:.;a; .,� L/FT ST.4T/O�/ �f ��;::� � • /�GtilTii/ •%:: x_ . .. �-%�'Atdi �//ri/Q„� Q��;:« ' '.:_�.,.; ,..�.. , . . ,.. . „ � / s�oD�EII I �'/ Tr O/r ' 8C/ . � .. .. . „ . � . �!'� /�/�,I,�,� � • � . • • . � %�ioay�' . i . . . � • ,,�'YMR. oLS : ' i . � . ' . • ��r..�.. .a�tav�.ir� � E.��.�r.wt: ss.✓. .s� ' . . • .�� r ' �1�/tt � /GJ7�.�Q� � . , I i• � � � . .S'A�c//TA.PY SEK/E.P SYsTE/y : AN2',4 .�I/.c�'.v0�� T �� Ll,�'.:� Tc O �%1.��.r=.'/_ �'G��/. j .S/. G: N��,C�EI : C. � _ � t ��!'a� I'tT f5�'oi��. t�� , . :,:�;:.�`s.'i:�;�ti..;t,;y�y /S/c,.�r,y .�c.uE: / = qa��'�sr . 0 0 ,:rs��<r�r.a r ,.:.'�:*._�h,� , a:et� _..� _-.• r- _ .. i � � . ., � .::�' ':;,h . ",,,f �� ^ � �. - � �.r�► r �� '�;y�- ; • �:�. ` /'' � i i �— : '� � � � 1. � Y I �"' h . ' /, _ 1 1 n%' � / CAs, Es�t �ti c ��' • / � 7'a's tl.v.�s �w�s � � <<�tA/ats Tis.y�✓ . � _ �� 1 _ . � / � .Soy� �Ef p�/ f +t�1 �� do✓�.✓N�YJ�aI o� • �4i � '� � � ��r d-IKrw�oea Fw�.' � � , ' •C'�,�j- ��vo � V . � . �� 'r;',. � ' • (l lq,t/p,,� �.��`�,.�`�"��.�::b,:,:-. - . .,.w ,. � . � . � � ��''�' o:c . .r: . .. . : .. � r�.. _ . _ _.. '� I 8��: ..: .. . . . u • i • E ��I��v� � . . .. , , 1► . • ' • � SY.Nc�..�t,�S • . . . . , I ' • - ' • • . . ' �"�.,'� E ��'� I�C//I�r.I1Et E,.�f riwlC. arb.i�t%o 3id- /2 Aa0 f�ac r.S��.CEA•.A'� i✓i f:�c./�� Estcs.P.�c �ower.�.� srs; f..� { ' ' . • , • ��G_�__ /.vac.I�E� E.��tr.� ��.w.�.�.► . P.C'.Rsav,ce� Git•s�.�i,i/ � • . . . . .�� T�.� /.v�ic.��Es E.t.f r...t< <:,/�'/�C� 1 � , . � � �oa�/O �:.i/owr.t F•.t ;'��E/�vo,�/� • � � • , , srs�e�•..�. . ; i . � � � G.4S E� Ef TiP/C � TEL EP � • • . � • . SYS TEti>S .4i1/Z.4 .4/l,�Pa�P T O,C�.P� �LfA.s TE,P �LAN .DFY£L OPN'ENJ' ' NG iS//C.C�EY, f. E. . � •� _ •" � r� �� - a v � � � � _ . : .: . x�.:.. . . . . . . :. _ . _ ,:..� . . - -_ . . _ 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 of flooding has been adequately mitigated by the existing permieter dykes. According to San Mateo County (1975), in - 26 - 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 �yke 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 would be differential in amount because of the varying characteris.tics 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 dBA can disrupt sleep. During -27- 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 Hammers Dri 11 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. . - 2 s - Biological The proposed plan will require construction over 460 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 consititute a 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 relief 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 54% of the site area shall be devoted to landscaping. This shall have a very positive effect on what is presently a barren, compacted earth parking area. Traffic This project will involve minor changes in automobile traffic patterns in the area, as a portion of a new access road serving adjacent parcels will be connected to Airport Boulevard. 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 30 employees - 29 - , of the building will have sufficient on-site parking with approx- imately 6 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 there will be some 71 trips per day as a result. of this project. Research data indicates that 24.Oo of the average weekday traffic is concentrated . at peak hours resulting in only 17 cars involved at maximum loading. It is felt that the traffic generated by this project will have minimal impact on the existing thoroughfares, in that Airport Boule- vard 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 470, per Table 3 of the Drachman Report. 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 660, per Table 6 of the same document. This merits an existing service level of A. - 3 0 - Utilities C 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 - 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 reconstructionduring the past several years. Reference is hereby made to "WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROJECT" by Janks 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 onthe Treatment Plan won't effect the Plant in any mean- ingful way, as the quantity will be small compared to the plant capacity and the quality of sewage generated by office type dev- • elopments causes no special treatment problems. Also because the sewer mains within the Project vicinity are watertight and utilize flexible joint type of pipe, storm water infiltration • into the Project sanitary system should be virtually zero. Storm Drainage • 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 strom drain underground system is therefore oversized and would be adequate for the proposed project as well as for future development, except that the system is unable to drain this site as it all slopes down from the street. It is proposed that this site have an independent storm drain system buried under the lower corner. - 32 - � Since the runoff from the site Uecomes contaminated with petroleum products during concentration and overland flow, a clarification tank will be provided to prevent the discharge of volatiles into � the waters of the Bay. A lift-pump and underground pipe will dis- charge through an outfall into the channel. � Electrical 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. �: � • • - 33 - + • • .� � UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPAC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN � SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL USES AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION AGENCIES CONCLUSION WITH OTHER � �: 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 Project-related Adverse Impacts Increase in traffic Air quality Water quality - 34 - 0 MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS Construction 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. Noise Since there is no housing in the area, construction noise would � not be a matter for serious concern, since it would be masked by the air conditioning systems in the nearby office buildings. ` Landscaping Landscaping as shown on the drawings in another section of this report, shall result in a substantailly 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. Traffic 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; however, the expected maximum of 17 trips per peak hour is insignificant in this setting. As a matter of fact, most of the personnel of the principal occupant - 35 - can be considered to operate with staggered and flexible working times, as their duties involve travel and offsite activities. Therefore, the small peak-hour effect may even be overstated. Water Pollution Since the runoff from the site becomes contaminated with petro- leum 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. Public Access 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 channel shore into an overall recreational entity. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM ENVIRONNIENTAL USES AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The short-term environment disruption will involve largely the construction period. In other regards, from a long-term point of view, this project will be productive of substantial enhancement to the area through the landscaping and design features which will fill � - 36 - out a present raw edge of development along �irport Boulevard. The project would also provide a very pleasing environment in which a few people could work or visit while enjoying the aesthetic advantage of a bayfront environment. With this type of 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, and thereby benefit many citizens. The overall long-term result of this building and those to follow should enhance the enjoyment of the bayfront and provide oppor- tunities for more of our citizens to visit and enjoy the water- • front environment that has so long been cut off by mudflats, 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 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, at least for the forseeable fiiture. -37- 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 Corporation. 'This agreement was worked out through three years of negotiation with the State of Claifornia, and was approved after public hearing by the State Lands Commission. Although this site is outside the area in dispute, it is consistent with the agreement that Anza Pacific develop this land in accordance with the City of Burlingame Waterfront Commercial (C-4) zoning. B.C.D.C. Preliminary conferences with the staff of BCDC have helped in anticipating the likely standards that will be applied to this proposal. Alternative B was specifically devised to be responsive to points raised in the initial BCDC review. 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. • - 38 - CONCLUSION This project will not have a significant detrimental environment effect. In fact, the long run effect will be substantially bene- � ficial, 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. 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. • � - 39 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CHECKLIST • • 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? -40- Yes Maybe No Page Ref. X X �,1s X X X X X 26 X X X X . X 9,32 X X L 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 X Page Ref. X � X X X - Favorable 13 � X X X � X X X � - 41 - Yes Maybe No Page Ref. • C 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? X 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewab�e 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? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 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? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? � e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffi c? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 2 X X X x X x x � 9 � _X._ - 42 - Yes Maybe No Page Ref. � 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for n2w 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: P t al as� • • x X X X X x x X a. ower or na ur g. X b. Communications systems? X 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 lth h d(excludin mental health)? X X X X hea azar g b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 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 EI X � -43- Yes Maybe No 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 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. J 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.) X X X 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 * Favorable impact, especially when extended to adjacent properties. Page Ref. 6,37 -44-